www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Vicar of Christ

When was the title given to the Pope as Vicar of Christ and who was it given to him by? Also was this title ever recognized by the East in the first millenium?

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

This seems like a fair explanation, others may disagree, I would just substitute "Catholic Church" for Roman Catholic Church.

Originally, the title Vicarius Christi belonged to each and every bishop. To the extent that he was distinguished from the others, the Bishop of Rome was known as the Vicarius Petri. All bishops are still "vicars of Christ", and to the extent the Pope is a bishop, so is he.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

I believe we need to understand the circumstances of Pope Innocent III's claim that only he had the power to remove bishops from their seat. Some may view this as a Pope's attempt to impose a monarchical regime in the Church, but that is far from the truth. Pope Innocent III did not make this statement to aggrandize power to himself in the ecclesial life of the Church (though in secular matters, he was very active in promoting the authority of the papacy as judge in the moral life of kings). He did it to ensure that bishops would not take it upon themselves to tranfer from See to See (which was a big problem at the time). It was basically little more than an exhortation and safeguard of the episcopal dignity, and it was a "power" which he in fact never used.

Proof that this is the case is the fact that the decretal inter corporalia that contains this claim is actually a treatise on the indissolubility of the marriage between the bishop and his diocese. Throughout this treatise, it is stressed over and over again that the bishop, elected by the people of his diocese, is married to his diocese as Jesus is to his Church. The Pope solidly and plainly asserts that nothing on earth can dissolve this marriage between the bishop and his diocese. Again, this decretal was the papal response to the problem of the transference of bishops from See to See.

It must also be noted that this claim by the Pope was in response to an exigency occuring in the Latin Church, and the Latin Church alone. Some might be tempted to make a connection between this decree and the Pope's efforts in reuniting with the Eastern Church, but that would be a flimsy connection at best, and is in fact a false connection. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church's relationship to the Eastern Churches at the time.

Blessings

Not a particularly useful reference (what do you expect of a 1913 encyclopedia), but it does indicate that the current use of the term exclusive to the Bishop of Rome is rather late in the day. The older usage applied to all bishops has now at least nominally been restored throughout the Catholic communion.

I am always amazed, and indeed quite alarmed, at the casual way that teachings which were seen as immutable 100 years ago are now flicked off so easily. This bodes ill for our bilateral dialogue since it appears to the East as a very casual approach to tradition.

I have read this and it is 80% simply material lifted from the 1913 Encyclopedia which Stuart sees as kind of outdated.

Dear brother StuartK,

Great observation on its older usage and its resurgence in the Catholic communion, but I doubt the word "nominally" describes this use accurately. I don't think you'll find a Catholic reference manual today that does not explicitly state that bishops are indeed vicars of Christ. Indeed, the notion was in use by a Pope around the turn of the 19th/20th century (I forget the name at the moment), and was explicitly taught by V2.

Blessings

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Can you please be more specific as to the teaching that was "immutable 100 years ago?"

Humbly,
Marduk

Always wanting to have your cake and eat it, too?

The Orthodox position has been, for nearly a millennium, that the Latin Church has abandoned Tradition. The Orthodox insist that the Latin Church must restore the Tradition. When the Latin Church drops some of its medieval innovations, there you are lamenting what the East (to which, of course, I am affiliated) sees "as a very casual approach to Tradition".

It's not casual at all--it's doing precisely what the Church should constantly be doing: examining its beliefs, customs and usage to ensure that they are in fact consistent with the authentic Tradition. In this case, restoration of the title Vicarius Chrisi to the entire Episcopate is not an innovation but a restoration, a willingness to admit that a development within the Latin Church was not consistent with the outlook of the Fathers. You should be applauding that.

Great observation on its older usage and its resurgence in the Catholic communion, but I doubt the word "nominally" describes this use accurately. I don't think you'll find a Catholic reference manual today that does not explicitly state that bishops are indeed vicars of Christ.

You are correct, but I would submit that the formal teaching has not been internalized by the faithful, indeed, not even by most of the Latin clergy. How many Latin bishops would refer to themselves as "vicars of Christ"? How many priests or deacons, let alone laymen, would either know or accept that the title "vicar of Christ" belongs to all the bishops, and not just to one bishop?

There is always a lag between the introduction of a new teaching, or the restoration of an old one, and the acceptance of that teaching by the Body of Christ as part of its "spiritual DNA". In some cases, I would say that period may be almost as long as the time during which the previous teaching was in effect.

Do you have any documentation to show that the title Vicar of Christ is now to be used by every Catholic bishop?

I see that CCC 1560 mentions it but seemingly as if in passing, as if it is basing its words on some previous statement?

Note that the word "tamquam" carries quite a measure of significance.

CCC 1560 Unusquisque Episcopus, tamquam Christi vicarius, pastorale habet munus Ecclesiae particularis quae ipsi est concredita, sed simul pro omnibus Ecclesiis sollicitudinem cum omnibus suis in Episcopatu fratribus gestat collegialiter: « Quodsi unusquisque Episcopus portionis tantum gregis sibi commissae sacer Pastor est, tamen qua legitimus Apostolorum successor ex Dei institutione et praecepto apostolici muneris Ecclesiae una cum ceteris Episcopis sponsor fit ».

It does not mention "Christi vicarius" in passing as you say. The Latin is quite specific; first, by using "Unusquisque" (Every single, or Each and every) Episcopus (Bishop), then the "tamquam" (as in "tamquam leo rugiens") as Vicar of Christ. Restoration or not, bishops are back as Vicars of Christ. That particular Canon, by the way, expresses a very fine ecclesiology that I think both east and west can embrace enthusiastically. No?

Sorry, I ought to have been clearer. CCC 1560 is a paragraph form the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not a canon. If you have canons dealing with bishops as "Vicars of Christ" it would be useful to see them?