OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 08:46:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Vicar of...  (Read 8422 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« on: May 14, 2011, 11:14:22 PM »

Why did the Pope change from -

The vicar of Peter
to
The vicar of Christ?

Vicar means "in place of" for those who don't know.

To make yourself as God, is satanic.
Lucifer did this in Isaiah 14, when he cast himself as God.
Masons do this when they call the "lodge" leader "worshipful master".
Satanists make themselves Gods until themselves.
Atheists make themselves Gods since they follow their own will.

To be "in place of Christ", as the Pope is said to be, don't you find the notion rather satanic?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,490



« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2011, 11:25:00 PM »

I think the Orthodox could argue, especially based on an early and eastern perspective, that the term goes too far and is a manifestation of an overgrown ecclesiology. Having said that, St. Ignatius, for one example, says that we are "subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ" (Epistle to the Trallians, 2), so I'm not sure where exactly the line needs to be drawn. It's probably the underlying ecclesiological principles that these titles and terms and statements represent that are the real issue anyway.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 11:25:40 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2011, 11:36:42 PM »

I think the Orthodox could argue, especially based on an early and eastern perspective, that the term goes too far and is a manifestation of an overgrown ecclesiology. Having said that, St. Ignatius, for one example, says that we are "subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ" (Epistle to the Trallians, 2), so I'm not sure where exactly the line needs to be drawn. It's probably the underlying ecclesiological principles that these titles and terms and statements represent that are the real issue anyway.

Forgive me if I forget the year, but wasn't it sometime in the 1940-1960's (or "in the later years") that the pope became "The vicar of Christ", and all the years before "the vicar of Peter"?

No doubt they can be a vicar to a bishop (or apostle) and the bishop is the subject of Jesus Christ our God.
EO "popes" or patriarchs are technically Bishops/Vicars of certain apostles.

But to be a vicar of God (Jesus Christ)??

The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 11:37:59 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2011, 11:37:08 PM »

Why did the Pope change from -

The vicar of Peter
to
The vicar of Christ?

Vicar means "in place of" for those who don't know.

To make yourself as God, is satanic.
Lucifer did this in Isaiah 14, when he cast himself as God.
Masons do this when they call the "lodge" leader "worshipful master".
Satanists make themselves Gods until themselves.
Atheists make themselves Gods since they follow their own will.

To be "in place of Christ", as the Pope is said to be, don't you find the notion rather satanic?

Agree.  One of the reasons that I consider the office of the papacy the office of the Antichrist.  I believe the Greek "anti" also means "in place of", making the pope's title, as well as his upsidedown cross, quite fitting.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2011, 11:40:19 PM »

Why did the Pope change from -

The vicar of Peter
to
The vicar of Christ?

Vicar means "in place of" for those who don't know.

To make yourself as God, is satanic.
Lucifer did this in Isaiah 14, when he cast himself as God.
Masons do this when they call the "lodge" leader "worshipful master".
Satanists make themselves Gods until themselves.
Atheists make themselves Gods since they follow their own will.

To be "in place of Christ", as the Pope is said to be, don't you find the notion rather satanic?

Agree.  One of the reasons that I consider the office of the papacy the office of the Antichrist.  I believe the Greek "anti" also means "in place of", making the pope's title, as well as his upsidedown cross, quite fitting.

Well believe me I DON'T defend the Pope.  But I've heard the upside down cross is really there because Peter was executed on an upside down cross.
Kind of showing "this is where I came from" etc. etc.

Still though the "Vicar of Christ" title, is very unexplainable in my opinion.    It sounds very Luciferian.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2011, 11:43:10 PM »

The upside down cross is much older than its modern usage by whatever counter-culture it is that started using it.

However I also agree Vicar of Christ is too far.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2011, 11:58:17 PM »

I think the title "Vicar of Christ" is a little extreme, but at the same time every time a clergy member (bishop or priest) celebrates the liturgy, they serve as an icon of Christ, who is our great high priest. It's really the implied level of absolute authority that is the problem. But as I said, I still find the title itself to still be a little extreme.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2011, 08:52:38 AM »

Why did the Pope change from -

The vicar of Peter
to
The vicar of Christ?

Vicar means "in place of" for those who don't know.

To make yourself as God, is satanic.
Lucifer did this in Isaiah 14, when he cast himself as God.
Masons do this when they call the "lodge" leader "worshipful master".
Satanists make themselves Gods until themselves.
Atheists make themselves Gods since they follow their own will.

To be "in place of Christ", as the Pope is said to be, don't you find the notion rather satanic?

Not to be a back-seat poster, but I think you should have started two separate threads: one to call the pope "satanic" and one to talk about the title Vicar of Christ.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
KBN1
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 888



« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2011, 10:56:49 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ

Quote
The third use of the term Vicar of Christ appears in the 5th century, in a synod of bishops to refer to Pope Gelasius I. The theological connotations of the title got a pastoral sense, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep", so Christ made Peter his vicar and pastor with the responsibility to feed his flock (ie the Church) in his own place.[1]

However, the use of the title to refer to the popes in the early Church was unstable, and several variants of the use of Vicar were used for the Pope, as "Vicar of Peter", indicating that they were the successors of St. Peter, "Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles" or "Vicar of the Apostolic See",[1] among other variants. This title is used by the Roman Missal in their prayers for a dead pope,[8] and the oath of allegiance to St. Boniface to Pope Gregory II.[9] The appointment of the Vicar of Christ for the popes became only the regular use from the thirteenth century, due to the reforms employed by Pope Innocent III,[10] often called Innocent to this title and prerogative to appoint bishops.[1] The edition of 2009 the Annuario Pontificio, the "Vicar of Jesus Christ" as the third official title of the Popes.[11]
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2011, 12:06:46 PM »

Why did the Pope change from -

The vicar of Peter
to
The vicar of Christ?

Vicar means "in place of" for those who don't know.

To make yourself as God, is satanic.
Lucifer did this in Isaiah 14, when he cast himself as God.
Masons do this when they call the "lodge" leader "worshipful master".
Satanists make themselves Gods until themselves.
Atheists make themselves Gods since they follow their own will.

To be "in place of Christ", as the Pope is said to be, don't you find the notion rather satanic?

Not to be a back-seat poster, but I think you should have started two separate threads: one to call the pope "satanic" and one to talk about the title Vicar of Christ.

Well I felt that calling somebody in place of God is rather Satanic, that's why I linked them together.

There is no place for a man to replace God, and if a man thinks he's in place of God, he's doing as Lucifer did in Isaiah 14
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 12:09:26 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2011, 12:39:35 PM »

RCs don't believe that the Pope replaces God. Whatever you think the term "Vicar of Christ" implies is irrelevant because what you think it implies is incorrect. Ask any good Catholic if they think the Pope is on equal footing with or above Christ and they will say no.
Logged
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2011, 12:51:13 PM »

I suggest the OP looks up the roots of the word Vicar and the usage of that and similar terms within the western Roman Empire before concluding (quite wrongly) that Catholicism views the Pope as replacing Christ or been in any sense equal to him. As to talk of upside down crosses been evil, surely we can do better than that here? The real reason why the Petrine cross is upside down has been pointed out.

In actual fact the Petrine cross would display exactly why the Pope is not to be regarded as in any way equal to Christ. As pointed out the cross exists because of the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down at his request as he did not wish to be crucified in the manner of Christ as he felt unworthy to be martyred in such a manner.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2011, 12:55:49 PM »


The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.

As Wyatt pointed out, the RCs believe in no such thing.  Even the most ultramontane Roman Catholic would never say such a thing.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2011, 01:06:21 PM »

IF Only I could find the Pronouncments of some of the Popes, and post them here,that  did declare themselves god on Earth, even Calling on the name of Christ won't save a person ,once a pope declared them damned.....

Hopefully Fr. Ambrose will see this thread and post them.......  police
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 01:14:48 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2011, 01:11:26 PM »

IF Only I could find the Pronouncments of some the Popes, and post them here,that  did declare themselves god on Earth, even Calling on the name of Christ won't save a person ,once a pope declared them damned.....

Hopefully Fr. Ambrose will see this thread and post them.......  police
Good thing we don't take every word that every Pope says to be infallible then.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2011, 01:57:39 PM »


The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.

As Wyatt pointed out, the RCs believe in no such thing.  Even the most ultramontane Roman Catholic would never say such a thing.

Quite true, I place the blame for such continuing misinformation upon politically motivated propaganda during past centuries in East Europe and upon untrained, well-meaning but ignorant polemicists and apologists over the centuries.

There are plenty of serious and real differences between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox, but this is not one of them. We can never focus upon and come to understand our true divisions while we remain off target on both sides. The discussions here often point out that both sides have a chasm of false understandings about the teachings and faith of the other side.

Unfortunately, at least as I see it on this forum, I often see me and my fellow Orthodox like Schultz standing up and correcting these false statements about Roman Catholicism, while I do not see some of our Roman apologists doing the same when an equally egregious falsehood about Orthodoxy is used as point of argument. It is tough to maintain an honest dialog under such conditions.

Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2011, 02:17:15 PM »

IF Only I could find the Pronouncments of some the Popes, and post them here,that  did declare themselves god on Earth, even Calling on the name of Christ won't save a person ,once a pope declared them damned.....

Hopefully Fr. Ambrose will see this thread and post them.......  police
Good thing we don't take every word that every Pope says to be infallible then.

How does that saying Go , Damned if you do, Damned if You Don't..... Grin seems like a no win situation...... police

Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2011, 02:24:23 PM »


The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.

As Wyatt pointed out, the RCs believe in no such thing.  Even the most ultramontane Roman Catholic would never say such a thing.

Quite true, I place the blame for such continuing misinformation upon politically motivated propaganda during past centuries in East Europe and upon untrained, well-meaning but ignorant polemicists and apologists over the centuries.

There are plenty of serious and real differences between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox, but this is not one of them. We can never focus upon and come to understand our true divisions while we remain off target on both sides. The discussions here often point out that both sides have a chasm of false understandings about the teachings and faith of the other side.

Unfortunately, at least as I see it on this forum, I often see me and my fellow Orthodox like Schultz standing up and correcting these false statements about Roman Catholicism, while I do not see some of our Roman apologists doing the same when an equally egregious falsehood about Orthodoxy is used as point of argument. It is tough to maintain an honest dialog under such conditions.



I would like to think that if anyone made such a false claim about the Orthodox I would equally not let it pass either. I am glad to see you and a few others here willing to discuss real areas of disagreement than engaging in what is (as you yourself called it) polemics about antiChrists etc etc. I have seen this thrown out from the other side and I think every Catholic who has done it ought to wander in here for a bit and see just how unpleasant it is when they are on the receiving end.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2011, 02:28:24 PM »

Why did the Pope change from -

The vicar of Peter
to
The vicar of Christ?

Vicar means "in place of" for those who don't know.

To make yourself as God, is satanic.
Lucifer did this in Isaiah 14, when he cast himself as God.
Masons do this when they call the "lodge" leader "worshipful master".
Satanists make themselves Gods until themselves.
Atheists make themselves Gods since they follow their own will.

To be "in place of Christ", as the Pope is said to be, don't you find the notion rather satanic?

Not to be a back-seat poster, but I think you should have started two separate threads: one to call the pope "satanic" and one to talk about the title Vicar of Christ.

Well I felt that calling somebody in place of God is rather Satanic, that's why I linked them together.

There is no place for a man to replace God, and if a man thinks he's in place of God, he's doing as Lucifer did in Isaiah 14

It's just a little hard to take you seriously when you compare the pope to satanists. No offense.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2011, 02:29:43 PM »

IF Only I could find the Pronouncments of some the Popes, and post them here,that  did declare themselves god on Earth, even Calling on the name of Christ won't save a person ,once a pope declared them damned.....

Hopefully Fr. Ambrose will see this thread and post them.......  police
Good thing we don't take every word that every Pope says to be infallible then.

How does that saying Go , Damned if you do, Damned if You Don't..... Grin seems like a no win situation...... police

I think it's more a case of Damned if you do, Darned if you don't.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #20 on: May 16, 2011, 12:05:18 AM »

IF Only I could find the Pronouncments of some the Popes, and post them here,that  did declare themselves god on Earth, even Calling on the name of Christ won't save a person ,once a pope declared them damned.....

Hopefully Fr. Ambrose will see this thread and post them.......  police
Good thing we don't take every word that every Pope says to be infallible then.

How does that saying Go , Damned if you do, Damned if You Don't..... Grin seems like a no win situation...... police


How so?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2011, 12:27:33 AM »


The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.

More than one petrine incarnation has come close to it.

There is Pope Leo XIII....

“...We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."

 Pope Leo XIII, in "Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae", Encyclical, June 1894.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #22 on: May 16, 2011, 12:25:53 PM »


The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.

More than one petrine incarnation has come close to it.

There is Pope Leo XIII....

“...We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."

 Pope Leo XIII, in "Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae", Encyclical, June 1894.
I have heard it explained that "vicar" means like ambassador or representative. The title "Vicar of Christ" does not seem scandalous when you consider this meaning since, really, all Bishops are to represent Christ to their flock.
Logged
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #23 on: May 16, 2011, 12:44:50 PM »

The word comes from Vicarious and means a deputy or substitute. It had a particular meaning in the late Roman Empire at an organisation level. Unfortunately some of the information regarding the subject thus far in this thread seems to have more in common with Chick tract versions of history.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #24 on: May 16, 2011, 12:56:06 PM »

The word comes from Vicarious and means a deputy or substitute. It had a particular meaning in the late Roman Empire at an organisation level. Unfortunately some of the information regarding the subject thus far in this thread seems to have more in common with Chick tract versions of history.
It's like I have said before, when people have to either distort the truth or outright lie about us in order to "win" an argument, it makes you wonder how solid of a case they really have. The fact that people have to perpetuate misconceptions about the Catholic Church rather than having honest, legitimate objections to the Church seems to indicate that we are, in fact, the true Church.
Logged
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2011, 01:11:46 PM »

Ah now I wouldn't go as far as that  Wyatt. I've seen many a Catholic distort facts about the Orthodox as well in my day. I also view the Orthodox as a part of the true Church (albeit seperated from us at this moment) although the Orthodox neither need nor would wish for my reccomendation in that regard.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2011, 01:15:20 PM »

Ah now I wouldn't go as far as that  Wyatt. I've seen many a Catholic distort facts about the Orthodox as well in my day. I also view the Orthodox as a part of the true Church (albeit seperated from us at this moment) although the Orthodox neither need nor would wish for my reccomendation in that regard.
I agree that they are somehow part of the Church since our Church believes they have valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession, but they are wounded by not being in full communion with us.
Logged
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2011, 01:34:51 PM »

They would reply I would think that those are your concerns rather than theirs. I came to this site as an inquirer into Orthodoxy actually as my spouse is Orthodox. I have found the site to be mixed bag but then I could say the same about all the Catholic sites I've used. There are some posters outlooks which concern but I suspect they represent fringe views much as you get such elements on Catholic forums.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #28 on: May 16, 2011, 02:10:26 PM »

The word comes from Vicarious and means a deputy or substitute. It had a particular meaning in the late Roman Empire at an organisation level. Unfortunately some of the information regarding the subject thus far in this thread seems to have more in common with Chick tract versions of history.
It's like I have said before, when people have to either distort the truth or outright lie about us in order to "win" an argument, it makes you wonder how solid of a case they really have. The fact that people have to perpetuate misconceptions about the Catholic Church rather than having honest, legitimate objections to the Church seems to indicate that we are, in fact, the true Church.

And then there are those who just love to bash Catholics and find any excuse and every opportunity to do so.  I'm sure there are people who love to bash Orthodox but I've seen and heard far more of the former than the latter.  Either way, though, there's really no excuse for it.  If you don't understand something, it's easy enough to ask in a way that doesn't deprecate the other. 

Whatever happened to, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all?"  Or, Mt. 12:36--"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2011, 05:09:44 PM »


The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.

More than one petrine incarnation has come close to it.

There is Pope Leo XIII....

“...We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."

 Pope Leo XIII, in "Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae", Encyclical, June 1894.

Yes, Father, but so do you in your own parish whenever you celebrate liturgy or act in a priestly function. At least that is my understand of Catholic Ecclesiology. The Pope just acts as the Vicar of Christ for the entire Church.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2011, 05:27:07 PM »

The word comes from Vicarious and means a deputy or substitute. It had a particular meaning in the late Roman Empire at an organisation level. Unfortunately some of the information regarding the subject thus far in this thread seems to have more in common with Chick tract versions of history.
It's like I have said before, when people have to either distort the truth or outright lie about us in order to "win" an argument, it makes you wonder how solid of a case they really have. The fact that people have to perpetuate misconceptions about the Catholic Church rather than having honest, legitimate objections to the Church seems to indicate that we are, in fact, the true Church.

Using a negative to prove a positive? I don't think the Jesuit Fathers taught you 'intro to logic 101'. Stupid polemics are stupid polemics my friend, comments like you made make it tough to restrain the extremists.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2011, 05:27:51 PM »

They would reply I would think that those are your concerns rather than theirs. I came to this site as an inquirer into Orthodoxy actually as my spouse is Orthodox. I have found the site to be mixed bag but then I could say the same about all the Catholic sites I've used. There are some posters outlooks which concern but I suspect they represent fringe views much as you get such elements on Catholic forums.

Thank you for your insight.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2011, 05:47:47 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2011, 06:28:34 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
No it doesn't, because the Pope is subject to Christ. Y'all are grasping at staws.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2011, 06:29:23 PM »


The RC's believe the Pope is in place of God.

More than one petrine incarnation has come close to it.

There is Pope Leo XIII....

“...We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..."

 Pope Leo XIII, in "Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae", Encyclical, June 1894.

Yes, Father, but so do you in your own parish whenever you celebrate liturgy or act in a priestly function. At least that is my understand of Catholic Ecclesiology. The Pope just acts as the Vicar of Christ for the entire Church.
Don't ever confuse Fr. Ambrose with the facts.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2011, 06:33:06 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
Well, Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father, but He is simultaneously with His Church in all the tabernacles of the world because, since He is God, He is not limited by time and space. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.
Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2011, 06:51:19 PM »

The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2011, 06:54:30 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2011, 06:55:33 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.
And the Spirit we know is the Spirit of God. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2011, 06:59:56 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.
And the Spirit we know is the Spirit of God. Smiley
Thanks be to God!
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2011, 07:07:52 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

Exactly.

Except you mixed up your capitalization... Here, let me fix that for ya:

The Holy Spirit we are following desperately doesn't want us to encounter the spirit you know.

Or... to paraphrase, 'I know you are but what am I?'

Ha,

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 07:08:38 PM by Saint Iaint » Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2011, 07:11:22 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

Exactly.

Except you mixed up your capitalization... Here, let me fix that for ya:

The Holy Spirit we are following desperately doesn't want us to encounter the spirit you know.

Or... to paraphrase, 'I know you are but what am I?'

Ha,

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Well, the Spirit blows where it will, but I just can't say for certain how much of that breeze you all have been catching since the 11th century. Wink
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 07:11:38 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2011, 07:12:10 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

Exactly.

Except you mixed up your capitalization... Here, let me fix that for ya:

The Holy Spirit we are following desperately doesn't want us to encounter the spirit you know.

Or... to paraphrase, 'I know you are but what am I?'

Ha,

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


I think you are a few posts behind on this one. But nice try buddy.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2011, 07:12:44 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

Exactly.

Except you mixed up your capitalization... Here, let me fix that for ya:

The Holy Spirit we are following desperately doesn't want us to encounter the spirit you know.

Or... to paraphrase, 'I know you are but what am I?'

Ha,

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Well, the Spirit blows where it will, but I just can't say for certain how much of that breeze you all have been catching since the 11th century. Wink
It's been windy in the West. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2011, 07:16:11 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

Exactly.

Except you mixed up your capitalization... Here, let me fix that for ya:

The Holy Spirit we are following desperately doesn't want us to encounter the spirit you know.

Or... to paraphrase, 'I know you are but what am I?'

Ha,

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Well, the Spirit blows where it will, but I just can't say for certain how much of that breeze you all have been catching since the 11th century. Wink
It's been windy in the West. Smiley
Oh yeah, and it's cool, refreshing, even graced.  Smiley
Logged
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2011, 07:42:27 PM »

The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.

What is gained by such attitudes from either Orthodox or Catholic?
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2011, 07:59:26 PM »

The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.

What is gained by such attitudes from either Orthodox or Catholic?

You are probably right of course... who could argue?

But - Let's not mince words either. One side has to wrong.

We both believe (and Scripture affirms) that the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of Truth has been guiding us into all truth and keeping us from error. Obviously therefore because of the differences, both of us cannot be correct.

So one Church possesses the fullness of the truth... the other - not so much.

For me (once I arrived at this point) it was easy to determine which was which. This is because the truth does not change. The faith once delivered should have remained the same. Even a cursory study of the early Church amply demonstrates that only one of us has kept it unchanged for all these centuries.

The sooner people figure this out - the better off they'll ultimately be I believe.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,490



« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2011, 08:05:33 PM »

I agree that both sides can't be right on several issues. Nonetheless, as St. James pointed out...

"Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." - James 3:13-18
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2011, 08:23:00 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
Well, Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father, but He is simultaneously with His Church in all the tabernacles of the world because, since He is God, He is not limited by time and space. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

I would agree with this (except, I would refer to the "Pope" of Alexandria - the EO one - and not separate him from the other Bishops of the Church).  However, if Christ is still present in His Church, then why is there a need for a Vicar of Christ?  If Christ is ever-present, then one need not stand up and take his place as if he has departed the room.  This is the same problem as if you interpret Vicar as being like an Ambassador or Emissary.  If Queen Elizabeth is in the same room as the President of the United States, she does not need the British Ambassador to come and speak to the President for her.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #49 on: May 16, 2011, 08:23:02 PM »



This fellow you responded to , seems to be a ecumenist , he wants to be little bit of us and them, because he happens to be married to a Orthodox woman ......He has to choose one or the other side .Like you said one is right the other Wrong...Holy Orthodoxy Happens to be  right and their wrong..... police

The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.

What is gained by such attitudes from either Orthodox or Catholic?

You are probably right of course... who could argue?

But - Let's not mince words either. One side has to wrong.

We both believe (and Scripture affirms) that the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of Truth has been guiding us into all truth and keeping us from error. Obviously therefore because of the differences, both of us cannot be correct.

So one Church possesses the fullness of the truth... the other - not so much.

For me (once I arrived at this point) it was easy to determine which was which. This is because the truth does not change. The faith once delivered should have remained the same. Even a cursory study of the early Church amply demonstrates that only one of us has kept it unchanged for all these centuries.

The sooner people figure this out - the better off they'll ultimately be I believe.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†



Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #50 on: May 16, 2011, 09:29:35 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
Well, Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father, but He is simultaneously with His Church in all the tabernacles of the world because, since He is God, He is not limited by time and space. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

I would agree with this (except, I would refer to the "Pope" of Alexandria - the EO one - and not separate him from the other Bishops of the Church).  However, if Christ is still present in His Church, then why is there a need for a Vicar of Christ?  If Christ is ever-present, then one need not stand up and take his place as if he has departed the room.  This is the same problem as if you interpret Vicar as being like an Ambassador or Emissary.  If Queen Elizabeth is in the same room as the President of the United States, she does not need the British Ambassador to come and speak to the President for her.
I believe that Christ can and does work through the Pope as well as through all the Bishops of the Church.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2011, 09:30:53 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

I have to disagree with both of you.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2011, 09:33:38 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

I have to disagree with both of you.
So you disagree with both A. the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, and B. the Holy Spirit guides the Orthodox Church?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2011, 09:38:16 PM »

Well, he either has not done a very good job of it, or it is a different spirit guiding your pope.  I am going with the latter.
Or perhaps the spirit you are following desperately doesn't want you to encounter the Spirit we know.

I have to disagree with both of you.
So you disagree with both A. the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, and B. the Holy Spirit guides the Orthodox Church?

Not so. I'm disagreeing with the idea that one side or the other is following "a different spirit".

P.S. Also, I don't disagree with Saint Iaint's statement that there are differences.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 09:41:42 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2011, 09:39:27 PM »

I agree that both sides can't be right on several issues. Nonetheless, as St. James pointed out...

"Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." - James 3:13-18

 Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2011, 06:04:53 AM »

Quote


This fellow you responded to , seems to be a ecumenist , he wants to be little bit of us and them, because he happens to be married to a Orthodox woman ......He has to choose one or the other side .Like you said one is right the other Wrong...Holy Orthodoxy Happens to be  right and their wrong..... police


If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt. The term started over a particular title used by the Bishop of Rome. We had some er, interesting observations about what that term meant that seemed to be based more in propaganda and polemics than reality. Fortunately we people like Podkarpatska who summed up why such approaches by either side are utlimately disastrous.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 06:07:36 AM by Jharek Carnelian » Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2011, 06:22:39 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2011, 06:41:18 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn. A reasonable answer as to what the term Vicar of Christ means and the actual meaning and history of the term Vicar means. However sadly it has as is usual with religious forums got to the point where a small group would rather believe what they think the other side believes according to their perceptions than actually critique what is actually believed.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2011, 08:05:07 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn.

Well ... let's not forget:

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that."
- Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI

(Note that's ewtn.com.)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 08:06:53 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2011, 09:44:39 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn.

Well ... let's not forget:

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that."
- Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI

(Note that's ewtn.com.)

It is somewhat disingenuous to pull out a line from an individual like the late Father Neuhaus who led, to say the least, an interesting life and had much to say and write on the difficult subject of ecumenism and other serious contemporary issues, when one knows that the quote in question is certain to provoke a reflexive reaction from some. Father Neuhaus was controversial for any number of reasons as he passed through life from a role as a prominent liberal Protestant pastor to being one the favorite Roman Catholic figures in the American Neo-conservative movement.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2011, 10:23:00 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn.

Well ... let's not forget:

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that."
- Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI

(Note that's ewtn.com.)

It is somewhat disingenuous to pull out a line from an individual like the late Father Neuhaus who led, to say the least, an interesting life and had much to say and write on the difficult subject of ecumenism and other serious contemporary issues, when one knows that the quote in question is certain to provoke a reflexive reaction from some. Father Neuhaus was controversial for any number of reasons as he passed through life from a role as a prominent liberal Protestant pastor to being one the favorite Roman Catholic figures in the American Neo-conservative movement.

 laugh laugh laugh

Buzz buzz buzz....words.

Surely the truth could not pass the lips of such a suspect soul....

M.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 10:25:49 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2011, 11:05:09 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn.

Well ... let's not forget:

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that."
- Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI

(Note that's ewtn.com.)

It is somewhat disingenuous to pull out a line from an individual like the late Father Neuhaus who led, to say the least, an interesting life and had much to say and write on the difficult subject of ecumenism and other serious contemporary issues, when one knows that the quote in question is certain to provoke a reflexive reaction from some. Father Neuhaus was controversial for any number of reasons as he passed through life from a role as a prominent liberal Protestant pastor to being one the favorite Roman Catholic figures in the American Neo-conservative movement.

 laugh laugh laugh

Buzz buzz buzz....words.

Surely the truth could not pass the lips of such a suspect soul....

M.

You missed my point, Fr. Neuhaus was an interesting figure and while I am not certain, I suspect that his views on the state of relations between his Church and that of Orthodoxy was more nuanced than the quoted line would imply. That's all.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2011, 11:10:47 AM »



You missed my point, Fr. Neuhaus was an interesting figure and while I am not certain, I suspect that his views on the state of relations between his Church and that of Orthodoxy was more nuanced than the quoted line would imply. That's all.

Ok...I see...I see.

I was just teasing you in any event.
Logged

Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2011, 11:41:38 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn.

Well ... let's not forget:

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that."
- Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI

(Note that's ewtn.com.)

It is somewhat disingenuous to pull out a line from an individual like the late Father Neuhaus who led, to say the least, an interesting life and had much to say and write on the difficult subject of ecumenism and other serious contemporary issues, when one knows that the quote in question is certain to provoke a reflexive reaction from some. Father Neuhaus was controversial for any number of reasons as he passed through life from a role as a prominent liberal Protestant pastor to being one the favorite Roman Catholic figures in the American Neo-conservative movement.

 laugh laugh laugh

Buzz buzz buzz....words.

Surely the truth could not pass the lips of such a suspect soul....

M.

You missed my point, Fr. Neuhaus was an interesting figure and while I am not certain, I suspect that his views on the state of relations between his Church and that of Orthodoxy was more nuanced than the quoted line would imply. That's all.

I'd tend to agree with you actually. I've seen this quote used many times and I think the complexity of the subjects it aims to address are such that it's hard to sum them up in any meaningful manner in short paragraphs.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2011, 11:59:40 AM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn.

Well ... let's not forget:

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that."
- Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI

(Note that's ewtn.com.)

It is somewhat disingenuous to pull out a line from an individual like the late Father Neuhaus who led, to say the least, an interesting life and had much to say and write on the difficult subject of ecumenism and other serious contemporary issues, when one knows that the quote in question is certain to provoke a reflexive reaction from some. Father Neuhaus was controversial for any number of reasons as he passed through life from a role as a prominent liberal Protestant pastor to being one the favorite Roman Catholic figures in the American Neo-conservative movement.

 laugh laugh laugh

Buzz buzz buzz....words.

Surely the truth could not pass the lips of such a suspect soul....

M.

You missed my point, Fr. Neuhaus was an interesting figure and while I am not certain, I suspect that his views on the state of relations between his Church and that of Orthodoxy was more nuanced than the quoted line would imply. That's all.

I'd tend to agree with you actually. I've seen this quote used many times and I think the complexity of the subjects it aims to address are such that it's hard to sum them up in any meaningful manner in short paragraphs.

There are those who think that we should be working out whatever our real differences are while in communion.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2011, 12:06:41 PM »



There are those who think that we should be working out whatever our real differences are while in communion.

That may be the opinion of some, but it is not the opinion of either the International or the North American Orthodox/Catholic consultations - speaking from either the Orthodox or the Roman Church's position. It certainly is NOT the opinion, teaching or belief of this Ecumenical Patriarch or any of his predecessors, of thrice blessed memory. Nor is it my opinion.

Using such quotes only fuels the rabid anti-dialog elements within Orthodoxy who view any discussions among us to be some sort of devilish betrayal. You know that is certainly not my position, but sadly it is one that is sometimes reflected by posters on this board and oftentimes on others(which tolerate a much more divisive atmosphere than do the admins of this board.)

I think that the subject is far to important and difficult to grasp than to throw out a random quote like red meat in a cage. That's all....
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2011, 12:09:08 PM »

If ecumenist means not insisting that the 'other side' must be completely evil, the antiChrist or foul beyond bearing then yes the term is apt.

In that case, you can count me as ecumenical too. The thing is, for many people "ecumenism" means believing "We are already the same" and the like.

That would be syncretism which Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike condemn.

Well ... let's not forget:

"I have said that what we share with the Orthodox is such that the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion, and I do not think Pope Benedict would disagree with that."
- Father R.J. Neuhaus' Outlook on Benedict XVI

(Note that's ewtn.com.)

It is somewhat disingenuous to pull out a line from an individual like the late Father Neuhaus who led, to say the least, an interesting life and had much to say and write on the difficult subject of ecumenism and other serious contemporary issues, when one knows that the quote in question is certain to provoke a reflexive reaction from some. Father Neuhaus was controversial for any number of reasons as he passed through life from a role as a prominent liberal Protestant pastor to being one the favorite Roman Catholic figures in the American Neo-conservative movement.

 laugh laugh laugh

Buzz buzz buzz....words.

Surely the truth could not pass the lips of such a suspect soul....

M.

You missed my point, Fr. Neuhaus was an interesting figure and while I am not certain, I suspect that his views on the state of relations between his Church and that of Orthodoxy was more nuanced than the quoted line would imply. That's all.

I'd tend to agree with you actually. I've seen this quote used many times and I think the complexity of the subjects it aims to address are such that it's hard to sum them up in any meaningful manner in short paragraphs.

I've wondered about that too -- I mean whether Fr. Neuhauss had something deeper in mind than the way most of us read that statement.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 17, 2011, 12:11:51 PM »



There are those who think that we should be working out whatever our real differences are while in communion.

That may be the opinion of some, but it is not the opinion of either the International or the North American Orthodox/Catholic consultations - speaking from either the Orthodox or the Roman Church's position. It certainly is NOT the opinion, teaching or belief of this Ecumenical Patriarch or any of his predecessors, of thrice blessed memory. Nor is it my opinion.

Using such quotes only fuels the rabid anti-dialog elements within Orthodoxy who view any discussions among us to be some sort of devilish betrayal. You know that is certainly not my position, but sadly it is one that is sometimes reflected by posters on this board and oftentimes on others(which tolerate a much more divisive atmosphere than do the admins of this board.)

I think that the subject is far to important and difficult to grasp than to throw out a random quote like red meat in a cage. That's all....

I for one happen to believe that it is true.  We need the graces of Eucharist shared in order to put some of the deepest wounds behind us.  Reunion is not going to be made by human hands in the case of Orthodox and Catholic.  There is far too much ugliness...deep and at the surface...for mere mortals to resolve and lave away.  There would be nothing better than sharing a chalice to bring our mutual concerns into clear focus.

If you think that is nothing but red meat...then I do sorrow for you genuinely.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2011, 12:13:28 PM »



There are those who think that we should be working out whatever our real differences are while in communion.

That may be the opinion of some, but it is not the opinion of either the International or the North American Orthodox/Catholic consultations - speaking from either the Orthodox or the Roman Church's position. It certainly is NOT the opinion, teaching or belief of this Ecumenical Patriarch or any of his predecessors, of thrice blessed memory. Nor is it my opinion.

Using such quotes only fuels the rabid anti-dialog elements within Orthodoxy who view any discussions among us to be some sort of devilish betrayal. You know that is certainly not my position, but sadly it is one that is sometimes reflected by posters on this board and oftentimes on others(which tolerate a much more divisive atmosphere than do the admins of this board.)

I think that the subject is far to important and difficult to grasp than to throw out a random quote like red meat in a cage. That's all....

I for one happen to believe that it is true.  We need the graces of Eucharist shared in order to put some of the deepest wounds behind us.  Reunion is not going to be made by human hands in the case of Orthodox and Catholic.  There is far too much ugliness...deep and at the surface...for mere mortals to resolve and lave away.  There would be nothing better than sharing a chalice to bring our mutual concerns into clear focus.

If you think that is nothing but red meat...then I do sorrow for you genuinely.

M.
There is something to the concept of saying, well, we are family, regardless of our disagreements, and once we starting living together again we will be more likely to work out those disagreements. But Maria, do you really think that we are ready for this?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 17, 2011, 12:20:21 PM »



There are those who think that we should be working out whatever our real differences are while in communion.

That may be the opinion of some, but it is not the opinion of either the International or the North American Orthodox/Catholic consultations - speaking from either the Orthodox or the Roman Church's position. It certainly is NOT the opinion, teaching or belief of this Ecumenical Patriarch or any of his predecessors, of thrice blessed memory. Nor is it my opinion.

Using such quotes only fuels the rabid anti-dialog elements within Orthodoxy who view any discussions among us to be some sort of devilish betrayal. You know that is certainly not my position, but sadly it is one that is sometimes reflected by posters on this board and oftentimes on others(which tolerate a much more divisive atmosphere than do the admins of this board.)

I think that the subject is far to important and difficult to grasp than to throw out a random quote like red meat in a cage. That's all....

I for one happen to believe that it is true.  We need the graces of Eucharist shared in order to put some of the deepest wounds behind us.  Reunion is not going to be made by human hands in the case of Orthodox and Catholic.  There is far too much ugliness...deep and at the surface...for mere mortals to resolve and lave away.  There would be nothing better than sharing a chalice to bring our mutual concerns into clear focus.

If you think that is nothing but red meat...then I do sorrow for you genuinely.

M.
There is something to the concept of saying, well, we are family, regardless of our disagreements, and once we starting living together again we will be more likely to work out those disagreements. But Maria, do you really think that we are ready for this?

At least as ready as the world was for the coming of the Messiah and actually we are in much better shape to receive him now than we were then.  The more we talk, harder we shove at one another.

There is no doubt in my mind that we'd work much harder with one another if the excuses for being cruel were taken from us by fiat.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #70 on: May 17, 2011, 12:20:56 PM »

I think that these reasoned words from the most recent joint declaration of the North American Theological Consultation answers the question regarding communion and why it is not possible to share in it at the present time.


'Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst.  The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world.'  October 2010 

http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #71 on: May 17, 2011, 12:47:23 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
Well, Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father, but He is simultaneously with His Church in all the tabernacles of the world because, since He is God, He is not limited by time and space. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

I would agree with this (except, I would refer to the "Pope" of Alexandria - the EO one - and not separate him from the other Bishops of the Church).  However, if Christ is still present in His Church, then why is there a need for a Vicar of Christ?  If Christ is ever-present, then one need not stand up and take his place as if he has departed the room.  This is the same problem as if you interpret Vicar as being like an Ambassador or Emissary.  If Queen Elizabeth is in the same room as the President of the United States, she does not need the British Ambassador to come and speak to the President for her.

This is one of the points I'm making.  Christ is the head of the church.

If we allow the once called "Vicar of Peter" to now be "Vicar of Christ", the Pope then heads the church as Christ.
If the Pope heads the Church as Christ, he is "replacing Christ".
If you "replace Christ" you are "replacing God or substituting God" - and that is Satanic / Luciferian.

That is why the council vote was always EVEN, and left Jesus Christ as the head of the church, until the schism that is.
Saying "The Vicar of Christ" does in fact mean "In place of / substitute".
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #72 on: May 17, 2011, 12:50:40 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
Well, Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father, but He is simultaneously with His Church in all the tabernacles of the world because, since He is God, He is not limited by time and space. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

I would agree with this (except, I would refer to the "Pope" of Alexandria - the EO one - and not separate him from the other Bishops of the Church).  However, if Christ is still present in His Church, then why is there a need for a Vicar of Christ?  If Christ is ever-present, then one need not stand up and take his place as if he has departed the room.  This is the same problem as if you interpret Vicar as being like an Ambassador or Emissary.  If Queen Elizabeth is in the same room as the President of the United States, she does not need the British Ambassador to come and speak to the President for her.

This is one of the points I'm making.  Christ is the head of the church.

If we allow the once called "Vicar of Peter" to now be "Vicar of Christ", the Pope then heads the church as Christ.
If the Pope heads the Church as Christ, he is "replacing Christ".
If you "replace Christ" you are "replacing God or substituting God" - and that is Satanic / Luciferian.

That is why the council vote was always EVEN, and left Jesus Christ as the head of the church, until the schism that is.
Saying "The Vicar of Christ" does in fact mean "In place of / substitute".
Stop trying to tell us what we believe when you don't even belong to our Church. I think we know better than anti-Catholic outsiders such as yourself. As far as the head of the Church, it isn't an either/or situation, it is a both/and. Since we believe Christ gave St. Peter (and his successors) a special ministry in the Church that makes St. Peter and his successors the rock, the visible head of the Church. That in no way negates that Christ is the supreme and invisible head of the Church.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 12:51:00 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #73 on: May 17, 2011, 12:59:36 PM »

Vicar is a term used to refer to someone who serves in the place of (or on behalf of) someone else while they are away.  As such, saying you are the Vicar of Christ is essentially saying Christ has gone on a trip and has left his Church behind while he does so.  In essence, it denies the headship of Christ over the Church (at least as anything other than honorary), and in that respect is a serious problem, IMO.
Well, Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father, but He is simultaneously with His Church in all the tabernacles of the world because, since He is God, He is not limited by time and space. The Holy Spirit guides the Pope and Bishops and prevents the Church from falling into error.

I would agree with this (except, I would refer to the "Pope" of Alexandria - the EO one - and not separate him from the other Bishops of the Church).  However, if Christ is still present in His Church, then why is there a need for a Vicar of Christ?  If Christ is ever-present, then one need not stand up and take his place as if he has departed the room.  This is the same problem as if you interpret Vicar as being like an Ambassador or Emissary.  If Queen Elizabeth is in the same room as the President of the United States, she does not need the British Ambassador to come and speak to the President for her.

This is one of the points I'm making.  Christ is the head of the church.

If we allow the once called "Vicar of Peter" to now be "Vicar of Christ", the Pope then heads the church as Christ.
If the Pope heads the Church as Christ, he is "replacing Christ".
If you "replace Christ" you are "replacing God or substituting God" - and that is Satanic / Luciferian.

That is why the council vote was always EVEN, and left Jesus Christ as the head of the church, until the schism that is.
Saying "The Vicar of Christ" does in fact mean "In place of / substitute".
Stop trying to tell us what we believe when you don't even belong to our Church. I think we know better than anti-Catholic outsiders such as yourself. As far as the head of the Church, it isn't an either/or situation, it is a both/and. Since we believe Christ gave St. Peter (and his successors) a special ministry in the Church that makes St. Peter and his successors the rock, the visible head of the Church. That in no way negates that Christ is the supreme and invisible head of the Church.
Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #74 on: May 17, 2011, 01:17:38 PM »

Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Exactly. The very nature of their vocations requires that they be subject to Christ since they have been given positions of authority within His Church.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #75 on: May 17, 2011, 03:50:20 PM »

Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Exactly. The very nature of their vocations requires that they be subject to Christ since they have been given positions of authority within His Church.

But don't you see the position he's in?  People literally think he's in the place of the divine as the "substitute" or "in place of" GOD.  Though you say he is subject to Christ, I agree, he is subject to Christ, as are all other bishops.   But he can't be the subject of Christ if he is out of communion via the great schism with the other Ecumenical Patriarchs.

This means that he is subject to himself, as the Vicar of Christ.   He alone can vote Christ's will.  This is not how it was done in the early church.  In essence, this is putting a man with sins in God's place as the head of the church.

What about the other Ecumenical Patriarchs that "technically" have remained the same since the schism because they lacked the Patriarch of Rome's vote?

If 1 man leads the church that man would be God.  This "vicar" basically "substitutes" himself for God (Christ) over the church (leads and calls the shots).  That's why I say it's Luciferic what the Pope has done.

He should have an EVEN vote with the EO patriarchs.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 17, 2011, 03:53:38 PM »

Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Exactly. The very nature of their vocations requires that they be subject to Christ since they have been given positions of authority within His Church.

But don't you see the position he's in?  People literally think he's in the place of the divine as the "substitute" or "in place of" GOD.  Though you say he is subject to Christ, I agree, he is subject to Christ, as are all other bishops.   But he can't be the subject of Christ if he is out of communion via the great schism with the other Ecumenical Patriarchs.

This means that he is subject to himself, as the Vicar of Christ.   He alone can vote Christ's will.  This is not how it was done in the early church.  In essence, this is putting a man with sins in God's place as the head of the church.

What about the other Ecumenical Patriarchs that "technically" have remained the same since the schism because they lacked the Patriarch of Rome's vote?

If 1 man leads the church that man would be God.  This "vicar" basically "substitutes" himself for God (Christ) over the church (leads and calls the shots).  That's why I say it's Luciferic what the Pope has done.

He should have an EVEN vote with the EO patriarchs.

What people?  Please show me a single Catholic who says that the Pope is "in the place" of GOD.  Some might tell you he's "closer" to God (and, that, of course is arguable), but I defy you to find a single communicant of the Roman Catholic Church who says that the Pope is "in the place" of God.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #77 on: May 17, 2011, 04:17:39 PM »

Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Exactly. The very nature of their vocations requires that they be subject to Christ since they have been given positions of authority within His Church.

But don't you see the position he's in?  People literally think he's in the place of the divine as the "substitute" or "in place of" GOD.  Though you say he is subject to Christ, I agree, he is subject to Christ, as are all other bishops.   But he can't be the subject of Christ if he is out of communion via the great schism with the other Ecumenical Patriarchs.

This means that he is subject to himself, as the Vicar of Christ.   He alone can vote Christ's will.  This is not how it was done in the early church.  In essence, this is putting a man with sins in God's place as the head of the church.

What about the other Ecumenical Patriarchs that "technically" have remained the same since the schism because they lacked the Patriarch of Rome's vote?

If 1 man leads the church that man would be God.  This "vicar" basically "substitutes" himself for God (Christ) over the church (leads and calls the shots).  That's why I say it's Luciferic what the Pope has done.

He should have an EVEN vote with the EO patriarchs.

What people?  Please show me a single Catholic who says that the Pope is "in the place" of GOD.  Some might tell you he's "closer" to God (and, that, of course is arguable), but I defy you to find a single communicant of the Roman Catholic Church who says that the Pope is "in the place" of God.

Here is the newadvent site on the "Vicar of Christ"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm
Vicar - http://www.gotquestions.org/vicar-of-Christ.html - "The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of"."

Vicar of Christ = Instead of Christ.
Trinity = Christ = God
if the Pope = Vicar of Christ
then "the vicar of Christ" = instead of God = in place of God.  Of course, you'll hear many RC's say "Vicar of Christ" when referring to the Patriarch of Rome.

In the early days he was the "Vicar of Peter" or "Instead of Peter".  (Some translations say "vicar" means "in place of").

Of course, we know from the earliest Christians that votes were even between the ecumenical patriarchs as they allowed Jesus Christ to be the head of the Church.  Papal supremacy allows the Pope to replace Christ for the head of the church.  Literally it means "in place of God" or "instead of God" since the Roman Catholics believe Christ to be God.

I have no problem with "Vicar of Peter" or "Vicar of Andrew".....  So long as their title represents their succession to the apostles as the appointed Patriarch.  But to go from "Vicar of Peter" to "Vicar of Christ"... That would not only render blasphemy, but Luciferic since Lucifer made himself a God (though he is not), just as the RC's are saying the Pope is "In place of God" or "instead of God" (though he is not).



Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 17, 2011, 04:24:36 PM »

Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Exactly. The very nature of their vocations requires that they be subject to Christ since they have been given positions of authority within His Church.

But don't you see the position he's in?  People literally think he's in the place of the divine as the "substitute" or "in place of" GOD.  Though you say he is subject to Christ, I agree, he is subject to Christ, as are all other bishops.   But he can't be the subject of Christ if he is out of communion via the great schism with the other Ecumenical Patriarchs.

This means that he is subject to himself, as the Vicar of Christ.   He alone can vote Christ's will.  This is not how it was done in the early church.  In essence, this is putting a man with sins in God's place as the head of the church.

What about the other Ecumenical Patriarchs that "technically" have remained the same since the schism because they lacked the Patriarch of Rome's vote?

If 1 man leads the church that man would be God.  This "vicar" basically "substitutes" himself for God (Christ) over the church (leads and calls the shots).  That's why I say it's Luciferic what the Pope has done.

He should have an EVEN vote with the EO patriarchs.

What people?  Please show me a single Catholic who says that the Pope is "in the place" of GOD.  Some might tell you he's "closer" to God (and, that, of course is arguable), but I defy you to find a single communicant of the Roman Catholic Church who says that the Pope is "in the place" of God.

Here is the newadvent site on the "Vicar of Christ"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm
Vicar - http://www.gotquestions.org/vicar-of-Christ.html - "The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of"."

Vicar of Christ = Instead of Christ.
Trinity = Christ = God
if the Pope = Vicar of Christ
then "the vicar of Christ" = instead of God = in place of God.  Of course, you'll hear many RC's say "Vicar of Christ" when referring to the Patriarch of Rome.

In the early days he was the "Vicar of Peter" or "Instead of Peter".  (Some translations say "vicar" means "in place of").

Of course, we know from the earliest Christians that votes were even between the ecumenical patriarchs as they allowed Jesus Christ to be the head of the Church.  Papal supremacy allows the Pope to replace Christ for the head of the church.  Literally it means "in place of God" or "instead of God" since the Roman Catholics believe Christ to be God.

I have no problem with "Vicar of Peter" or "Vicar of Andrew".....  So long as their title represents their succession to the apostles as the appointed Patriarch.  But to go from "Vicar of Peter" to "Vicar of Christ"... That would not only render blasphemy, but Luciferic since Lucifer made himself a God (though he is not), just as the RC's are saying the Pope is "In place of God" or "instead of God" (though he is not).





You can present any etymology all you want, but the simple fact remains that, on the street and in the churches, Catholics do not use the word "Vicar" to mean what you say they mean. 

But you're going to think what you want, so I'm through trying to talk with you.  I only end up talking at you.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #79 on: May 17, 2011, 04:32:20 PM »


As I suspected because of this ,replacing Christ as Head ,with a Fallable Man, as Head Of there Church ,There Troubles Are Just the Begining for Them ,More is On the way...... police

Similar to Israel choosing a Earthly Head over  God......And there troubles never ceased from then on..... police



Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Exactly. The very nature of their vocations requires that they be subject to Christ since they have been given positions of authority within His Church.

But don't you see the position he's in?  People literally think he's in the place of the divine as the "substitute" or "in place of" GOD.  Though you say he is subject to Christ, I agree, he is subject to Christ, as are all other bishops.   But he can't be the subject of Christ if he is out of communion via the great schism with the other Ecumenical Patriarchs.

This means that he is subject to himself, as the Vicar of Christ.   He alone can vote Christ's will.  This is not how it was done in the early church.  In essence, this is putting a man with sins in God's place as the head of the church.

What about the other Ecumenical Patriarchs that "technically" have remained the same since the schism because they lacked the Patriarch of Rome's vote?

If 1 man leads the church that man would be God.  This "vicar" basically "substitutes" himself for God (Christ) over the church (leads and calls the shots).  That's why I say it's Luciferic what the Pope has done.

He should have an EVEN vote with the EO patriarchs.

What people?  Please show me a single Catholic who says that the Pope is "in the place" of GOD.  Some might tell you he's "closer" to God (and, that, of course is arguable), but I defy you to find a single communicant of the Roman Catholic Church who says that the Pope is "in the place" of God.

Here is the newadvent site on the "Vicar of Christ"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm
Vicar - http://www.gotquestions.org/vicar-of-Christ.html - "The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of"."

Vicar of Christ = Instead of Christ.
Trinity = Christ = God
if the Pope = Vicar of Christ
then "the vicar of Christ" = instead of God = in place of God.  Of course, you'll hear many RC's say "Vicar of Christ" when referring to the Patriarch of Rome.

In the early days he was the "Vicar of Peter" or "Instead of Peter".  (Some translations say "vicar" means "in place of").

Of course, we know from the earliest Christians that votes were even between the ecumenical patriarchs as they allowed Jesus Christ to be the head of the Church.  Papal supremacy allows the Pope to replace Christ for the head of the church.  Literally it means "in place of God" or "instead of God" since the Roman Catholics believe Christ to be God.

I have no problem with "Vicar of Peter" or "Vicar of Andrew".....  So long as their title represents their succession to the apostles as the appointed Patriarch.  But to go from "Vicar of Peter" to "Vicar of Christ"... That would not only render blasphemy, but Luciferic since Lucifer made himself a God (though he is not), just as the RC's are saying the Pope is "In place of God" or "instead of God" (though he is not).




Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #80 on: May 17, 2011, 04:42:56 PM »

Correct. And it no way excludes the fact that the Pope and bishops are subject to Christ.
Exactly. The very nature of their vocations requires that they be subject to Christ since they have been given positions of authority within His Church.

But don't you see the position he's in?  People literally think he's in the place of the divine as the "substitute" or "in place of" GOD.  Though you say he is subject to Christ, I agree, he is subject to Christ, as are all other bishops.   But he can't be the subject of Christ if he is out of communion via the great schism with the other Ecumenical Patriarchs.

This means that he is subject to himself, as the Vicar of Christ.   He alone can vote Christ's will.  This is not how it was done in the early church.  In essence, this is putting a man with sins in God's place as the head of the church.

What about the other Ecumenical Patriarchs that "technically" have remained the same since the schism because they lacked the Patriarch of Rome's vote?

If 1 man leads the church that man would be God.  This "vicar" basically "substitutes" himself for God (Christ) over the church (leads and calls the shots).  That's why I say it's Luciferic what the Pope has done.

He should have an EVEN vote with the EO patriarchs.
LOL...Ecumenical Patriarchs? I could have sworn there was only one, in Constantinople. As far as the rest of the nonsense, I have already explained (as has Schultz) what we, as Roman Catholics, believe about the Pope. Stop trying to interpret our faith from the perspective of an outsider. I was a Protestant the first 18 years of my life, and let me tell you, I was pretty anti-Catholic in my younger years. Once I stopped listening to all the propaganda and actually explored Catholicism from the perspective of Catholicism is when I actually started learning stuff.

If you disagree with Catholicism that is fine. You are entitled to your own opinion, but it is pretty pathetic when you have to present false information in an attempt to discredit us.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #81 on: May 17, 2011, 05:09:54 PM »

Stop trying to interpret our faith from the perspective of an outsider.

I don't think that's the problem.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #82 on: May 17, 2011, 07:55:15 PM »


Here is the newadvent site on the "Vicar of Christ"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm


Trust no man who calls himself "The Vicar of God". The Catholic Encyclopedia article says that is an equivalent of "The Vicar of Christ".
Logged
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #83 on: May 17, 2011, 09:18:39 PM »

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #84 on: May 17, 2011, 09:28:24 PM »

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.

The dishonesty comes in when Catholics use the term "Vicar of Christ" to mean one thing in common parlance among themselves but then make attempts to downplay it when speaking to outsiders.

As we have seen they will make out that the Pope is not THE Vicar of Christ at all but he is merely one among thousands of Vicars of Christ (every bishop around the globe.)
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,049


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #85 on: May 17, 2011, 09:33:13 PM »

A vicar is a man with authority delegated him by a superior.  A vicar stands in place of another.  He does not replace the other.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #86 on: May 17, 2011, 09:40:18 PM »

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.

The dishonesty comes in when Catholics use the term "Vicar of Christ" to mean one thing in common parlance among themselves but then make attempts to downplay it when speaking to outsiders.

As we have seen they will make out that the Pope is not THE Vicar of Christ at all but he is merely one among thousands of Vicars of Christ (every bishop around the globe.)

No, we don't call all bishops "Vicars of Christ". Perhaps we could, but we don't.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,049


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #87 on: May 17, 2011, 09:42:17 PM »

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.

The dishonesty comes in when Catholics use the term "Vicar of Christ" to mean one thing in common parlance among themselves but then make attempts to downplay it when speaking to outsiders.

As we have seen they will make out that the Pope is not THE Vicar of Christ at all but he is merely one among thousands of Vicars of Christ (every bishop around the globe.)

Catholics believe the Pope of Rome is both.  That is the crux of the disagreement is it not? Catholics believe that while the Pope is simply a bishop, because he is successor of Peter in Rome, head of the Apostles, he also becomes head of the Bishops. The Orthodox disagree.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #88 on: May 17, 2011, 10:07:25 PM »

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.

The dishonesty comes in when Catholics use the term "Vicar of Christ" to mean one thing in common parlance among themselves but then make attempts to downplay it when speaking to outsiders.

As we have seen they will make out that the Pope is not THE Vicar of Christ at all but he is merely one among thousands of Vicars of Christ (every bishop around the globe.)

Catholics believe the Pope of Rome is both.  That is the crux of the disagreement is it not? Catholics believe that while the Pope is simply a bishop, because he is successor of Peter in Rome, head of the Apostles, he also becomes head of the Bishops. The Orthodox disagree.

So does St. Basil the Great, who calls the Church of Antioch the head of all Churches
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 17, 2011, 10:20:45 PM »

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.

The dishonesty comes in when Catholics use the term "Vicar of Christ" to mean one thing in common parlance among themselves but then make attempts to downplay it when speaking to outsiders.

As we have seen they will make out that the Pope is not THE Vicar of Christ at all but he is merely one among thousands of Vicars of Christ (every bishop around the globe.)

Catholics believe the Pope of Rome is both.  That is the crux of the disagreement is it not? Catholics believe that while the Pope is simply a bishop, because he is successor of Peter in Rome, head of the Apostles, he also becomes head of the Bishops. The Orthodox disagree.

So does St. Basil the Great, who calls the Church of Antioch the head of all Churches

Well St. Peter was in Antioch first.

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #90 on: May 17, 2011, 10:56:54 PM »

Saint Iaint,

I've asked this on a Catholic forum before.  The reply I got was basically that Antioch had fallen into heresy, and even over-run by Islamic conquest.  I suppose when one has fallen into heresy as multiple Eastern Patriarchs have been guilty of, in the Catholic mind.. you can just give it up.   At least, that's the way I understood it..

@Everyone Else,

  I personally feel that many of our differences are due to a language barrier.  St. Maximos the Confessor spoke Latin and Greek fluently and saw through some of the pointless disagreements we have, especially in regards to the Christology of the filioque.  When the western and eastern half of the Roman empire split, it was inevitable that we would become something ontologically different altogether.  The question in many of our differences, and in regards to Augustinian influence... is one of emphasis in my mind. 
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #91 on: May 17, 2011, 11:05:01 PM »

Well St. Peter was in Antioch first.

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,490



« Reply #92 on: May 17, 2011, 11:09:57 PM »

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

God should have sent St. Peter to South Africa or Zimbabwe or somewhere, just to mess with everyone. I wonder how history would have been different had that happened...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 11:14:44 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #93 on: May 17, 2011, 11:25:40 PM »

I don't believe that any of the clergy of Rome, or the pope have Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, only From St. Paul,, why would St. Peter sow in someone else's vineyard,, when he was sent to the Jews to preach and convert.....Like a Good Apostle he may of visited St. Paul, but setting up bishops in another man's vineyard i doubt it...... police

Why don't we hear from rome about successors of St. Paul ,and Where are the Bishops he established ,where did they go ....Rome seems to be  silent on that.....  police
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 11:30:24 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14,681



WWW
« Reply #94 on: May 17, 2011, 11:33:26 PM »

Yeah, because nobody today has two bishops near each other.  Roll Eyes 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #95 on: May 17, 2011, 11:52:06 PM »

Yes but it's not the equivalent of God or what you would like it to be. I can perfectly understand expressing honest disagreement in a measured fashion between Churches but some of the misinformation is simply just that.

The dishonesty comes in when Catholics use the term "Vicar of Christ" to mean one thing in common parlance among themselves but then make attempts to downplay it when speaking to outsiders.

As we have seen they will make out that the Pope is not THE Vicar of Christ at all but he is merely one among thousands of Vicars of Christ (every bishop around the globe.)
If you are talking about my comment, that wasn't what I was saying. I said that all the clergy represent Christ. I think the Eastern Orthodox would agree with us as far as that goes since each bishop (and to a lesser degree, each priest) is responsible for leading their flocks. They are called to follow Christ in shepherding. The Pope's title reflects the fact that his flock, in addition to being those who belong to the diocese of Rome, is also the entire Church. This doesn't mean he is above Christ or even equal to Christ. We believe he is the highest human authority within the Church just as St. Peter was because he was appointed by Christ to have this role.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #96 on: May 18, 2011, 10:10:38 AM »

I guess the thing is no matter how one twists and contorts what is being said "Vicar of Christ" literally means - "In place of Christ or Instead of Christ".

If one has to give a long paragraph excuse for this to twist what is being said, I would warn that the Father of all lies IS indeed the father of all lies.
Truth usually manifests itself in simplicity.

If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 18, 2011, 10:27:15 AM »

I see you neglected to view the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Vicar.  I have quoted the very pertinent section below:


Quote
In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The office of vicar was in use among the ancient Romans, that being the title of officials subordinate to the praetorian prefects.

Note the uses of the words subordinate and representative.  The word vicarius may have its origin in the word vice ("instead of") but its historical usage, both before and after the Christian co-option of the word, clearly indicates that its meaning is more of a "subordinate representative".
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,490



« Reply #98 on: May 18, 2011, 11:19:17 AM »

Truth usually manifests itself in simplicity.

Maybe in engineering, but certainly not in theology.
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #99 on: May 18, 2011, 11:26:00 AM »

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

God should have sent St. Peter to South Africa or Zimbabwe or somewhere, just to mess with everyone. I wonder how history would have been different had that happened...
That definitely would have been loads of fun. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #100 on: May 18, 2011, 11:27:52 AM »

I guess the thing is no matter how one twists and contorts what is being said "Vicar of Christ" literally means - "In place of Christ or Instead of Christ".

If one has to give a long paragraph excuse for this to twist what is being said, I would warn that the Father of all lies IS indeed the father of all lies.
Truth usually manifests itself in simplicity.

If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.
Regarless of what you think the word literally means, that is not what we mean by the term so get over it.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #101 on: May 18, 2011, 11:28:24 AM »

Truth usually manifests itself in simplicity.

Maybe in engineering, but certainly not in theology.

Well stated.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #102 on: May 18, 2011, 12:44:11 PM »


If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.

Not true. "Vicar of Christ" is at least as old as "Vicar of Peter"---both were often used simultaneously. The first surviving written instance of "Vicar of Christ" being used for the Bishop of Rome was during the 5th century.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #103 on: May 18, 2011, 01:14:42 PM »


If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.

Not true. "Vicar of Christ" is at least as old as "Vicar of Peter"---both were often used simultaneously. The first surviving written instance of "Vicar of Christ" being used for the Bishop of Rome was during the 5th century.
Plus, St. Peter was the Vicar of Christ as appointed by Christ, so to say "Vicar of Peter" is essentially the same as saying "Vicar of Christ." I suppose some would split hairs and say that that would be "Vicar of the Vicar of Christ," but that is getting a bit wordy and means the same thing. I am sure that yeshuaisiam is going to come back and continue harping on the literal meaning and origin of the word "vicar" even though it is irrelevant since we do not use the word when referencing the Pope in the way he thinks/alleges we do.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #104 on: May 18, 2011, 01:45:04 PM »


If I was a Roman Catholic, I would highly consider calling the Pope "the Vicar of Peter" as he was for centuries before the title change.

Not true. "Vicar of Christ" is at least as old as "Vicar of Peter"---both were often used simultaneously. The first surviving written instance of "Vicar of Christ" being used for the Bishop of Rome was during the 5th century.
Plus, St. Peter was the Vicar of Christ as appointed by Christ, so to say "Vicar of Peter" is essentially the same as saying "Vicar of Christ." I suppose some would split hairs and say that that would be "Vicar of the Vicar of Christ," but that is getting a bit wordy and means the same thing. I am sure that yeshuaisiam is going to come back and continue harping on the literal meaning and origin of the word "vicar" even though it is irrelevant since we do not use the word when referencing the Pope in the way he thinks/alleges we do.

Unfortunately, some folks have made up their minds and don't want to be bothered by the facts.  Sad
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #105 on: May 18, 2011, 02:09:10 PM »

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think.... Wink
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 18, 2011, 02:09:27 PM »

double post by mistake, sorry...
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 02:09:50 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 18, 2011, 02:17:09 PM »

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think.... Wink

Good point.

From the New World Encylopedia:
Quote
Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #108 on: May 18, 2011, 02:23:04 PM »

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think.... Wink

Good point.

From the New World Encylopedia:
Quote
Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.

It would appear logical that upon the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire the devolvement of some of the former Imperial prerogatives and titles upon the Pope of Rome, who did after all possess varying degrees of secular, temporal power during the intervening period from about the end of the fifth century through the middle of the 19th century, might have included the transition frorm the prior practice of referring to the Pope as the 'Vicar of Peter' to that of the 'Vicar of Christ.' After all, that accretion of temporal authority to the Bishop of Rome had a great deal to do with the gradually widening rift between eastern and western Christianity.

