Vicar of Christ and Ecumenical Councils

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Ghosty:

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.

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.

What part of brother Ghosty’s post do you disagree with?

(1) One can’t accuse the Latins of believing the Pope is a stand-in for Christ.

(2) One can’t accuse the Latins of believing Christ is absent.

(3) The Latin belief must be judged by Latin definitions.

(4) The Latin belief should not be judged by what others think the term means.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

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.

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.

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

The problem here is that even our current sources will not deny, that the term “Vicar of Christ” did change in meaning over the centuries. That alone is a slippery slope.

 

[mardukm]

The problem here is that even our current sources will not deny, that the term “Vicar of Christ” did change in meaning over the centuries. That alone is a slippery slope.

Could the “change” be referring to the fact that there was a time when “vicar of Christ” was able to be used of other figures aside from the Pope, then it became restricted to the Pope? Or are you saying that there was time when the term was generally understood not to mean that “Christ is absent from us,” but only to mean a representative of Christ? As to the latter, then it would seem the Catholic Church is the one who has retained the original meaning. Maybe the general attitude to the title changed because it came to be used exclusively of the Pope and so a polemic was created to challenge that assignation.

I mean, when is the first instance when the term “vicar of Christ” as used ecclesiastically (instead of secularly) to mean that “Christ is absent from us?” I can imagine that polemic started with the Reformation, along with the radical Protestant rejection of priests and bishops. I can’t imagine it started among the Eastern Orthodox, unless the EO had simply forgotten that it was utilized of her Eastern Emperors during the patristic period.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Could the “change” be referring to the fact that there was a time when “vicar of Christ” was able to be used of other figures aside from the Pope, then it became restricted to the Pope? Or are you saying that there was time when the term was generally understood not to mean that “Christ is absent from us,” but only to mean a representative of Christ? As to the latter, then it would seem the Catholic Church is the one who has retained the original meaning. Maybe the general attitude to the title changed because it came to be used exclusively of the Pope and so a polemic was created to challenge that assignation.

I mean, when is the first instance when the term “vicar of Christ” as used ecclesiastically (instead of secularly) to mean that “Christ is absent from us?” I can imagine that polemic started with the Reformation, along with the radical Protestant rejection of priests and bishops. I can’t imagine it started among the Eastern Orthodox, unless the EO had simply forgotten that it was utilized of her Eastern Emperors during the patristic period.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Pope has claimed at times that God speaks through him and him alone. Also the difference East and West is that the East loved to use titles are purely symbolic, like when they call certain saints as “equal to the Apostles” without actually meaning that they are actually equal to the Apostles. Or like the Coptic Pope being the “judge of the universe” without actually meaning that he is judge of the universe like Christ is.

The difficulty here is that even in a given time period, it is hard to compare East and West as purely the same thing. They are really two different characters and have quite a different worldview, which results in the radical difference we have today.

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

What part of brother Ghosty’s post do you disagree with?

(1) One can’t accuse the Latins of believing the Pope is a stand-in for Christ.

(2) One can’t accuse the Latins of believing Christ is absent.

(3) The Latin belief must be judged by Latin definitions.

(4) The Latin belief should not be judged by what others think the term means.

Blessings,
Marduk

Points 3 and 4, obviously. I don’t give the Latins (or anyone) the right to have their own separate definitions that run counter to the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church (of which Rome was long a chief exemplar) just because they are Latins. The “change” that you and Constantine have been discussing for the last few posts is precisely that: A change away from a common understanding of what the term meant when used in the East to something that applies to the Roman Pope alone. The problem with that, of course, is that we do not accept any such role for the Roman Pope alone based upon a mere title of respect, as we understand the term to mean (cf. the difference between the Pope of Alexandria and the Pope of Rome, in terms of their prerogatives and how those who are in union with them understand their role in the Church). So of course the Romans have their own definition. That’s the problem. It’s wrong not because I’m seeking to judge them by some separate and unfair standard, but by the same standard by which all churches are to be judged in kind – that of the apostolic faith, from which the Roman definition has long dissented by claiming (for instance) a universal authority for its Bishop that was rejected by the other Sees even when we were all still in union.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Points 3 and 4, obviously. I don’t give the Latins (or anyone) the right to have their own separate definitions that run counter to the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church (of which Rome was long a chief exemplar) just because they are Latins. The “change” that you and Constantine have been discussing for the last few posts is precisely that: A change away from a common understanding of what the term meant when used in the East to something that applies to the Roman Pope alone. The problem with that, of course, is that we do not accept any such role for the Roman Pope alone based upon a mere title of respect, as we understand the term to mean (cf. the difference between the Pope of Alexandria and the Pope of Rome, in terms of their prerogatives and how those who are in union with them understand their role in the Church). So of course the Romans have their own definition. That’s the problem. It’s wrong not because I’m seeking to judge them by some separate and unfair standard, but by the same standard by which all churches are to be judged in kind – that of the apostolic faith, from which the Roman definition has long dissented by claiming (for instance) a universal authority for its Bishop that was rejected by the other Sees even when we were all still in union.

