Pope Gregory against the Papacy?

[Mickey]

I always chuckle when I see St Gregory’s quotes spun to agree with the modern day papacy. St Gregory is saying that the title is appropriate for no bishop.

**Pope St. Gregory:
**“I say it without the least hesitation, **whoever **calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a God, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others”.

Pope St. Gregory to the Pope of Alexandria:
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I always chuckle when I see St Gregory’s quotes spun to agree with the modern day papacy. St Gregory is saying that the title is appropriate for no bishop.

tdgesq’s post 17 already explains your quotes and provides others showing that St. Pope Gregory adhered fully to the teaching that the Roman See holds primacy and jurisdiction over the universal Church.

Post 2 of the thread, by FCEGM, also discusses the historical context of these events in detail and explains your quotes effectively.

 

[Mickey]

tdgesq’s post 17 already explains your quotes and provide others showing that St. Pope Gregory adhered fully to the teaching that the Roman See holds primacy and jurisdiction over the universal Church.

Post 2 of the thread, by FCEGM, also discusses the historical context of these events in detail and explains your quotes effectively.

Wrong. They were spun to the RCC view. Pope St Gregory surely did not see the Bishop of Rome to hold supremacy, infallibility and universal jurisdiction in the capacity of today’s modern day Pope.

 

[SonofMonica]

Wrong. They were spun to the RCC view. Pope St Gregory surely did not see the Bishop of Rome to hold supremacy, infallibility and universal jurisdiction in the capacity of today’s modern day Pope.

So, what is your fallible interpretation of Gregory’s statement that all bishops are subject to the Bishop of Rome if they are at fault? Because I am a lawyer, and although my interpretation of matters of faith and morals is fallible, I can tell you that is exactly how the Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution works:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

 

[Mickey]

So, what is your fallible interpretation of Gregory’s statement that all bishops are subject to the Bishop of Rome if they are at fault?

I do not have a fallible interpretation. The quote is quite clear.

I am a lawyer,

I don’t care if you are the president of the United States.

and although my interpretation of matters of faith and morals is fallible, I can tell you that is exactly how the Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution works:

That’s nice.

 

[SonofMonica]

I do not have a fallible interpretation. The quote is quite clear.

Right.

 

[Mickey]

Right.

 

[utunumsint]

If I understand it correctly, there were several patriarch (of Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem) and under each patriarch, there were metropolitans (like our archbishops), and beneath them, there were bishops.

Is this correct?

From what I understand, the patriarch of Constantinople, John, was trying to give to himself the name of universal bishop (ecumenical bishop), and that Pope Gregory saw this as somehow invalidating the priestly character of all bishops, and even all patriarchs.

From this, it is deduced by our orthodox and protestant brothers that Pope Gregory rejected his own papal authority. Is this the argument?

God bless,
Ut

 

[pete_29]

:tsktsk:

 

[Mickey]

Pope Gregory rejected his own papal authority. Is this the argument?

No. I think that the argument is that St Gregory rejected lofty titles—for any bishop.

 

[SonofMonica]

Is the title a bishop takes a matter of faith and morals?

 

[utunumsint]

No. I think that the argument is that St Gregory rejected lofty titles—for any bishop.

But by saying this, he was not negating all distinction between bishops. Or else, he would also be rejecting the office of Patriarch, Metropolitain, along with that of bishop. Within the colegiality of his day, there were still various levels of authority, even among bishops, and I might venture, also among patriarchs? He certainly had no objection to taking the patriarch of Constantinople to task over his errors.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mickey]

But by saying this, he was not negating all distinction between bishops.

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. Sacramentally, all bishops are equal.

 

[SonofMonica]

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. Sacramentally, all bishops are equal.

The Catholic church teaches the same thing, as far as I’m aware. Any difference in the Pope’s authority or privilege or divine protection from error come by virtue of his office, not his ordination or any difference in the sacrament of holy orders conferred.

 

[Mickey]

Any difference in the Pope’s authority or privilege or divine protection from error come by virtue of his office

And said doctrine did not come into existence until Pius IX declared it in conjunction with the ultramontanists in the 19th century.

 

[crazzeto]

And said doctrine did not come into existence until Pius IX declared it in conjunction with the ultramontanists in the 19th century.

That’s not true, it wasn’t dogmatic until then… It existed since Peter became the Bishop of Rome.

 

[utunumsint]

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. Sacramentally, all bishops are equal.

But this is exactly what Gregory was arguing and what the catholic church accepts.

EPISTLE LXVIII: TO EUSEBIUS OF THESSALONICA

For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.

He was definitely a defender of the dignity of bishops everywhere. However, that said, he certainly respected the authority of metropolitains. But even a metropolitain could be brought to judgement to the apostolic see. Whether that be Rome or one of the other patriarchates.

EPISTLE VIII: TO THE BISHOPS OF SARDINIA.

