OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 10:25:30 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 8437 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,529


« 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

Large Marge sent me...
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
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,966


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
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,966


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
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,966


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: 12,417


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
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,966


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: 4,511


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: 12,417


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: 4,511


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: 4,511


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
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,055


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
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,055


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: 2,612



« 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.
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 0.201 seconds with 72 queries.