Now what is the precise meaning of "universal bishop?"
PP> To understand the sense in which Pope Gregory condemned the expression "universal Bishop," you must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it.
PV> Actually, it was Emperor Maurice the one who granted the title. In fact, the title was intended as quite inoffensive: the Ecumenical Patriarch was called that because his see was at the "ecumenical city," the capital of the Roman Empire, Constantinople. Incidentally, the chief city librarian was also called "Ecumenical," yet he did not possess any "universal jurisdiction" over the rest of the librarians in the Empire, nor the Ecumenical Archivist had any power over all other archivist throughout the Empire.
(more from Gregory the Great by F. Homes Dudden, volume 2, page 218-219)
It is evident from all the above letters that Gregory believed that very serious issues were involved in the concession or refusal of the title claimed by John, and it may be well, before going further, to inquire what was the precise meaning which he attached to the word "Universal" or "Ecumenical." Now, in the first place, the phrase "Ecumenical Bishop" might, as the later Greeks pointed out to Anastasius the Librarian, signify nothing more than a bishop who "rules a certain portion of the world inhabited by Christians. For the Greek word -oikoumene- may mean in Latin not merely the world, from the universality of which the word comes to mean 'universal,' but also a habitation or habitable place" [Anastasius Praef in Septimam Synodum (Labbe, vii pp. 30,31)].
In this sense the title is merely an honorary appellation to which any patriarch, metropolitan, or bishop might rightfully lay claim.
In the second place, it might signify a bishop who "held the primacy of the whole world" (-universi orbis praesulatum-), as chief of all bishops. If such is taken to be the meaning, then the assumption of the title by John amounted to claiming for the See of Constantinople the primacy hitherto enjoyed by Rome. Such a claim could not, of course, be tolerated by the Pope. But to Gregory the title meant even more than this.
For, in the third place, it might be argued that the word "Universalis" was equivalent in meaning to the word "UNICUS," and the designation "universal Bishop" might thus be interpreted as sole or only true bishop in the world. It must not be thought that John himself ever really professed to be in this way the sole bishop, the source of the episcopate. Nothing was further from his intentions. But Gregory believed that his claim was capable of this interpretation, and this accounts for much of the violence of his language respecting it.
Had the Patriarch of Constantinople been indeed acknowledged as the sole bishop, then it would have been true to say that the rest were not really bishops --
[Epp ix:156 -- "Nam si UNUS, ut putat, UNIVERSALIS est, restat ut vos episcopi non sitis."];
that the members of Christ were being subjected to an alien head; that the fall of the Church would coincide with the fall of the only bishop; that the title was blasphemous, and signalized the coming of Antichrist.
Such was Gregory's interpretation of the title -- no doubt in itself ambiguous -- claimed by the Patriarch.
PP> The Pope is not the "only" Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the "only" power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or "sole" bishop in his Patriarchate.
PV> Behold, Roman revisionism at its best.
No, that is how Gregory the Great interpreted the title. But the article I quoted written by Catholic Answers perhaps was wrong to say that is precisely how John the Faster meant it. Nevertheless, Pope Gregory did claim universal jurisdiction and both the Emperor and the Bishop of Constantinople "continually acknowledge it" (Epp ix:26).
PV> The Lord used the occasion to promulgate through the mouth of humble Gregory the fact that no Bishop had universal jurisdiction over the Church.
Here is where you are wrong, Pedro. Gregory CERTAINLY claimed universal jurisdiction and that is not denied by him in the "universal bishop" controversy with John the Faster. See the excerpts from his letters I originally gave to Mick James.
More from the above work Gregory the Great (volume 2, page 224-225) --
The controversy thus oddly terminated leads us to inquire -- What exactly was Gregory's view respecting his own position? What, in his opinion, was the relation of the Papacy towards the Churches? Now, Gregory has been accused of insincerity, in that while disclaiming the title Universalis, he yet claimed all the title implied. This charge, however, is misleading and is not true. As has been already pointed out, Gregory interpreted "universalis" in the sense of "unus"; and he certainly never pretended to be the sole bishop in Christendom.
On the other hand (though abhorring the title which might mean "sole bishop"), he NEVER FOR AN INSTANT denied, or made any pretence of denying, that the Pope was the PRIMATE and CHIEF of Christian bishops. There can be NO DOUBT that Gregory claimed a PRIMACY, not of honour MERELY, but of AUTHORITY, in the Church Universal. To him the Apostolic See was "THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES,"
[Epp xiii:50 -- "Sede apostolica, quae omnium ecclesiarum caput est."
cf. xiii:40 -- "Illud autem ammonemus, ut apostolicae sedis reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur. Tunc enim membrorum status integer manet, si caput fidei nulla pulset iniuria."]
and its bishop was called to undertake "the government" of the Church.
[v:44 -- "Indignus ego ad ecclesiae regimen adductus sum."]
The reason alleged for this preeminence was that the Roman Bishop was the successor and vicar of St. Peter, CHIEF of the Apostles [ii:46] to whom had been committed the "cura et principatus" of the whole Church, and on the stability of whom, as on a ROCK, the Church had been firmly established [Epp v:37; vii:37].
"Wherefore, although there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the principate the See of the PRINCE of the Apostles ALONE has grown strong in authority" [vii:37].
As the successor, then, of the CHIEF of the Apostles [Peter], the Pope claimed a DIVINE RIGHT OF PRIMACY [iii:30 -- "Apostolica sedes Deo auctore cunctis praelata constat ecclesiis"].
The decrees of councils would have NO FORCE "WITHOUT the authority and consent of the Apostolic See" [ix:156; cf. v:39,41,44].
Appeals might be made to the Pope against the decisions even of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and such decisions might be reversed by sentence of the Papal court [see pg 203ff in this volume].
All bishops, moreover, even the patriarchs, were subject to correction and punishment by the Pope, if guilty of heresy or uncanonical proceedings. "If any of the four patriarchs had done such a thing," he wrote again to a bishop who had disobeyed his orders [ii:50], "such contumacy could not have been passed over without the gravest scandal."
"As regards the Church of Constantinople," he said once more [ix:26], "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."
Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought by F. Homes Dudden, B.D. (volume 2, page 224-225)
PHIL PORVAZNIK (July 1995)
