The Pope Is the Vicar not the Successor of Christ

The Pope Is the Vicar not the Successor of Christ

[He is the successor of St. Peter through Rome vis a vis the various Eastern Patriarchs (Catholic and Orthodox) who are the successors of St. Peter through Antioch – AQ Tom]

Gloria.TV News 4/30/18
The Pope Is Not the Successor of Christ

Talking to Gloria.tv, the Roman historian Roberto de Mattei criticised papolatry which considers the Supreme Pontiff to be almost god-like. De Mattei defines papolatry as the belief that the Pope is almost a successor of Christ, instead of being his vicar. He points out that the Tradition of the Church comes before the Pope, not the pope before the Tradition.

Doubts About the Heroic Virtues of the Recent Popes

De Mattei points out that only two popes of the Middle Ages, the Church’s most splendid time, were canonised. On the contrary, since Second Vatican Council all the popes are about to or have been canonised. De Mattei points out that the canonisation of a pope signifies that he has shown heroic virtue in governing the Church. But – quote, “It does not seem to me that this quality characterizes the popes during and after the Council.”

Former Benedict XVI Creates Confusion

Professor De Mattei accuses the former Benedict XVI of creating confusion by having left his office while at the same time keeping the papal attire, name and title. De Mattei points out that being a pope is an office not part of the sacrament of ordination. After an abdication, an office is lost, but the former Benedict gives the impression that the pope remains pope forever which has led to a division between those who follow Pope Francis and those who follow the former Benedict.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2018/04/30/the-pope-is-the-vicar-not-the-successor-of-christ/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

One comment on “The Pope Is the Vicar not the Successor of Christ

  1. Eastern Patriarchs [N.B. plural] of Antioch!?
    /
    Yes, but not in schism with one another (except for two in separate – Orthodox churches as was the case of the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1417 when there was first one and then a second rival to the legitimate pope in Rome (see above Wikipedia link for details).
    /
    Each of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs of Antioch is the head of a church “sui iuris (of its own right – not necessarily rite)” within the Catholic Church and it Orthodox counterpart: The Melkite Church and its Antiochian Orthodox counterpart, the Syrian Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Maronite Church which has no Orthodox or other counterpart.
    /
    The City of Antioch in question is not the modern one in Syria but the ancient one in what was then Greater Syria and now Eastern Turkey.
    /
    There was a Latin Patriarch of Antioch established by the Crusaders in 1098 in imitation of the various Eastern patriarchs there (as was also the case of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem). They were not patriarchs in the sense of being heads of churches “sui generi” but merely archbishops of those cities, because the Pope of Rome as Patriarch of the West is the head of the “sui generis” Roman or Latin Church within the Catholic Church.
    /
    The Latin Patriarchs of Antioch were resident there until the Muslim conquest in 1268, after which the occupant became a titular patriarch residing at the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome until the death of the last one in 1953. That patriarchate was formally abolished in 1964 (as a victim of the modernizing and ecumenizing policies of Vatican II?).

Leave a Reply