On the Universal Jurisdiction of the Papacy

[LionHeart777]

I agree with the fact that Pope Leo the Great articulated a clear Catholic ecclesiology. Afterall, his words are cited in Lumen Gentium as a justification for the office. All that being said, I don’t think the often cited Epistula 40 is evidence for Gregory’s supposed Catholic views on ecclesiology. In my eyes, they seem to say nothing of the sort if not run against that notion. I’d be interested in seeing what other evidence there is for this assertion, if there is any.

I’d certainly be interested in discussing Pope Gelasius, but I think it best to first finish discussing Pope Gregory.

Also, do you have a direct citation of Bolotov rather than an indirect one through James Likoudis?

Again, sorry to disappoint, but I just had the one citation from Likoudis’ book.

As far as Pope St. Gregory, the only thing I could offer off the top of my head would be this evidence offered by 2 writers in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

**There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epistle 13.50, he speaks of “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches”, and in Epistle 5.154, he says: “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church.” As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epistle 2.46; 3.30; 5.37; 7.37). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epistle 9.156), and his authority could annul them (Epistles 5.39, 5.41, 5.44). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epistles 2.50; 3.52; 3.63; 9.26; 9.27). **

This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but **it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; “As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he writes in Epistle 9.12, “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.”
**
At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

Source: Huddleston, Gilbert. “Pope St. Gregory I (“the Great”).” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 7 Feb. 2017 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm. (Emphasis mine)

Also:

It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12). The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, “Hist. eccl.”, saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 7 Feb. 2017 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm. (Emphasis mine)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What I find interesting on the subject of the Petrine Apostolic See’s, deals with the providential guaranteed protection, when Jesus said to Peter alone;

Matthew 16:18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* **and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19
l I *will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever **you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

When ALL of the Petrine Apostolic See’s have fallen into heresy except Peter’s Apostolic Successor, the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By the fourth century, there were more Christians living outside the bounds of the former Roman Empire than within it; and the Churches in these regions had their own hierarchical authority not subject to oversight by the Bishop of Rome, e.g., the Catholicos of Armenia, the Catholicos of Baghdad, the Nasrani who looked to Persia for authority, and so forth. Christians in the West "discovered’ the existence of Thomas Christians in India in the sixth century. The Pope had certainly not been telling them what to do for 500 years.

 

[rcwitness]

By the fourth century, there were more Christians living outside the bounds of the former Roman Empire than within it; and the Churches in these regions had their own hierarchical authority not subject to oversight by the Bishop of Rome, e.g., the Catholicos of Armenia, the Catholicos of Baghdad, the Nasrani who looked to Persia for authority, and so forth. Christians in the West "discovered’ the existence of Thomas Christians in India in the sixth century. The Pope had certainly not been telling them what to do for 500 years.

Is this how you believe the Papacy is suppose to work? What happened to the “Thomas Christians”? Did they remain one body?

 

[PluniaZ]

By the fourth century, there were more Christians living outside the bounds of the former Roman Empire than within it; and the Churches in these regions had their own hierarchical authority not subject to oversight by the Bishop of Rome, e.g., the Catholicos of Armenia, the Catholicos of Baghdad, the Nasrani who looked to Persia for authority, and so forth. Christians in the West "discovered’ the existence of Thomas Christians in India in the sixth century. The Pope had certainly not been telling them what to do for 500 years.

Actually those Eastern Christians you mention were represented at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, where the Papal legate Hosius of Cordova wrote the Nicene Creed that the whole church accepted. Sadly the far eastern churches fell into the heresy of Nestorianism in the 5th Century, which the Pope had condemned, so while the Pope definitely was telling then what to do (not be Nestorian), various factors (language, vast geographical distances, politics, wars, etc) combined to keep the Nestorian Church of the East out of communion with the Church of Rome.

Thankfully when the Portuguese landed in India, many of the local Nestorians returned to orthodoxy and communion with the Church of Rome:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_India

 

[LionHeart777]

By the fourth century, there were more Christians living outside the bounds of the former Roman Empire than within it; and the Churches in these regions had their own hierarchical authority not subject to oversight by the Bishop of Rome, e.g., the Catholicos of Armenia, the Catholicos of Baghdad, the Nasrani who looked to Persia for authority, and so forth. Christians in the West "discovered’ the existence of Thomas Christians in India in the sixth century. The Pope had certainly not been telling them what to do for 500 years.

Hi Dave,

Here is the 9th century Bishop of Harran, Theodore Abu Qurrah:

"'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.’ (pp. 68-69)"

Source: jameslikoudispage.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm