Why are the Orthodox being taught this? [Moved from OBOB]

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)

Click to expand...

POPE-PATRIARCH (UPDATED) Mar-2-2006 (780 words) xxxi

Vatican removes title 'patriarch of the West' after pope's name
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In the 2006 edition of the Vatican's official yearbook, the pope is no longer referred to with the title "patriarch of the West," a change with potential ecumenical implications.

The Vatican press office confirmed the deletion of the title March 1, but offered no explanation for the change.

In the 2006 book, the pope is described as "bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the apostles, supreme pontiff of the universal church, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the province of Rome, sovereign of Vatican City State and servant of the servants of God."

The 2006 edition, which was presented to Pope Benedict XVI Feb. 18 and was to be on sale to the public by March 10, is the first edition printed since Pope Benedict's April 19 election.

In previous editions, the title "patriarch of the West" had been listed after "supreme pontiff of the universal church."

The last time the list of titles was changed was with Pope Paul VI's publication of the 1969 edition of the yearbook, the Annuario Pontificio. Pope Paul added the title "servant of the servants of God" and deleted the phrase "gloriously reigning."

Theologians and ecumenists contacted by Catholic News Service in Rome said the ecumenical impact of the removal of the "patriarch of the West" title would depend on the Vatican's reason for deleting it.

Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, retired prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, told the Italian news agency ANSA that the deletion was a "sign of ecumenical sensitivity" on the part of Pope Benedict.

The cardinal said that in the past some people used the title to provoke negative comparisons between the claims of universal jurisdiction by the worldwide "Patriarchate of the West" and the more restricted size and jurisdiction of the traditional Orthodox patriarchates.

"It seems to me the pope wanted to eliminate this type of comparison and that his gesture is meant to stimulate the ecumenical journey," Cardinal Silvestrini said.

Other experts, however, warned that the deletion could provoke concern if it is seen as the Vatican saying patriarchal authority is meaningless when the pope has universal authority over the church.

Msgr. Michael K. Magee, a priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia who presented his doctoral thesis on "The Patriarchal Institution in the Catholic Church" Feb. 20 at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said that by early in the sixth century "patriarch" had become a "somewhat fixed" title used to refer to certain church leaders.

However, he said, "not until 642 can be it ascertained that a pope actually referred to himself by the title 'patriarch of Rome,'" and "by the end of the seventh century the residence of the bishop of Rome will come to be known as the 'patriarchium.'"

In the same way that the pope, as bishop of Rome, shares some of the characteristics of other bishops, Msgr. Magee said, the pope "as patriarch of the West -- or, more specifically, as head of the Latin Church -- has counterparts in the Eastern patriarchs who are also heads of larger particular churches comprised of a number of local churches of the same ecclesial tradition."

"The pope is not only a bishop, nor is he only a patriarch, but is also each of these as the first among local bishops and the first among the patriarchs," Msgr. Magee said.

Presenting his dissertation, Msgr. Magee said that already in the 1960s the former Father Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, had identified a need to draw a distinction between the pope's roles as pastor of the universal church and as patriarch of the Latin-rite Catholic Church.

After the split of the churches of the East and West, Msgr. Magee said, in the West "an understanding of ecclesial authority cast increasingly in juridical rather than sacramental terms seemed to render the patriarchal role comprehensible only as a delegation or emanation from papal authority."

The Philadelphia priest said Franciscan Father Adriano Garuti, a former official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University, had written that if the pope is referred to as one of the Christian patriarchs it downplays his universal authority.

Msgr. