OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 03:08:50 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 8321 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 6,150



« 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: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« 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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14,076


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

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

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

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
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: 4,275


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: 6,481


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: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« 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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 10,175


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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


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: 6,481


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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


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: 4,275


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: 6,424



« 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: 6,150



« 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: 6,150



« 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: 6,150



« 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
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


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 0.141 seconds with 66 queries.