Pope Gregory against the Papacy?

[tdgesq]

Win? I did not know it was a contest.

Well, now you know.

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).

I don’t think it’s a bait and switch to point out that St. Gregory affirmed Pope Pelagius’ decree that annulled the synod of Patriarch John of Constantinople. What I do think is that you won’t answer the question. And that you won’t answer the question because you don’t agree that the bishop of Rome ever had this power. In other words, you disagree with St. Gregory as to the extent of authority of the Pope. Period. St. Gregory affirmed that the Pope has the power to annul a local synod of another Patriarchate. Why don’t you?

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

Oh I think it’s an interesting topic for this thread. Especially since you don’t agree that St. Gregory had the power to interdict all bishops from interfering with the property of monasteries. Yet that’s exactly what he did. Why don’t you agree with him on this point?

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

So then you are saying that St. Gregory was incorrect that a Pope could annul the synod of another Patriarchate and that St. Gregory didn’t have the authority to interdict all bishops who didn’t obey his decree. Isn’t it a little bit contradictory for you then to claim he was right about the term “universal bishop”?

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.

You may already know this, but the ironic part of this entire discussion is that Pope Gregory was objecting to the term “æcumenical patriarch,” which in Latin translated to Patriarcha universalis or the “universal bishop.” The Patriarch of Constantinople still uses the term “Ecumenical Patriarch” to this day. Pope Gregory then adopted the title Servus servorum Dei - Servant of the Servants of God. And we all know who uses that title today.

It is apologetical suicide for the Orthodox to try and use St. Gregory to support their notion of the papacy, because they don’t agree with a whole host of things that St. Gregory did and affirmed. Not even the use of the term ecumenical patriarch, which the See of Constantinople still uses. For some reason though, they keep coming back for a bludgeoning.

 

[SonofMonica]

Well, now you know.

I don’t think it’s a bait and switch to point out that St. Gregory affirmed Pope Pelagius’ decree that annulled the synod of Patriarch John of Constantinople. What I do think is that you won’t answer the question. And that you won’t answer the question because you don’t agree that the bishop of Rome ever had this power. In other words, you disagree with St. Gregory as to the extent of authority of the Pope. Period. St. Gregory affirmed that the Pope has the power to annul a local synod of another Patriarchate. Why don’t you?

Oh I think it’s an interesting topic for this thread. Especially since you don’t agree that St. Gregory had the power to interdict all bishops from interfering with the property of monasteries. Yet that’s exactly what he did. Why don’t you agree with him on this point?

So then you are saying that St. Gregory was incorrect that a Pope could annul the synod of another Patriarchate and that St. Gregory didn’t have the authority to interdict all bishops who didn’t obey his decree. Isn’t it a little bit contradictory for you then to claim he was right about the term “universal bishop”?

You may already know this, but the ironic part of this entire discussion is that Pope Gregory was objecting to the term “æcumenical patriarch,” which in Latin translated to Patriarcha universalis or the “universal bishop.” The Patriarch of Constantinople still uses the term “Ecumenical Patriarch” to this day. Pope Gregory then adopted the title Servus servorum Dei - Servant of the Servants of God. And we all know who uses that title today.

It is apologetical suicide for the Orthodox to try and use St. Gregory to support their notion of the papacy, because they don’t agree with a whole host of things that St. Gregory did and affirmed. Not even the use of the term ecumenical patriarch, which the See of Constantinople still uses. For some reason though, they keep coming back for a bludgeoning.

I hate to bump my own thread, but post of the month honors are due! Nice points, tdgesq. Well presented.

 

[Mickey]

It is apologetical suicide for the Orthodox to try and use St. Gregory to support their notion of the papacy, because they don’t agree with a whole host of things that St. Gregory did and affirmed.

LOL! Everything you write is apologetic suicide.

What most RC’s fail to comprehend about St Gregory is this:

Pope Gregory the Great teaches that the three Patriarchates which
existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch- founded by Peter,
were equal in power and authority. This Triptarchy existsted prior
to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected with a belief in
a Petrine foundation and equality of power for each of these three major Sees.

Note well:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
   the keys with Rome.
2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
   Alexandria and Antioch.
3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
   See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

**St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.
**
"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius] has spoken much in your letter to me about
the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he
himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

(Book VII, Epistle XL)

 

[Mickey]

So then you are saying that St. Gregory was incorrect that a Pope could annul the synod of another Patriarchate and that St. Gregory didn’t have the authority to interdict all bishops who didn’t obey his decree.

