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

WOW! Who knew what an intereting topic was being discussed under the ruse "Vicar of Christ" LOL (I had no idea...!)


This sounds like bigamy and not marriage in any Roman/Latin definition. If the first spouse is still alive post divorce and a Decree of Nullity has not be made there can be no Sacrament of Marriage celebrated with a new person. Is that what you mean? I think it is what you mean.

(Decree of Nullity means that on the day vows were exchanged, at least some essential element, these are defined in canon law, for a valid marriage was lacking so a valid marriage never existed, again so no "second" marriage, cuz there was no valid "first" marriage.)

I have a lot of reading to do to catch up on this thread and see where the Vicar of Christ morphed into marriage and more clobbering for Fr Ambrose Bless, Father

CCEO Canon 803 §1. Marriage with a non-baptized person cannot validly be celebrated.
§3. Concerning the conditions for dispensing, can. 814 is to be applied.
Canon 814 For a just reason the local hierarch can grant permission; however he is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled: (1) the Catholic party declares that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of falling away from the faith and makes a sincere promise to do all in his or her power to have all the offspring baptized and educated in the Catholic Church; (2) the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that the other party is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party; (3) both parties are to be instructed on the essential ends and properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either spouse.

I see no reference in this canon to "particular law of each Church sui iuris" but that proviso also appears in many of the CCEO canons, as it does in the one related to engagements:
Canon 782 §1. Engagements, which praise worthily precede marriage in the ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches, are governed by the particular law of each Church sui iuris.

The canons on marriage begin with Canon 776 [intratext.com].

I'm not clear whether this means something different from what we have in the Code of the Latin Church. Marriages between Latin Church Catholics and non-Christians, while they may still be valid in the eyes of the Church, are non-sacramental. With permission, a priest or deacon may witness such marriages but the sacrament of marriage is not celebrated. Again, the Latin Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Christian, the permission is called a "dispensation from disparity of cult."

Dear Stuart,

Another Service Book online, a little earlier translation than Hapgood's, this time in 1894, which contains the Order of a Second Marriage. Click on Chapter XII.

http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2007/05/great-book-of-needs-online.html

You will see that, contrary to the information provided in your quote above, it contains the Crowning, the essential blessing which immediately follows the Crowning, as well as the Dance of Isaiah around the table. It is, in other words, the Holy Mystery of Marriage.

OCA - Q&A site:

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=137&SID=3

Interesting statement regarding divorce:

The Orthodox Church never forces its members to marry outside the Church. It is the decision of the person who is planning to enter a marriage which cannot be sacramentalized in Church to marry outside the Church. How can the Church recognize a non-sacramental marriage as a sacrament when the individual performing the non-sacramental marriage does not recognize what he is doing to be a sacrament?

With regard to divorce, the Church recognizes civil divorce precisely because the Church does not grant divorces! In general, divorce is a civil matter with no corresponding state or ceremony in the life of the Church. One cannot compare the recognition of a civil divorce and the recognition of a civil marriage; it is a matter of apples and oranges. The Church does not deny that those involved in a civil marriage are married civilly; it would make no sense for the Church to accept a civil marriage as a sacrament since the person who performs civil marriages would deny that they are sacraments in the first place.

See response on other thread. To address the topic of this thread, Father, you cannot cast stones at the Catholic Church for returning to ancient Tradition on a trivial matter such as the modes of address proper to a bishop, and ignore the wholesale deviation from the Tradition by substantial segments of the Orthodox Church (including, it would seem, your own) on a matter of much graver import like the theology of marriage.

The Orthodox Church is unchanging--except when it changes.

I have here on my desk the necessary papers for application to the Diocesan Bishop and Diocesan Court for a grant of divorce. Perhaps they OCA shies away from the term 'ecclesiastical divorce" but my own Russian Church (Abroad) names it plainly.

I have no idea what this means. On what "modes of address proper to a bishop" have I cast stones at the Catholic Church?

Your repeated insistence that there was some sort of ecumenical import to the Catholic Church's restoration of the title "Vicar of Christ" to all bishops, and not merely the Bishop of Rome. You said that such changes are disturbing to the Orthodox because it calls into question the Catholic Church's fidelity to Tradition--even though you yourself agree that the title does belong to all bishops. As I said, you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

So, then, what are we to say about the Orthodox Church if it has changed not some mere honorific assigned to bishops, but a fundamental doctrine of its sacramental theology--and without so much as a moment of theological reflection, but merely as a slouch into leniency caused by pastoral expediency?

You are saying that there is an equivalency of your bishops as "vicars of Christ" and the Pope as "the Vicar of Christ"?

Patriarch Bartholomew's fraternal greetings to Cardinal Kasper on November, 2009 on the Feast of St. Andrew are worth repeating at this point.

