I have a question for you all....and I come in peace

[Debi1967]

Really I do come in Peace I am just trying to get a better understanding of things so I thought if I started a thread here then you all could answer my questions and not have to worry about answering them in the OBOB thread I created.

My first is
Why do you have a problem with the Pope being called the Vicar of Christ?

I am confused on things when it comes to the differences and would like to have a better understanding.....

In Christ
Debi

 

[Philip]

Since it seems to imply a universal jurisdiction, I would object to it.

 

[Debi1967]

Since it seems to imply a universal jurisdiction, I would object to it.

Philip explain more please...you know I can be dense at times ....I really don't mean to be but I need to have it proved to me at least where this would be bad .....can you show me some Biblical reference.....and really I am not trying to be difficult here. You know that I am not. I just would like to understand it all....This is important to me if I am here asking questions.

Besides I don't look at it that way or at least that is not the way it was taught to me.

 

[Oblio]

It is counter to the Conciliar form of ecclesiastical authority seen in Scripture and the history of the Church.

 

[Philip]

Philip explain more please

Christ is the Head of the Church. If the Pope stands in Christ's place (which is what 'vicar' means), then the Pope is the head of the Church. We do not accept this doctrine. As such, the title is, to us, inappropriate.

can you show me some Biblical reference.....

A reference for what? That the Pope does not have a universal jurisdiction?

 

[Debi1967]

It is counter to the Conciliar form of ecclesiastical authority seen in Scripture and the history of the Church.

Please Remember that I am new to the Faith as well sometimes you guys talk over my head. I am awful with Church History I just converted 3 months ago.....I am doing everything I can to study hard but I hate History...(Yes I know that is bad). Could you try to make it a little plainer and try to give me places or links that I can research to look at so I can understand these things.

 

[Rilian]

Debi, I'm not Orthodox so I'm getting my head around some of these issues as well...

In the other thread you were talking about the church not being democratic, and I would agree. The difference I think in the Orthodox understanding, as it relates to your question, is that in Orthodoxy the church is viewed as conciliar. Namely that doctrine to be declared infallible or to have the mark of the spirit on it must be agreed upon in a council and assented to by all the bishops. I think the view is that the ultramontane papacy breaks this conciliar model. Bishop Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Church" which I think is a widely read introduction for many people has a section on The Great Schism, which I think gives some good historical detail on the issues surrounding the papacy.

My point about not setting up alternate church structures or holding councils is that the Orthodox Church hasn't done that, either out of conscious decision or because it lacked the political or military ability to do so. The net effect is really the same, it hasn't put up what I would call "additional" roadblocks in the road to reunion because it hasn't formulated additional doctrine or attempted to proselytize in Catholic areas. The Catholic Church as done both of those things, which you may say it has every right to do, but the fact is it appears to the Orthodox as though the Catholic Church approaches it with an olive branch in one hand and a stick in the other.

 

[Debi1967]

Christ is the Head of the Church. If the Pope stands in Christ's place (which is what 'vicar' means), then the Pope is the head of the Church. We do not accept this doctrine. As such, the title is, to us, inappropriate.



A reference for what? That the Pope does not have a universal jurisdiction?

Ok this I understand thanks Philip....But don't you believe the same as we do that He left Peter to be the Vicar of the Church in His place ....realizing it is His Church but needed a human head....so He left that position to Peter and then gave Him the task to finding succession through Apostolic Successors? just asking a question here...cause I do not know...

 

[Lotar]

Please Remember that I am new to the Faith as well sometimes you guys talk over my head. I am awful with Church History I just converted 3 months ago.....I am doing everything I can to study hard but I hate History...(Yes I know that is bad). Could you try to make it a little plainer and try to give me places or links that I can research to look at so I can understand these things.

By "Vicar of Christ," Rome ascerts that the pontiff is the head of the Church, the universal bishop. This teaching is contrary to both scripture and Church history.

(hope I'm not overstepping my bounds, I believe EO holds this true as well)

 

[Oblio]

Could you try to make it a little plainer and try to give me places or links that I can research to look at so I can understand these things.

Basically what it means is that, as Philip mentioned, there is no one singular authority of the Church, save Christ Himself. In the Church on earth, we are headed by Council, with no one fallible human having veto or rule over the others in matters of doctrine, dogma, and faith.

 

[Philip]

Please Remember that I am new to the Faith as well sometimes you guys talk over my head. I am awful with Church History I just converted 3 months ago.....

No problem. Welcome.

I am doing everything I can to study hard but I hate History...(Yes I know that is bad). Could you try to make it a little plainer and try to give me places or links that I can research to look at so I can understand these things.

The First Ecumenical Council (Council of Nicea) was called to denounce the heresy of Arianism (a belief that Christ was only a man). The Council also addressed less pressing matters. One of the canons (laws for the operation of the Church) they established was that the Bishop of Alexandria would be responsible for the churches near Alexandria just as Rome was responsible for the churches near Rome. Likewise, Antioch was charged with the guiding the churches near it. The Council is clear that Rome's authority is (1) limited to the area around Rome and (2) dependant on the canon established by the Council.

 

[Iacobus]

My first is Why do you have a problem with the Pope being called the Vicar of Christ?

In Christ
Debi

Hi Debi

There's a lot of history bound up in your question, but I think the answer is best illustrated by a story from the Book of Acts. If you'll remember, the early church got into a dispute over the treatment of gentiles entering the church: that is, did they have to be circumsized and otherwise become Jewish as a part of becoming Christian?

So, in Acts 15, St. Luke describes the council which took place in Jerusalem. The council was chaired by St. James, apparently since he was the Bishop of Jesusalem. St. Peter spoke, as did St. Paul and Barnabas. At the end, St. James announced the decision of the council.