Solid point, I must say.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers Dzheremi and CTG,

I see both of you have backed away from the argument that “vicar of Christ” should be rejected on the grounds that it makes Christ absent. I see that the rejection of the title are on different grounds now.

Now, the title should be rejected if it means that the Pope is the ONLY representative of Christ on earth. It is this development in the title that is objectionable.

I can agree with that. I’d go further that if it meant that the Pope is the only real authority in the Church, then it should be rejected on those grounds as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

I was never making any such “Christ is absent” argument, but that the general/non-Catholic understanding of what the word means suggests absence, and hence has historically been avoided in the East. Think of it this way: most people won’t use the word “niggardly” due to its less-than-pleasant connotations with a similar-sounding word (which it is etymologically completely unrelated to). There’s nothing wrong with the word itself, but the popular understanding of it lends to its disuse.

 

[Aramis]

The problem here is that even our current sources will not deny, that the term “Vicar of Christ” did change in meaning over the centuries. That alone is a slippery slope.

That’s reduction to the absurd, Constantine. ALL language changes over time.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s reduction to the absurd, Constantine. ALL language changes over time.

Not the language but the definition, how we understand what “Vicar” was meant to be as used by the Church and applied by the Pope. Not just the etymology of the word.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Interesting.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

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.

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.

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

Good questions!

 

[Protector]

Quote:
Originally Posted by twf
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?

ConstantineTG;9952003] Simply because from a group of bishops you can’t have one who is guided by the false spirit.

Please forgive my intrusion into your very interesting conversation but, if we consider the Apostles to have been bishops, then we find that Judas Iscariot WAS “guided by the false spirit.” Although it could be argued that they (the Apostles) did not become bishops until they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Protector.

 

[Aramis]

Please forgive my intrusion into your very interesting conversation but, if we consider the Apostles to have been bishops, then we find that Judas Iscariot WAS “guided by the false spirit.” Although it could be argued that they (the Apostles) did not become bishops until they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Protector.

they didn’t become bishops until AFTER Judas hanged himself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

they didn’t become bishops until AFTER Judas hanged himself.

Source?

There were actually no bishops until much later. The word “episkopos” did not appear until in the latter writings. In the Council of Jerusalem, St. James was merely referred to as a “presbyteros” by St. Luke. There was a recognition of who was the chief elder or chief presider among the presbyters (elders), but there wasn’t a title given yet.

 

[Aramis]

Source?

There were actually no bishops until much later. The word “episkopos” did not appear until in the latter writings. In the Council of Jerusalem, St. James was merely referred to as a “presbyteros” by St. Luke. There was a recognition of who was the chief elder or chief presider among the presbyters (elders), but there wasn’t a title given yet.

The Gospels - the Keys were not given until after Judas hanged himself.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Points 3 and 4, obviously. I don’t give the Latins (or anyone) the right to have their own separate definitions that run counter to the apostolic faith of the Orthodox Church (of which Rome was long a chief exemplar) just because they are Latins.

The Catholic Church was an exemplar of the Orthodox Church? Very funny.

No one has a right to invented definitions. The definition of ‘vicar’ is representative of an absent authority. If Christ is still here in a practical sense, could someone give me His address and phone number?

The “change” that you and Constantine have been discussing for the last few posts is precisely that: A change away from a common understanding of what the term meant when used in the East to something that applies to the Roman Pope alone.

According to Scripture and the words of the Lord, the Pope stands alone in primacy and authority. We must submit to the Gospels here. In the Gospels Peter alone is told to feed the Lord’s sheep. Let’s not flip that off as if it means nothing. It means a great deal. Food is the sustenence of life. The pastor is, therefore, the one who sustains life. Without the feeding, the sheep starve to death.

Peter alone is given the keys to the kingdom. That is a very significant responsibility. In Scripture the holder of the keys has all the authority of the king and the keys to his barns, his stables, his treasury and his front door. Maybe not the harem. That’s not clear in Scripture, but the rest is. There is a reason the Lord gave Peter the keys and all Christians not of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church would prefer to dismiss all talk of the reason. The reason is Peter and his successors are to have the last word on what is divine revelation regarding faith and morals for the Christian believer. That’s and the Holy Eucharist are what unites the faithful.
dzheremi;9976747:

The problem with that, of course, is that we do not accept any such role for the Roman Pope alone based upon a mere title of respect, as we understand the term to mean

For the reasons stated above, your understanding is flawed. To reduce the keeper of the keys and the universal Pastor to a mere title of respect is unbiblical and the principal dividing factor in the fractured Body of Christ.

(cf. the difference between the Pope of Alexandria and the Pope of Rome, in terms of their prerogatives and how those who are in union with them understand their role in the Church). So of course the Romans have their own definition. That’s the problem. It’s wrong not because I’m seeking to judge them by some separate and unfair standard, but by the same standard by which all churches are to be judged in kind – that of the apostolic faith, from which the Roman definition has long dissented by claiming (for instance) a universal authority for its Bishop that was rejected by the other Sees even when we were all still in union.

 

[Peter_J]

The definition of ‘vicar’ is representative of an absent authority. If Christ is still here in a practical sense, could someone give me His address and phone number?

Let me get back to you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Catholic Church was an exemplar of the Orthodox Church? Very funny.

No one has a right to invented definitions. The definition of ‘vicar’ is representative of an absent authority. If Christ is still here in a practical sense, could someone give me His address and phone number?

He said He was going to His Kingdom, which He said is “at hand”. Does “at hand” mean it is in a distant, unreachable place? Or does it mean it is here within our midst?

 

[dzheremi]

Ferde Rombola,

Please learn to use the quote function properly. Posting as you have makes it a bit of a headache to reply to you, as you’ve placed large amounts of your own reply under my name, which makes it impossible to quote you using the regular quote function (since all the stuff that is under my name won’t appear on the “reply to thread” screen). Wrapping quote tags around text is very easy: first highlight the text (left-click and drag over the text until it turns blue; when you have reached the end of the text that you want to quote, take your finger off the left-click button), then press the quote button (this guy: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/quote.gif).

The Catholic Church was an exemplar of the Orthodox Church? Very funny.

The Church of Rome was an exemplar of the Orthodox faith. Nobody is joking about that. We venerate many Roman saints (including bishops) in the Orthodox Church. We were in communion for hundreds of years, after all.

No one has a right to invented definitions. The definition of ‘vicar’ is representative of an absent authority. If Christ is still here in a practical sense, could someone give me His address and phone number?

I’ll let some of your fellow Catholics answer this, if they wish, as several have gone through great pains in this very thread to argue that this is not the Catholic understanding of the term.

According to Scripture and the words of the Lord, the Pope stands alone in primacy and authority.

No.

We must submit to the Gospels here. In the Gospels Peter alone is told to feed the Lord’s sheep. Let’s not flip that off as if it means nothing. It means a great deal.

Of course it does. We wouldn’t say otherwise. We love St. Peter.

Food is the sustenence of life. The pastor is, therefore, the one who sustains life. Without the feeding, the sheep starve to death.

Hmm. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, one of the communion hymns we sing is called “Pi oik”, which is Coptic meaning “bread of life”, because we consider Christ the Lord to be the one who sustains life. Similarly, in the second canticle of the midnight praises, we sing “give thanks to He who gives food to all flesh”, in reference to God. I know that Catholics would agree with these things too, but I find your emphasis on the clerical role (i.e., it is the priest who sustains life) to be quite at odds with this understanding. Of course, we love our priests. We honor them and rightly bow and kiss their hands when receiving the orban (what EO call the ‘antidoron’), and treat them with all deference as elders and pillars of our communities. But I don’t think I am speaking out of turn if I imagine that even they would reject any idea that they sustain life. They are the servants of the sacraments, not their masters.

Peter alone is given the keys to the kingdom.

Peter is given the keys first, indeed (as he indeed was the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, and it is upon this confession of faith that the majority of the fathers say that the Church is built), but the power to bind and loose which the keys represent is given to all of the apostles in turn in Matthew 18.

There is a reason the Lord gave Peter the keys and all Christians not of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church would prefer to dismiss all talk of the reason.

This is a rather extreme position, don’t you think? So not only is Peter supreme in your idea of the Church, but by extension the Roman rite is as well? Which form, I must ask? I quite enjoy the Mozarabic liturgy, and would prefer that to be the be all and end all of Western Christian rites, if it has to be that one rite is superior to others. Luckily, this is not the case, just like it is not the case that any particular Church (and I suspect that this is in fact what you meant when you wrote ‘rite’) is superior to any other, either by virtue of its apostolic foundation or the (sometimes) outrageous claims of its partisans. The Pope of Alexandria is not literally judge of the universe, for instance, and even in the Coptic liturgies you will find that we pay homage to the patriarchs of the other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches (in addition to our bishop) as equal to HH Pope Tawadros II (who is actually not going to be included in the diptych until after his enthronement, but you get the idea).

The reason is Peter and his successors are to have the last word on what is divine revelation regarding faith and morals for the Christian believer. That’s and the Holy Eucharist are what unites the faithful.

So what united all Roman Catholics before 1870, when Papal infallibility was defined?