Pope Gregory against the Papacy?

[Mickey]

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.

That is the whole point my brother. He is not going to gently reprimand others from trying to puff themselves up, and then refer to himself with the same arrogance that he is reprimanding others for. It is a common mistake for Roman Catholics to retroactively read modern day understandings of supreme papal universal jurisdiction into the writings of the early Church Fathers…when in reality…they knew of no such creature.

 

[utunumsint]

That is the whole point my brother. He is not going to gently reprimand others from trying to puff themselves up, and then refer to himself with the same arrogance that he is reprimanding others for. It is a common mistake for Roman Catholics to retroactively read modern day understandings of supreme papal universal jurisdiction into the writings of the early Church Fathers…when in reality…they knew of no such creature.

The other problem with this point of view is that it neglects the position of earlier pope’s on the authority of the bishop of Rome. I agree that it is wrong to read back into what other pope’s have said, but certainly, the bishop of Rome could not have been ignorant of what his predecessors had said about their authority, such as, for example, Pope Leo.

V. Points which cannot be settled at the provincial synod are to be referred to Rome.

Any of the brethren who has been summoned to a synod should attend and
not deny himself to the holy congregation: for there especially he should
know that what will conduce to the good discipline of the Church must be
settled. For all faults will be better avoided if more frequent conferences
take place between the priests of the LORD, and intimate association is the
greatest help alike to improvement and to brotherly love. There, if any
questions arise, under the LORD’S guidance they will be able to be
determined, so that no bad feeling remains, and only a firmer love exists
among the brethren. But if any more important question spring up, such as
cannot be settled there under your presidency, brother, send your report
and consult us, so that we may write back under the revelation of the LORD,
of whose mercy it is that we can do ought, because He has breathed
favourably upon us(7): that by our decision we may vindicate our right of
cognizance in accordance with old-established tradition and the respect
that is due to the Apostolic See: for as we wish you to exercise your
authority in our stead, so we reserve to ourselves points which cannot be
decided on the spot and persons who have made appeal to us.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mickey]

the bishop of Rome could not have been ignorant of what his predecessors had said about their authority, such as, for example, Pope Leo

I am not sure what you think that Pope Leo is saying–perhaps you are reading into it again. There were often appeals for Rome to act in a consultory capacity.

The church of Rome held a special place of honor among the earliest Christian churches. It was first among the communities that recognized each other as catholic churches holding the orthodox faith concerning God’s Gospel in Jesus. According to St Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch who died a martyr’s death in Rome around the year 110, “the church which presides in the territories of the Romans” was “a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, bearer of the Father’s name.” The Roman church held this place of honor and exercised a “presidency in love” among the first Christian churches for two reasons. It was founded on the teaching and blood of the foremost Christian apostles Peter and Paul. And it was the church of the capital city of the Roman empire that then constituted the “civilized world (oikoumene).”
orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

 

[tdgesq]

There is one way that you can always win with the Orthodox when it comes to St. Gregory the Great. Simply list Gregory’s actions and then ask if they (the Orthodox) believe that about the bishop of Rome. Here are some examples:

1)Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.

newadvent.org/fathers/360205043.htm

Any Orthodox here who agree that Pope Pelagius had the authority to annul a synod held by the then Patriarch of Constantinople? Any Orthodox that believe the bishop of Rome ever had the authority to annul a local council held by another Patriarch?

2)Of the privileges of Monasteries.

We therefore interdict in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and forbid by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, in whose stead we preside over this Roman Church, that any bishop or secular person hereafter presume in any way to devise occasions of interfering with regard to the revenues, property, or writings of monasteries, or of the cells or vills thereto appertaining, or have recourse to any tricks or exactions: but, if any case should by chance arise as to land disputed between their churches and any monasteries, and it cannot be arranged amicably, let it be terminated without intentional delay before selected abbots and other fathers who fear God, sworn upon the most holy Gospels.

Any Orthodox here who believe Pope Gregory had the authority to forbid any bishop from interfering with the property of monasteries? Do you believe that the bishop of Rome ever held that authority?

Since the Orthodox disagree that the bishop of Rome ever had the type of authority that Gregory explicitly approved and exercised, it appears a little bit silly to quibble over his dislike of the term “universal bishop” used by John of Constantinople.

 

[Mickey]

There is one way that you can always win with the Orthodox when it comes to St. Gregory the Great.

Win? I did not know it was a contest. St Gregory was Orthodox, so I think he might be a bit offended by that. LOL!

Your response is the classic bait and switch. If you would like to talk about the actions and /or letters of Pope Pelagius II, that would be an interesting topic for a thread (In fact I would enjoy to read these letters).

Also, a discussion about the Orthodox bishop of Rome and his relationship with various monasteries, would be an interesting topic for another thread.

When the Church was one, the Orthodox Popes of Rome did many things, sometimes correct—and sometimes not so correct—can you say “Honorius”?

But this thread is discussing the Orthodox Pope St Gregory the Great in reference to a specific title. This great saint of the Orthodox Church would not say such things as:

“Precurser to antiChrist”
“Whoever calls himself…or desires this title…”
“Vainglorious title”
etc. etc…

And then turn around and apply this title to himself!!!