What is important about the story is that it illustrates the way that the Orthodox believe the Church should be governed, i.e., in a conciliar fashion. The decision was one reached by all of the those present, instead of being a decision made by one person.

I know that reference is often made to Jesus' statement concerning Peter, to the effect that upon this rock my Church will be built. Eastern Orthodox believe that Jesus was speaking of Peter's faith, and not the person of Peter per se.

Hope that helps.

James

 

[Philip]

Ok this I understand thanks Philip....But don't you believe the same as we do that He left Peter to be the Vicar of the Church in His place

We recognize that St Peter held a position of honor among the Apostles.

....realizing it is His Church but needed a human head....so He left that position to Peter

We disagree. Look at Acts 15. The Church met in council to descide. There was no papal decree.

and then gave Him the task to finding succession through Apostolic Successors?

All the bishops are the successors of the Holy Apostles. It is interesting to note that the Bishop of Antioch is also a (direct) successor of Peter. It can be argued that the Bishop of Alexandria is as well.

 

[Debi1967]

You guys are great thanks for helping me so readily...and Welcoming Me here....I am going to research everything that you giving me information on.

 

[Photini]

Namely that doctrine to be declared infallible or to have the mark of the spirit on it must be agreed upon in a council and assented to by all the bishops.

But this isn't all...it also has to be accepted by the whole of the Church, (meaning the laity as well).

 

[Debi1967]

sorry all I seem to be having a problem with the CF servers again.....

Photini,
If we leave these decisions up to the laity as a whole then you would have those that know very little on things making important decisions for the Church ....for some reason this doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.
I would much prefer those that well educated in these matters making those important Church decisions. At least then I know that they are coming from accurate knowledge. At least then I know too that they are not being influenced by outside agendas...and are being kept true to any outside influences....the more you have influencing a situation the less control and more chaos it can create especially when people are not qualified to make the decisions because of not having a proper and full understanding.

Now if at any time I see that there is a decision made that is contrary to the Teachings given to me that I hold True and dear by the Lord then I am of course obligated to go with the Teachings of the Lord first. But then that is why all of the Church's teachings are told to us so that we also may investigate and decide for ourselves as to their validity. That in my way of thinking is exercising my Free Will to choose. Besides we are told to aquire accurate knowledge for ourselves as well...and not to just accept the words of men.

This is what I believe....I am sure I will be told I am wrong by someone, but I am a Apostolic and Biblical Catholic so they know where the majority of my credence goes.

 

[Oblio]

If we leave these decisions up to the laity as a whole then you would have those that know very little on things making important decisions for the Church ....for some reason this doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Laity is not making the decisions.



Also, the proof is in the pudding. The Church has remained sound in doctrine for 2000 years following this Biblical model of governance.

 

[Philip]

sorry all I seem to be having a problem with the CF servers again.....If we leave these decisions up to the laity as a whole then you would have those that know very little on things making important decisions for the Church

It is not about making decisions. It is about observing the life of the Church. We look to see the Faith that has been believed always, everywhere, and by all. No one can change the Faith. Not bishops. Not the laity. The Church as a whole is the pillar and support of the Truth.

I would much prefer those that well educated in these matters making those important Church decisions.

I would prefer that we follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit keeps and guides the Church. Look at the Council of Jerusalem:

Act 15:28a For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us...​

The Council (which included St Peter) acts a whole through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

At least then I know that they are coming from accurate knowledge. At least then I know too that they are not being influenced by outside agendas...and are being kept true to any outside influences....the more you have influencing a situation the less control and more chaos it can create especially when people are not qualified to make the decisions because of not having a proper and full understanding.

Perhaps you could give an example of one of these decisions. It is likely that we see the process differently. For example, we don't believe that the Council of Nicea decided that Christ is God. Rather, we believe that the Council confirmed that the belief that Christ is God is the Apostolic Faith that has always been believed.

Now if at any time I see that there is a decision made that is contrary to the Teachings given to me that I hold True and dear by the Lord then I am of course obligated to go with the Teachings of the Lord first. But then that is why all of the Church's teachings are told to us so that we also may investigate and decide for ourselves as to their validity. That in my way of thinking is exercising my Free Will to choose. Besides we are told to aquire accurate knowledge for ourselves as well...and not to just accept the words of men.

This seems to contradict what you said earlier. You stated before that decisions should be made by the more educated. Now, you state that we must decided for ourselves if their decisions are valid. If you decided that one of their decisions is invalid, do you reject it? If you can reject it, then what was the point of having them make a decision in the first place? Aren't you deciding what is valid on your own anyway?

 

[Debi1967]

Laity is not making the decisions.



Also, the proof is in the pudding. The Church has remained sound in doctrine for 2000 years following this Biblical model of governance.

Ok now you all are really throwing me off here part of the doctrines that we do go by have been established by the Papacy....and have remained in effect and sound ...so then why have a problem with it? I am so totally confused....From the current studies I have done so far nothing the Pope has said was ever without Biblical backing especially when it came ot doctrinal issues. Am I missing something here?????Help again.....So IOWs if He wasn't calling himself the Vicar then it would be OK am I correct? BTW these are genuine questions they are NOT meant to start an argument or get anyone mad at me I am confused.....On one hand you are telling me that the Church is wrong and then on the other you say it is right too....you just used the same argument that we use to prove the validity of the Church by saying that because it has withstood the test of time and still stands and because it has reamined sound in it's Teachings that it is the True Church. Ok I am baffled.....

 

[Philip]

Also, the proof is in the pudding.

Mmmmmm. Pudding.