P
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Indeed, mileage varies, because you accept a certain set of axioms about ecclesiology which the Orthodox (and even some Roman Catholic theologians) do not. Your statement perhaps should be revised to read, “interpreting history in virtue of accepting a certain set of axioms which are not universally considered to be self-evident is to become Roman Catholic.”Paraphrasing Newman: To be deep in history is to cease to be an Orthodox.
I say this because the longer I listen to the arguments, the less reason I think there is for the Orthodox to remain separated from the Chair of Peter.
Your mileage may vary.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I retract my former statement. It is plain that Lutherans, not being versed in the art of humor could never produce satire, such that it is unthinkable that there could exist or ever have existed something called by such a contradiction of terms as “Lutheran Satire”.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well technically you asked a rhetorical question *implying *that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are two peas in a pod. (Post #463.)
D
dzheremi
Guest
So you sailed past the thing you actually asked about in order to focus on something else entirely so that you can take the quote out of context to attempt to prove an unrelated point to people who are never, ever going to agree with you once they read the sentence you’ve cherry-picked in the context of the larger quotation?
You are welcome. If you’ll excuse me, I have to go bang my head against the wall over a completely different matter…
:banghead::banghead::banghead:
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think we have a term for that—confirmation bias.So you sailed past the thing you actually asked about in order to focus on something else entirely so that you can take the quote out of context to attempt to prove an unrelated point to people who are never, ever going to agree with you once they read the sentence you’ve cherry-picked in the context of the larger quotation?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m curious if you’ll actually bother to do this. So often on this forum you’ve dismissed the very thought of studying deeper into an issue for a deeper understanding in favour of cherry picking quotes. If you would actually delve deeper into this I will be both amazed (in a good way) and surprised. I hope you do it.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
My own experience (academic and personal) suggests there is something more to it than that. We should be keeping Randy in our prayers.I think we have a term for that—confirmation bias.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Did you not see? Peter has spoken, and his response was quite clear: “Shhhhhh.” I thereby have recanted of my former error of asserting that there exists something such as “Lutheran Satire.”Wait!
Jon
I think he meant Shhhhh, regarding the existence of that particular website called “Lutheran Satire”, not that Lutherans are incapable of satire.Did you not see? Peter has spoken, and his response was quite clear: “Shhhhhh.” I thereby have recanted of my former error of asserting that there exists something such as “Lutheran Satire.”
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“peas in a pod”
Peter, sorry but I have searched that post and this thread, and I cannot find a post where I wrote those words. Are you sure???
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Like I said, the implications of that quote are huge for those who continue to argue against the development of the papacy…much more important than the question I actually asked.So you sailed past the thing you actually asked about in order to focus on something else entirely so that you can take the quote out of context to attempt to prove an unrelated point to people who are never, ever going to agree with you once they read the sentence you’ve cherry-picked in the context of the larger quotation?
U
UbiCaritas15
Guest
I’m sad all of this is too long for me to read 
R
Reuben_J
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, to satisfy you, I need to read through the entire collected works of Pope Gregory and his contemporaries so that I can come to the same conclusions that scholars spent their whole lives arriving at?
Sounds like I’ll be up late doing a lot of reading.
Do I get extra credit for reinventing the light bulb and electricity, too?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Personally, I think I should get extra credit for turning in my assignment so quickly. 
QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?
ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.
What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.
Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:
“I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” (Epistles 7:33).
“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if besides Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?” (Epistles 5:18)
Predictably, anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.
Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)
Gregory’s writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches" (13:1).
He said, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church" (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).
He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope’s approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees (9:56; 5:39,41,44).
He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs, and rebuked lax and erring bishops (2:50; 3:52,63; 9:26,27).
When Gregory denounced John the Faster’s attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope:
“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).
Source: Catholic Answers, This Rock, (December 1992).
+++
Like you, I agree with our Pope Gregory, too.
But for those who appeal to Gregory and his view on the “three places” or sees, let me ask this question: Just how much of Gregory can you stand?
QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?
ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.
What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.
Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:
“I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” (Epistles 7:33).
“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if besides Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?” (Epistles 5:18)
Predictably, anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.
Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)
Gregory’s writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches" (13:1).
He said, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church" (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).
He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope’s approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees (9:56; 5:39,41,44).
He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs, and rebuked lax and erring bishops (2:50; 3:52,63; 9:26,27).
When Gregory denounced John the Faster’s attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope:
“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).
Source: Catholic Answers, This Rock, (December 1992).
+++
Like you, I agree with our Pope Gregory, too.
But for those who appeal to Gregory and his view on the “three places” or sees, let me ask this question: Just how much of Gregory can you stand?
P
prodromos
Guest
Seems you are not reading Pope Gregory so much as reading Catholic apologetics on Pope Gregory.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If others have already plowed the field, why do I not benefit from their efforts?
- Status