This argument cuts both ways. James White says the Holy Spirit is the only true Vicar of Christ, and that to call a man "Vicar of Christ" is idolatrous. But you could also say that to call the Holy Spirit "Christ's administrative deputy" betrays Subordinationist heresy, casting into doubt the full divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, in neither case is the argument valid, but all the same, if James White doesn't like it when the Vicar of Christ is called what he is, then I can say James White is a Pneumatomachian.
I was thinking of something along those lines, myself. The Holy Spirit can be neither an "agent" nor a "substitute" of God the Father (or the Son), for then He would not be God. The whole notion seems to me to imply a lesser representing a far greater.
What is curious to me is where White got this notion in the first place, since "vicar" is not a biblical term (and why he would be so dogmatic about such a thing). But we err if we try to locate a rational impetus in all of the many idle speculations of anti-Catholics.
Subordination in the economic trinity isn't heresy. Also, JW could reply to the article that even if you're right about the allowed usage of 'holy father', then by your reasoning it can be applied to all believers & shouldn't be restricted to 1 individual.
Subordination in the economic trinity isn't heresy.
But hopefully you know that it is heresy to assert subordination in the essential Trinity . . . which is, in fact, what the term "Subordinationist heresy" refers to. So, while your comment is true, it is also irrelevant.
Also, the term "holy father" CAN be applied to anyone who is a holy father. Otherwise it would be wrong to refer to the most important holy father on earth as THE Holy Father.
And let's be clear about this: James White's objection to "Holy Father" is not really about alleged encroachment on divine prerogatives: at the basis, it's really about his disbelief in the doctrine of papal primacy.
As I said in my response to Mr. White, this question, like the others, was part of his raising what I like to think of as a 'litany of doubt'. It's not about any of your valid answers (though I appreciate your answers). It's about catching the 80% (?) of Protestants who may have been exposed to the idea of toying with Catholic doctrine, and showing them that so much can be made dubious that it isn't worth the time of reading further. I think White doesn't really expect much of the 20% (?) of us who messed up and did read further...
Brevity to perfection. I didn't even think about the fact that Mr. White was dabbling with the subordinationist heresy. Good catch. That's also a very nice Ace in the Hole.
Subordination in the economic trinity isn't heresy.
Please elaborate, with a defense of White's own usage.
Also, JW could reply to the article that even if you're right about the allowed usage of 'holy father', then by your reasoning it can be applied to all believers & shouldn't be restricted to 1 individual.
This is backwards logic. If indeed it can be applied to "anyone" that is far more a problem for him, not Catholics, because this is maybe the best conceivable argument for our side: it not only is not restricted to God the Father, but can be (theoretically) applied to any person; therefore, obviously the pope is included in the set of "any person" and the objection vanishes.
ok, JW has responded to you. I wouldn't presume to speak for him so I didn't respond- but I think he meant vicar in the sense that the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ to perform actions in the world (ie. play a subordinate role in an economic sense).
It is not a term that I'd use, and (I believe) the pope uses it in a different sense (one with the power to define dogma, execute church discipline, etc. obviously not one who regenerates peoples' hearts).
So it was kind of talking past each other to use the term in the first place (the pope is not X, because the Spirit is Y).
In any case - IMHO this is a rabbit trail, both sides should cease and desist.
the pope is not X, because the Spirit is Y
Trouble is, what James White said is, "The pope is not X, because the Spirit is X." But the Spirit is not X.
Commenting by HaloScan