We therefore exhort your Fraternity that, conforming to the custom of your
churches, as well with respect to the announcement of Easter, as also if
need should compel any of you to travel anywhere for business of your own,
you should ask leave of your said metropolitan according to the rule
imposed upon you; except that, if (as we hope will not be the case) you
should happen to have a case against your said Metropolitan, then those who
are in haste on this account to seek the judgment of the Apostolic See have
licence to do so, as you know.

But the authority of Peter is quite different.

EPISTLE XXX: TO JOHN, SUBDEACON.
Gregory to John, &c

Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering
of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, especial
demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the
consecration of a bishop. Now on the death of Laurentius, bishop of the
church of Mediolanum, the clergy reported to us that they had unanimously
agreed in the election of our son Constantius, their deacon.

So just to reiterate, the objection he has over the term Universal Bishop does not seem to apply to his office as successor of Peter.

EPISTLE XX: TO MAURICIUS AUGUSTUS

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice
the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince
of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me?
Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired
to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith
fail not. And thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (Luke
xxii. 31). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou
shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18).
Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and
loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is
committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the
most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal
bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mickey]

But the authority of Peter is quite different.

No it’s not.

So just to reiterate, the objection he has over the term Universal Bishop does not seem to apply to his office as successor of Peter.

Yes. It applies.

St Gregory had no notion of a supreme infallible pontiff with universal jurisdiction. :nope:

I think he would have been taken aback by such a notion.

 

[Mickey]

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and
loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is
committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

 

[utunumsint]

No it’s not.
Yes. It applies.

St Gregory had no notion of a supreme infallible pontiff with universal jurisdiction. :nope:

I think he would have been taken aback by such a notion.

I would say that he did command different Patriarchs, but preffered to write in a manner not of an authoritarian, but in the manner of a fellow brother. For example, after the affair with John the Patriarch of Constantinople was settled, he had this letter to his successor.

EPISTLE XL: To Cyriacus, Patriarch of ConStantinople.
Gregory to Cyriacus, &c.
Observing diligently, most dear brother, how great is the virtue of
peace from the Lord’s voice, which says, My peace I give unto you (Joh.
xiv. 27), it becomes us so to abide in the love thereof as in no wise to
give place to discord. But, since we cannot otherwise live in its root
except by retaining in mind and in deed the humility which the very author
of peace has taught, we entreat you with befitting charity, that, treading
down with the foot of your heart the profane elation which is always
hostile to souls, you make haste to remove from the midst of the Church the
offence of a perverse and proud title, lest you should possibly be found
divided from the society of our peace. But let there be in us one spirit,
one mind, one charity, one bond in Christ, who has willed us to be his
members. For let your Holiness consider how hard it is, how indecent, how
cruel, how alien from the aim of a priest, not to have that peace which you
preach to others, and so abstain from offending your brethren out of pride.

He uses nice words to basically threaten excommunication, preffering to call it being “divided from the society of our peace”. He certainly had a lighter touch than Pope Victor and Stephen did.

Here is another example where he takes the Patriarch of Alexandria to task for allowing simony in his Patriarchate.

EPISTLE XLI: To Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria.
Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.
A conversation having arisen one day between me and my familiar friends
about the customs of churches, one who had studied the art of medicine in
the great city of Alexandria told us that he had a fellow-student attending
the same lectures, a boy of extreme depravity, who, he said, had been
suddenly ordained a deacon. And he added that he had procured ordination by
bribes and gifts; for he acknowledged that this custom had prevailed in the
holy Alexandrine Church. **On hearing this I was amazed, and exceedingly
surprised that the tongue of the most holy and blessed man the lord
Eulogius, which recalls so many heretics to the catholic faith, has not
extirpated simoniacal heresy from the holy Alexandrine Church. And who will
there be whose exhortation or correction will be able to amend this, if his
great and admirable teaching shall have left it without amendment?
Wherefore, for the absolution of your soul, for the increase of your
reward, that your works may be in all respects perfect before the eyes of
the tremendous Judge, you ought to make baste utterly to pull up and
eradicate simoniacal heresy, which was the first to arise in the Church,
from your most holy See, which is our’s(8).**For on this account it comes to pass that the holiness of ecclesiastical orders falls away from very many, because persons are
promoted to these orders, not for their life and deeds, but for bribes. But
if meritorious character, and not bribes, be sought after, unworthy persons
will not come to ordination. And by so much the more will reward begin to
accrue to you as any good men who have been promoted to sacred orders shall
have devoted themselves to the care of winning souls.

Here he is even assigning a penenance to his fellow Patriarch. This is certainly a model of Papal authority, knowing that it is better to lead with the gentel brotherly correction than with the stick. But even he could be tough, as was seen with the Patriarch John of Constantinople and his successor.

God bless,
Ut