Something that muddles that claim is Rome’s refusal to recognize canon 28 of Chalcedon: in his eyes Constantinople was not a Patriarchate like Alexandria and Antioch (who, in his own words, he viewed as fellow sharers in St. Peter’s authority), but a part of his own Patriarchate. Such is the basis also, btw, of St. Clement’s letter to Corinth. Pope Gregory’s words were simply ignored, as I said, and even Pope Leo, who claimed that canon 28 would be invalid to all time, had to admit to the Empress that his own bishop ignored him and recognized canon 28 and Constantinople’s authority.

 

[Mickey]

It is apologetical suicide for the Orthodox to try and use St. Gregory to support their notion of the papacy, because they don’t agree with a whole host of things that St. Gregory did and affirmed.

LOL! You are forgetting that there was no supreme pontiff/infallibility at this time–remember Honorius?

Was St. Gregory the Ultramontanist like the present Vatican? No, but he had begun that process of changing (and even his ideas on this are demonstrably a change) the Early Orthodox Church of Rome into the Ultramontanist Vatican.

 

[utunumsint]

LOL! Everything you write is apologetic suicide.

What most RC’s fail to comprehend about St Gregory is this:

Pope Gregory the Great teaches that the three Patriarchates which
existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch- founded by Peter,
were equal in power and authority. This Triptarchy existsted prior
to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected with a belief in
a Petrine foundation and equality of power for each of these three major Sees.

Note well:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
   the keys with Rome.
2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
   Alexandria and Antioch.
3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
   See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

**St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.
**
"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius] has spoken much in your letter to me about
the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he
himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

(Book VII, Epistle XL)

Here is the principle that governed Gregory’s understanding of equality among bishops:

EPISTLE LIX: TO JOHN, BISHOP OF SYRACUSE

EPISTLE LIX: TO JOHN, BISHOP OF SYRACUSE
Nevertheless, your Holiness is not yet fully cognizant of the case in hand. For the Byzacent primate[4] had been accused on some charge, and the most pious Emperor wished him to be judged by us according to canonical ordinance. But then, on the receipt of ten pounds of gold, Theodorus the magister militum opposed this being done. Yet the most pious Emperor admonished us to commission some one, and do whatever was canonical. But, seeing the contrarieties of men, we have been unwilling to decide this case. Now, moreover, this same primate says something about his own intention. And it is exceedingly doubtful whether he says such things to us sincerely, or in fact because he is being attacked by his fellow-bishops: for, as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal.

Note the bolded part: if there is a fault in a bishop, then they are all subject to the bishop of Rome. If you look at the last sentence, you will see that he says "all according to the principle of humility are equal."

Now, concerning the quote you mentioned above, I believe you have to see it in this context. He is speaking in fraternal terms to them. Earlier on in this thread, I provided quotations where he specifically admonishes the Patriarch of Alexandria and even assigns him a penance.

continued

 

[utunumsint]

Another example occured with the bishop of Ravenna, a bastion of Byzantine power in Italy. Apparantly, this bishop did some kind of procession that prompted a rebuke from Gregory, here is that bishop’s response:

PISTLE LVII.
From John, Bishop of Ravenna to Pope Gregory.

And how should I be so daring as to presume to oppose that most holy see, which transmits its laws to the universal Church, for maintaining whose authority, as God knows, I have seriously excited the ill-will of many enemies against myself? But let not my most blessed lord suppose that I have attempted anything contrary to ancient custom, as is attested by many and nearly all the citizens of this city, and as the above-written most reverend notary, even though he had taken no part in the proceedings, might have testified, inasmuch as it was not till the sons of the Church were descending from the sacristy(5), and the deacons were coming in for proceeding immediately [to the altar] that the first deacon has been accustomed to invest the bishop of the Church of Ravenna with the pallium, which he has also been accustomed in like manner to use in solemn litanies.

…For this being allowed to the smaller churches constituted around the city, the apostleship of my lord will also be able in all ways to find, if he deigns to enquire of the venerable clergy of his own first Apostolical See, that as often as priests or levites of the Church of Ravenna have come to Rome for the ordination of bishops or for business, they all have proceeded(6) with napkins before the eyes of your most holy predecessors without any blame.