It is very clear and a matter of common sense.

 

[crazzeto]

I guess I can’t argue with Micky, St. Gregory the Great most certainly was Orthodox, as he was the successor of St. Peter

 

[Mickey]

I guess I can’t argue with Micky, St. Gregory the Great most certainly was Orthodox, as he was the successor of St. Peter

Amen. All Orthodox bishops today are successors of **all **the Apostles.

 

[utunumsint]

But this thread is discussing the Orthodox Pope St Gregory the Great in reference to a specific title. This great saint of the Orthodox Church would not say such things as:

“Precurser to antiChrist”
“Whoever calls himself…or desires this title…”
“Vainglorious title”
etc. etc…

And then turn around and apply this title to himself!!!

It is very clear and a matter of common sense.

No bishop of Rome, and no council has ever used this term for any bishop, as far as I can tell, except of course the council that the bishop of Rome had revoked in Chalcedon.

God bless,
Ut

 

[crazzeto]

Amen. All Orthodox bishops today are successors of **all **the Apostles.

I would certianly agree that all valid Bishops who do not hold Heretical views (Eucibius of Ceaserea for instance) certainly are. Of course the question of being Orthodox certainly doesn’t address Gregory’s view on the role of the Bishop of Rome.

And certainly trying to stretch his comments out to mean “no bishop has any speacial honor or title” as some are trying to do, even when it contradicts their own Church teaching is a bit far fetched

 

[SonofMonica]

I guess I can’t argue with Micky, St. Gregory the Great most certainly was Orthodox, as he was the successor of St. Peter

No, no no. Pope Gregory was an Episcopalian. He lived into this reality later, as people became smarter and not so bigoted and established the United Nationals Millennium Development Goals. Pope Gregory was the first “green pope.” Oh wait, I’m simply making this up.

 

[Mickey]

Of course the question of being Orthodox certainly doesn’t address Gregory’s view on the role of the Bishop of Rome.

It is evident that he did not care for the title.

 

[SonofMonica]

It is evident that he did not care for the title.

From patriarchate.org/patriarch/narrative

“His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew ascended to the Apostolic and First Throne of the Orthodox Christian World on November 2, 1991. Since becoming the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, he has engaged all Orthodox Christians and the world’s diverse religious communities, policy makers and cultural leaders, with his message of peace, reconciliation, restoration, and renewed hope. As the Ecumenical Patriarch, a purely spiritual leader, he transcends national, cultural and ethnic divisions. For the world’s 250 million Orthodox Christians, he is the convener and visible sign of unity of the world-wide Orthodox Christian Church.”

And before you say anything about how your church interprets these puffed-up titles and statements about Bartholomew being a universal bishop, I will tell you that when you recognize my authority to make such statements about Orthodox bishops, I will acknowledge your authority to make such pronouncements about the Pope of Rome.

 

[Mickey]

Pope Gregory was the first “green pope.”

 

[Mickey]

And before you say anything about how your church interprets these puffed-up titles and statements about Bartholomew being a universal bishop, I will tell you that when you recognize my authority to make such statements about Orthodox bishops, I will acknowledge your authority to make such pronouncements about the Pope of Rome.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about?

 

[SonofMonica]

I don’t even know what you’re talking about?

What I mean to imply is that when people stray from the Pope and the structure of the Catholic Church, they inevitably set up some other hierarchy with a pope, whether it is an “Ecumenical Patriarch” with all sort of grand titles, or whether they treat themselves as a de facto pope.

 

[Mickey]

What I mean to imply is that when people stray from the Pope and the structure of the Catholic Church…

What you call “straying from the Pope”, I call “entering into the fullness of truth in the Holy Orthodox Church”.

But of course…you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[SonofMonica]

What you call “straying from the Pope”, I call “entering into the fullness of truth in the Holy Orthodox Church”.

But of course…you are entitled to your opinion.

And I appreciate your graciousness, as long as you recognize that I am not merely spouting off at the mouth, but attempting to take into account every schism that has ever occurred, as a matter of historical record. I do hope you find the fullness of truth, and consider you my brother in Christ, who is the fullness of truth (in my opinion )

 

[Mickey]

And I appreciate your graciousness, as long as you recognize that I am not merely spouting off at the mouth, but attempting to take into account every schism that has ever occurred, as a matter of historical record. I do hope you find the fullness of truth, and consider you my brother in Christ, who is the fullness of truth (in my opinion )

When one tries to study the reasons and results of every schism that has ever occurred, there becomes no time left for pure prayer of the heart.

Indeed you are my brother in Christ!

 

[crazzeto]

When one tries to study the reasons and results of every schism that has ever occurred, there becomes no time left for pure prayer of the heart.

Indeed you are my brother in Christ!

In this post is a sentament which I hope we would all hold near to our hearts… Whatever may divide us, at the core we should at least always remember that which we hold in common and let that unite us.

 

[Mickey]

Whatever may divide us, at the core we should at least always remember that which we hold in common and let that unite us.

May God bless you abundantly my brother in Christ!