"As is known, St. Andrew the First-Called of the apostles, whom we celebrate today, was the brother of St. Peter the chief among the apostles; together, they knew Christ and believed in Him. The two brothers held this faith in common; the two Churches, which they founded and sanctified by means of their preaching and martyrdom, I did also hold this faith in common. This same faith was proclaimed as doctrine by our common Church Fathers, who gathered from east and west in ecumenical councils, where they transmitted it as an invaluable treasure to our Churches in order that we might build upon this faith our unity in Christ. It is this same faith, preserved intact for an entire millennium both in the east and the west, which we are again called to establish as the basis of our unity, cleansing it from any chance addition or alteration, so that "with one soul and one mind" (Phil. 2.2) we may proceed to communion in the divine Eucharist, wherein lies the fullness of the unity of the Church of Christ.

This journey toward achieving full communion, as enjoyed by our Churches in common during the first millennium, has already commenced with the dialogue of love and truth, and continues by God's grace despite occasional difficulties. It is with vigilant concern and unceasing prayer that we follow the process of the ongoing official Theological Dialogue between our two Churches, co-chaired by Your Eminence, and now embarking upon the examination of critical ecclesiological issues, such as the question of primacy in general and that of the bishop of Rome in particular. Everyone is aware that this thorny issue proved a scandalous contention in the course of relations between our two Churches, which is why the eradication of this impediment from among us will surely greatly facilitate our journey toward unity. We are, therefore, convinced that the study of Church history during the first millennium, at least with regard to this matter, will also provide the touchstone for the further evaluation of later developments during the second millennium, which unfortunately led our Churches to greater estrangement and intensified our division.

In a world shattered by contrasts and conflicts, the exchange of peaceful and constructive dialogue constitutes the only way of achieving reconciliation and unity. In the apostolic passage read during this morning's Divine Liturgy, the Apostles are promoted as an example of utter humility in imitation of the crucified Lord: "When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we speak kindly. We have become like the rubbish of the world, the dregs of all things, to this very day." (1 Cor. 4. 12-13) If this ethos of humility must prevail in the relations of the faithful toward the persecutors of the Church, how much more so should it prevail in the relations among Christians themselves! The peaceful resolution of existing differences in inter-Christian relations by no means implies estrangement from truth. For truth does not fear dialogue; on the contrary, truth employs dialogue as a means of becoming acceptable even to those who for various reasons reject it. Hatred and fanaticism provoke the defensive entrenchment of each side in the blind persistence on its own positions and opinions, while consolidating differences and obliterating all hope of reconciliation. Such an attitude is absolutely unrelated to the spirit of the Christ's Gospel and the apostolic example. For only by "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4.15) do we truly speak the truth, just as only by loving truthfully (2 John 1) do we truly love. A dialogue imbued by a sincere spirit of humility guarantees this blessed combination, which comprises the only divinely-inspired way for all those who wish to be imitators of the Apostles. (1 Cor. 4.16)

It is this spirit of sincere and loving dialogue that the Church of Christ itself is today called to implement in its relations among divided Christians, while at the same time proclaiming it to all persons of good will, wherever they happen to be. We know from bitter experience that religion can easily be misused as a banner of fanaticism and conflict among people. We have personally emphasized on numerous occasions that war in the name of religion is war against religion. This is why interfaith dialogue is particularly mandatory in our age, without entailing any compromise in one's religious convictions. It is this dialogue that is encouraged and cultivated by our Ecumenical Patriarchate, which contributes in this way to the consolidation of peace in our contemporary world."

Before you start addressing this concern of yours with regards to the Orthodox Church, why not address it within your own Church? Discuss it with the Melkite clergy maybe?

A vicar is a vicar is a vicar. From the Latin "vicarius", "one who stands in the place of another". All bishops are equal in dignity and grace, there is but one episcopate, and all bishops being Vicars of Christ, all such vicars are likewise equal in dignity and grace.

The older title of the Bishop of Rome was Vicarius Petri, and that alone distinguished him from his brethren.

Until 1917, the Greek Catholics followed Orthodox praxis in regard to marriage. After the promulgation of the first uniform code of canons, they were forced into following the Latin discipline. I would have the older discipline restored, but of course, I would want it restored for all who follow the Byzantine Orthodox Tradition--including you. Because the Orthodox theology of marriage is inconsistent and incoherent unless one upholds the singularity of sacramental Christian marriage.

And yet our "incoherent" theology is easily shown to produce greater stability of marriage in the modern world and, should marriage break down and pastoral measures and remedies need applying, people's spiritual welfare is uppermost and not bringing longterm unhappiness into the lives of people already suffering from the fragmentation of their previous marriage.

By all means keep your system, but please allow us to keep ours.

I don't deny the abuses of the Latin system, widely regarded by a cynical laity as "Catholic divorce". On the other hand, Holy Mother Russia is no exemplar of marital fidelity, is it? Nor any Orthodox country for that matter. You make an invidious comparison between the pristine Orthodox ideal (as you see it, anyway), and the grubby Latin reality. Apples should be compared to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Doing so would point out just as much abuse, casuistry, cynicism and misery on the Orthodox side as the Catholic side. I can provide historical examples for your edification.