Note that this accused bishop describes Gregory as a legislator for the universal church, and also describes him as having the first Apostolic see. This is the real authority that Gregory had, even though he uses more polite terms with the patriarchs.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mickey]

Now, concerning the quote you mentioned above, I believe you have to see it in this context.

I think the context is clear.

St. Gregory states that St. Peter’s authority is defused in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, ie. the Autocephahlous Churches recognized at Nicea I, It shows that he did not see that authority as restricted to Rome, also shown by him stating that anything that Pope Eulogius does, he (Gregory) attributes to himself.

 

[Mickey]

Note that this accused bishop describes Gregory as a legislator for the universal church, and also describes him as having the first Apostolic see.

Again, as I stated earlier, although St Gregory did not view the papacy as it is viewed by today’s Vatican, he had begun that process of changing the early Orthodox Church of Rome into the Ultramontanist Vatican.

Nobody’s perfect.

 

[utunumsint]

Something that muddles that claim is Rome’s refusal to recognize canon 28 of Chalcedon: in his eyes Constantinople was not a Patriarchate like Alexandria and Antioch (who, in his own words, he viewed as fellow sharers in St. Peter’s authority), but a part of his own Patriarchate. Such is the basis also, btw, of St. Clement’s letter to Corinth. Pope Gregory’s words were simply ignored, as I said, and even Pope Leo, who claimed that canon 28 would be invalid to all time, had to admit to the Empress that his own bishop ignored him and recognized canon 28 and Constantinople’s authority.

Just to go over what Pope Leo said concerning the council, Chalcedon settled the doctrinal disputes, for which Leo was greatful, and his legates subscribed to the canons established there, except for canon 28. In his letter to the emperor, Leo says:

LETTER CIV: (To Marcian Augustus, about the presumption of Anatolius, by
the hand of Lucian the bishop and Basil the deacon.)
Leo, the bishop, to Marcian Augustus.

III. The City of Constantinople, royal though it be, can never be raised to Apostolic rank.

Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See[3]; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, an it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of God’s Spirit at the Synod of Nicaea for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the Lord’s whole house.

So here we see that Leo is denying Anatolius the rights of an apostolic see as defined in Nicaea. Not this next part where the biggest issue lay:

V. And to try to bring him to a right mind.
And hence, because it becomes your glorious faith that, as heresy was overthrown, God acting through you, so now all self-seeking should be defeated, do that which beseems both your Christian and your kingly goodness, so that the said bishop may obey the Fathers, further the cause of peace, and not think he had any right to ordain a bishop[4] for the Church of Antioch, as he presumed to do without any precedent and contrary to the provisions of the canons: an act which from a longing to re- establish the Faith and in the interests of peace we have determined not to cancel. Let him abstain therefore from doing despite to the rules of the Church and shun unlawful excesses, lest in attempting things un-favourable to peace he cut himself off from the universal Church.

Using his newly defined authority, he appointed a bishop to the Apostolic See of Antioch!!! This was against the canons and right order. Only the bishop of Rome had this authority. Which also helps clarify why Gregory was so insistent on bolstering the authority of the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria. The bishop of Constantinople was acting like he has authority over and above the bishop of Rome.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mickey]

and his legates subscribed to the canons established there, except for canon 28.

Exactly!

The bishop of Constantinople was acting like he has authority over and above the bishop of Rome.

The EP has had his title since St John the Faster.

He wasn’t excommunicated, nor did he lose his title, nor did the territories of Greece and Illyria return to Rome’s absolute control (although not fully integrated into the Patriarchate of Constantinople until 732, its detachment from Rome had started unabated from 421).

 

[utunumsint]

Exactly!

The EP has had his title since St John the Faster.

He wasn’t excommunicated, nor did he lose his title, nor did the territories of Greece and Illyria return to Rome’s absolute control (although not fully integrated into the Patriarchate of Constantinople until 732, its detachment from Rome had started unabated from 421).

Even though Anatolius himself renounced it after Leo’s rebuke. I only wish John was as pliable.

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. **Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. **Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mickey]

I only wish John was as pliable.

St John the Faster was a holy man and model of ascetism.

Your wishes for his increased “pliability” are inconsequential.

God bless.