We also have to keep in mind that in the initial period of Christianity, beginning with the Apostolic era and continuing through the early post western imperial era, the imminent return of Christ was anticipated and it would be logical for there to be a need felt for one to act as Vicar of an apostle or of Christ Himself.

Sorry, I just can't keep those damnable facts from coloring my opinions.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 02:25:17 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #109 on: May 19, 2011, 05:54:46 AM »

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think.... Wink

Good point.

From the New World Encylopedia:
Quote
Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.

The West has pretty much had this view of Kings and Emperors holding Christ's temporal authority as well, but only in a political sense and not in an ecclesial sense.

Of course sometimes Emperors and Kings think that they do have that ecclesial power and then you get cæsaropapism, Henry the VIII, and lots of other fun stuff.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #110 on: May 19, 2011, 09:53:05 AM »



Of course sometimes Emperors and Kings think that they do have that ecclesial power and then you get cæsaropapism, Henry the VIII, and lots of other fun stuff.

From the other team, Tsar Peter the Great comes to mind as well!
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,499


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #111 on: May 19, 2011, 11:18:10 AM »

Yeah, because nobody today has two bishops near each other.  Roll Eyes  

Well... Archbishop Gregory in Colorado.... Bishop John lives in the same monastery.
Dunno...
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 11:18:30 AM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #112 on: May 19, 2011, 11:24:00 AM »

Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

God should have sent St. Peter to South Africa or Zimbabwe or somewhere, just to mess with everyone. I wonder how history would have been different had that happened...

That could make a very interesting alternate history story.. cool thought.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #113 on: May 19, 2011, 03:16:52 PM »

Well St. Peter was in Antioch first.

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.   

So let me get this straight:  St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome?   I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:   Roll Eyes
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #114 on: May 19, 2011, 07:51:51 PM »

Well St. Peter was in Antioch first.

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.   

So let me get this straight:  St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome?   I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:   Roll Eyes

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that St. Peter ranked first out of all the bishops, up until his death.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #115 on: May 19, 2011, 09:30:51 PM »

Well St. Peter was in Antioch first.

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.   

So let me get this straight:  St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome?   I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:   Roll Eyes

Oh come on. After the death of the apostles Rome immediately became the prime See and Jerusalem was . . . not a Patriarchal See? Only Alexandria and Antioch. Sorry Constantinople. You are not even close to being an Apostolic See.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #116 on: May 19, 2011, 11:44:46 PM »

Well St. Peter was in Antioch first.

So if the primacy carried over to the successors of Peter... and the first successors of Peter were in Antioch...

? ? ?

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Antioch held the primacy for as long as St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch; but when St. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, Rome held the primacy.

In other words, the man who became Bishop of Antioch when Peter went to Rome could not claim to rank first instead of Peter.

Actually Jerusalem still had primacy even while Peter was in Antioch.   

So let me get this straight:  St. Peter chooses St. Evodius as his successor, but St. Evodius ceased to be his successor once St. Peter went to Rome?   I normally don't like using this emoticon but it seems very appropriate here:   Roll Eyes

Oh come on. After the death of the apostles Rome immediately became the prime See and Jerusalem was . . . not a Patriarchal See? Only Alexandria and Antioch. Sorry Constantinople. You are not even close to being an Apostolic See.


Actually that is not accurate.    The Christian centre there was created by the preaching of the brother of Saint Peter, Saint Andrew.

See message 23 for the history
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32996.msg522267.html#msg522267
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 20, 2011, 12:30:43 AM »

For what it is worth, for a period of time in Byzantine history, the Byzantine Emperors included the 'Vicar of Christ' title among their imperial titles. I think this was during the 5th and 6th centuries. Seems though that by this point this old horse of a subject has been quite beaten to death you would think.... Wink

Good point.

From the New World Encylopedia:
Quote
Constantine and his Christian successors did not claim to be divine but rather to represent the divine. They were Christ's vicars on earth. He declared that Christ, as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is enthroned in heaven and all earthly rulers are subject to his authority. In the West, after the fall of Rome, the Popes enjoyed this status as the Vicar of Christ. In the East, it was the Emperor, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, who claimed this title.

The West has pretty much had this view of Kings and Emperors holding Christ's temporal authority as well, but only in a political sense and not in an ecclesial sense.

Of course sometimes Emperors and Kings think that they do have that ecclesial power and then you get cæsaropapism, Henry the VIII, and lots of other fun stuff.
Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God.  No republic can claim any spiritual validity.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #118 on: May 20, 2011, 12:52:00 AM »


Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God.  No republic can claim any spiritual validity.


Here is the Coronation Service for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

It is extremely beautiful and could easily be Orthodox.

Note that way that her duties as a sovereign are intertwined with her religious duties as a Christian monarch.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #119 on: May 20, 2011, 01:29:49 AM »


Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God.  No republic can claim any spiritual validity.


Here is the Coronation Service for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

It is extremely beautiful and could easily be Orthodox.

Note that way that her duties as a sovereign are intertwined with her religious duties as a Christian monarch.

Fr. Hristos Voskrese....

I read the coronation service ,It is really is nice and as you say it could be Orthodox , other than the creed ,everything was was good.... police How different would this Coronation service be from Roman Catholic one , or will they be pertty much the same ,or was this the original catholic coronation used when england was catholic..... Huh
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 01:36:23 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #120 on: May 20, 2011, 08:11:27 AM »


Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God.  No republic can claim any spiritual validity.

Here is the Coronation Service for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

It is extremely beautiful and could easily be Orthodox.

Note that way that her duties as a sovereign are intertwined with her religious duties as a Christian monarch.

I knew it! You guys are really Anglicans in disguise!

Grin
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #121 on: May 20, 2011, 08:37:11 AM »


Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God.  No republic can claim any spiritual validity.


Here is the Coronation Service for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

It is extremely beautiful and could easily be Orthodox.

Especially this part, eh? ;-)


Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen:    All this I promise to do.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #122 on: May 20, 2011, 09:00:14 AM »


Lets not forget that the coronation of the sovereign is a liturgical function in which they are annointed with holy chrism, and their office is in essence handed to them by the Church, to rule by the right given to them by God.  No republic can claim any spiritual validity.


Here is the Coronation Service for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

It is extremely beautiful and could easily be Orthodox.

Especially this part, eh? ;-)


Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen:    All this I promise to do.


I think that anybody who thinks about it for a moment will realise at once that these are specifics which are natural and appropriate to the United Kingdom.  One can easily substitute something for the Roman Catholic Church if it were a ceremony for the King of Spain, or something Orthodox for Greece if it were a King of Greece.

By the way, do their Catholic Majesties of Spain and Belgium undertake to protect the Catholic religion during their coronation?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 09:26:58 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #123 on: May 20, 2011, 09:23:57 AM »

I know the Spanish monarch does not currently. They swear to uphold the constituion, I am not sure with regards to the Belgian monarchy however.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #124 on: May 27, 2011, 11:37:26 AM »

This is old, but rather interesting nevertheless ...

Quote
Conservative Roman Catholics seem to feel close to the Orthodox Church in ways that they do not necessarily feel close to Protestants. They sympathetically recognize that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have much in common with respect to structure (bishops, dioceses, etc.), piety (devotion to the Mother of God, monasticism, etc.), morality (opposition to abortion, etc.), authority (Tradition, Councils, etc.) and myriad other particulars. Conservative Roman Catholics also read good Orthodox writers like Thomas Hopko, Stanley Harakas, Anthony Ugolnik and so forth, and they usually like what they find there. So they wonder why the two groups don’t just get together and put better than three-quarters of all Christians under one (papal, naturally) roof, perhaps thereby causing Protestantism at last to see the light, get with the program and come aboard.

Father Richard John Neuhaus eloquently spoke for this Roman Catholic assessment at the Rose Hill Conference in South Carolina last May, when he declared that the only thing really separating the two groups was the bare act of removing the separation. Then, in a moving Protestant response to this suggestion, S. M. Hutchens addressed the Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”

More realistic than most men, Hutchens expressed doubts that this is likely to happen except in an apocalyptic setting, including apocalyptic-scale martyrdom. Some of us present, however, were deeply impressed by, nor will ever forget, the fervent sentiments of Christian charity proclaimed by Neuhaus and Hutchens. We wanted to sit down right there and then, send for the pope, the Eastern Patriarchs, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the appropriate Protestant leaders, instruct them to knock off the foot-dragging, fill out the necessary forms, share the Eucharist, exchange the Kiss of Peace, and thus resolutely make schism a thing of the past. Our hearts truly wept with the longing to do it.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/print.php?id=09-01-007-e
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #125 on: May 27, 2011, 01:27:20 PM »

The English monarchs are the only European monarchs that are coronated at all, presently.
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #126 on: May 27, 2011, 01:30:09 PM »

The English monarchs are the only European monarchs that are coronated at all, presently.

You mean British monarchs. The English Monarchy ended in 1707.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #127 on: May 27, 2011, 03:46:24 PM »

The English monarchs are the only European monarchs that are coronated at all, presently.

You mean British monarchs. The English Monarchy ended in 1707.


Thank you, thank you....we Yanks aren't the only ones to get hung up on history! .....like our side discussion the other day on another thread about whether the USA is or are.......   Smiley
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 10, 2011, 07:50:03 AM »

"Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ."

CCC 1778
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.418 seconds with 156 queries.