Pope Gregory, he got it!

[simonthezealot]

Here is what Pope Gregory thought about a Universal Patriarch.
His condemnation for such titles are as follows... Directed toward Constantinopal.
Someone using this title will have fallen into pride, similar to the anti-Christ. He wrote: "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" (Ibid., 226).
Next, St. Gregory believed this title would be perilous to the Church. "It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall" (Ibid., p. 223).
Finally, he refused the title for himself ,he felt he was an equal to fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop 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" (Ibid., p. 227).
Would Pope Gregory be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church?
Doesn't this prove the passing of power to the bishop of Rome is an invention as well as his supremacy over the church?

 

[Metanoia02]

Do you have any idea in what context he made these remarks? Do you know any history before 1530? Or do you just want to pull quotes out of context from 2000 years of Church history without bothering to know the context?........ I didn't think so.

Oh gee, I guess you are the only smart person to disprove the teaching of the Catholic Church in one simple post, your brilliant!

 

[simonthezealot]

Do you have any idea in what context he made these remarks? Do you know any history before 1530? Or do you just want to pull quotes out of context from 2000 years of Church history without bothering to know the context?........ I didn't think so.

Really? You don't think?
So what do you know of me.
Are you going to quote ireneaus? diocletian, polycarp whom? I've access to all.

I posted an obvious question, don't attack me. Prove me wrong.

 

[simonthezealot]

Oh gee, I guess you are the only smart person to disprove the teaching of the Catholic Church in one simple post, your brilliant!

I'm not Pope Gregory is!
Read the post!

 

[QuantaCura]

And yet, he also says this:

"For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see."

Book IX, Letter 12

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

 

[Metanoia02]

I'm not Pope Gregory is!
Read the post!

Do you assume Catholic have never had to answer such ridiculous charge? Have you read the whole document, do you know the history? Of course not.

Pope gregory was resonding to a Bishop who called a council and tried to have himself diclared the Universal Bishop. By doing so he owuld have nuliffied the authority of the other bishiops. this is clearly afgainst Church teahing. Pope Gregory used his authority in this very document you quoted (and obvously have not read) to condemn such an act by a fellow bishop.


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, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched 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.

 

[simonthezealot]

And yet, he also says this:

"For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see."

Book IX, Letter 12

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

What is your point?
Look up the definition of apostolic see this paragraph is not contradictory to the OP.

 

[simonthezealot]

Do you assume Catholic have never had to answer such ridiculous charge? Have you read the whole document, do you know the history? Of course not.

Pope gregory was resonding to a Bishop who called a council and tried to have himself diclared the Universal Bishop. By doing so he owuld have nuliffied the authority of the other bishiops. this is clearly afgainst Church teahing. Pope Gregory used his authority in this very document you quoted (and obvously have not read) to condemn such an act by a fellow bishop.


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, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched 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.

Don't insult my intelligence, post where you clipped this from. Besides this also says nothing. It's speaking of his predessesor.

 

[QuantaCura]

What is your point?
Look up the definition of apostolic see this paragraph is not contradictory to the OP.

Of course they are not contradictory, just not in the way you think. Are you seriously not reading the context? He is specifically ruling on other churches and responding to accusations that the bishop of constantinople is not subject to him. How else could he prohibit and approve things?

Read the rest of that letter I linked to. he specifically calls the Roman Church the mother.

 

[QuantaCura]

Apostolic See, when in the singular "The Apostolic See" refers to the See of Rome, that of St. Peter, even though there were five aposolic sees.

To say the Bishop of COnstantinople is subject to 'a apostolic see" would make no sense, since he presides over one. But to say he is subject to the Apostolic See, means he has a superior.

 

[Trento]

Here is what Pope Gregory thought about a Universal Patriarch.
His condemnation for such titles are as follows... Directed toward Constantinopal.
Someone using this title will have fallen into pride, similar to the anti-Christ. He wrote: "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" (Ibid., 226).
Next, St. Gregory believed this title would be perilous to the Church. "It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall" (Ibid., p. 223).
Finally, he refused the title for himself ,he felt he was an equal to fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop 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" (Ibid., p. 227).
Would Pope Gregory be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church?
Doesn't this prove the passing of power to the bishop of Rome is an invention as well as his supremacy over the church?

One day you will find that you are fighting The body of Christ himself.


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]To show examples of prominent Evangelicals today who still make the objection, I'll quote from Norm Geisler/Ralph MacKenzie in Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995), quoting another prominent Evangelical Harold O.J. Brown : [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"In every age there have been those who considered the claims of a single bishop to supreme authority to be a sure identification of the corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the Antichrist. Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604) indignantly reproached Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople for calling himself the universal bishop; Gregory did so to defend the rights of all the bishops, himself included, and not because he wanted the title for himself." (Geisler/MacKenzie, page 206 citing Brown, Protest of a Troubled Protestant)[/FONT]​

If he really was denying his own papal authority (as asserted above by Geisler/MacKenzie and Brown), why would such an eminent Protestant (Anglican) scholar as J.N.D. Kelly write that Gregory I

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"was indefatigable...in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome's appellate jurisdiction in the east....Gregory argued that St. Peter's commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome" (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67).​

​

Gregory was Pope, and knew that he was Pope. Far from refusing the title, he showed that he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop. In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, "As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] ?"​

In so protesting Gregory exercised his universal jurisdiction as Bishop of Bishops, not hesitating to condemn John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople.​

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times]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. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]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.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]When Gregory denounced John the Faster's attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"As regards the Church of Constantinople, 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" (Epistles 9:26).[/FONT]​

Pope Gregory also appealed to the Emperor Maurice -- Epp v:37]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!"​

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"Most Religious Lord, am I defending my own cause, am I vindicating a wrong done to myself alone? NO; it is the cause of Almighty God, the cause of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. We know of a truth that many bishops of the Church of Constantinople have fallen into the whirlpool of heresy, and have become not only heretics, but heresiarchs." [Gregory quotes as instances Nestorius and Macedonius][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"If, then, any bishop of that Church assumes the title Universal, the Universal Church must be overthrown with the fall of the Universal Bishop. God forbid! Far from all Christian hearts be that blasphemous name, by which one bishop madly arrogates all honour to himself, taking it away from the rest of his brethren!"[/FONT]​

[/FONT]
​

 

[simonthezealot]

Of course they are not contradictory, just not in the way you think. Are you seriously not reading the context? He is specifically ruling on other churches and responding to accusations that the bishop of constantinople is not subject to him. How else could he prohibit and approve things?

Read the rest of that letter I linked to. he specifically calls the Roman Church the mother.

Trust me I understand the papacy was intact at this point and by many where considered the Mother church, it doesn't change his comments and the questions below..

Would Pope Gregory be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church?

Doesn't this prove the passing of power to the bishop of Rome is an invention as well as his supremacy over the church?

 

[simonthezealot]

One day you will find that you are fighting The body of Christ himself.

The Church was never intended to be an institutional government that is ruled with worldly power (See Matt. 23:8-10).
So I'm doubting that Trento!

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]To show examples of prominent Evangelicals today who still make the objection, I'll quote from Norm Geisler/Ralph MacKenzie in Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995), quoting another prominent Evangelical Harold O.J. Brown : [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"In every age there have been those who considered the claims of a single bishop to supreme authority to be a sure identification of the corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the Antichrist. Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604) indignantly reproached Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople for calling himself the universal bishop; Gregory did so to defend the rights of all the bishops, himself included, and not because he wanted the title for himself." (Geisler/MacKenzie, page 206 citing Brown, Protest of a Troubled Protestant)[/FONT]​

If he really was denying his own papal authority (as asserted above by Geisler/MacKenzie and Brown), why would such an eminent Protestant (Anglican) scholar as J.N.D. Kelly write that Gregory I .​

Trento more of this, if Kelly honestly believed this he'd have been Roman Catholic!
It is disengenuos to use Protestant writings to sway a debate in favor of Rome.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]​

​

[/FONT]​

 

[lionroar0]

Trust me I understand the papacy was intact at this point and by many where considered the Mother church, it doesn't change his comments and the questions below..

Would Pope Gregory be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church?

Doesn't this prove the passing of power to the bishop of Rome is an invention as well as his supremacy over the church?

There is much misconceptin about the Papacy.

1st.Would Pope Gregory be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church?

What do you mean by universal authority and how was this universal authority carried out?

When we get a better picture of this then we can go on to answering the question.

Doesn't this prove the passing of power to the bishop of Rome is an invention as well as his supremacy over the church?

Peace

 

[QuantaCura]

From another epistle about the same problem:


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 ofhell shall not prevail against it. And I willgive 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!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205020.htm

Of course, the problem with how the title universal bishop was being used, is that in this context it was taking away from the rightful authority and honor of other bishops and priests (read the rest of the above letter). In fact, citing St. Gregory himself, the First Vatican Council's contitution on the papacy explicitly rules out this erroneous interpretation.

 

[QuantaCura]

It's funny, two conflicting arguments are made concerning St. Gregory--that he denied the papacy and that he invented it and was the first to act like a modern pope. Anyway, if anyone is interested in seeing how he acted, here is his registry of letters:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3602.htm

 

[simonthezealot]

There is much misconceptin about the Papacy.


What do you mean by universal authority and how was this universal authority carried out?

When we get a better picture of this then we can go on to answering the question.



Peace

By universal authority, the authority of interpretation of the passages in scripture, divine right, jurisdiction and infallibility.

 

[BigNorsk]

Pope Gregory rejected the Apochrypha as scripture as well.

[SIZE=+1]"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." [/SIZE](In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

You would think Martin Luther took his position directly from Gregory the Great. Apochrypha-useful, but not authoritative.

Too bad the council of Trent anathemized Gregory.

Marv

 

[QuantaCura]

Pope Gregory rejected the Apochrypha as scripture as well.

Marv

No, he doesn't accept Maccabees as canonical when he was in Constantinople well before he became pope), which did not include Maccabees in its canon at that time. But, in the same writing he says they are not in the canon, he cites the other deuteros as "Holy Scripture:"

Pride is of course the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26) Moreover; proliferating from this poisonous root as its first offspring are seven capital sins: vainglory, envy, anger malancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust. For because he grieved that we were held in bondage by these seven derivatives of pride, on that account our Redeemer, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, joined spiritual battle for our liberation. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85.​

The former, it is said by Holy Scripture: Do not become like the horse and the mule which have no understanding (Psalm 31:9). The proud effort of the latter is blamed when it is said: Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability (Sirach 3:22). To the former it is said: Mortify your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, lust, eveil consupiscence (Col. 3:5), to the latter it is said: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceipt (Col. 2:8) St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Book 1, Part 3, 21, p. 116​

Hence it is that with difficulty is eternal rest attained by the powerful who are surrounded by numberless hosts of lieges and bound with the tight coils of a great variety of concerns. In this regard Scripture says A most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. (Wisdom 12:6) Hence Truth says in the Gospel: Unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required (Luke 12:48). It rarely happens that those who possess gold strive for eternal rest, inasmuch as Truth himself says: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God (Mt. 19:25). St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 4, 3, p. 133.​

There's more if you need them ​

 

[lionroar0]

By universal authority, the authority of interpretation of the passages in scripture, divine right, jurisdiction and infallibility.

I can comment on jurisdiction and infallability.

I have no idea what you mean by interpretation of Scripture and devine right.

I assume that you mean universal jurisdiction? Correct?

Yes he does universal jurisdiction but's not an empirial supreme jurisdiction.

He has universal jurisdiction as far as Bishops appealing to him. In the same way someone would appeal a decision to a higher court from a lower court.

He has universal jurisdiction as far as making sure that there are no dissenting bishops teaching against the teachings of the Church. Even in these cases it's not because he was sticking his nose in some else's business but, because it was brought to his attention by other bishops. Even then things are investigated to make sure the charges (whatever they may be) are indeed valid.

As far as being infallable. He can't teach any new doctrines. Nor can he teach against them. He can only proclaim infallability as far as something that has always been belived in and taught in the Church.

For example the Pope cannot infallably proclaim that the Bible is not inspired Scripture and it can no longer be read at mass.

This goes against Church teaching.

The Pope is also only infallable in matters of faith and morals.

Peace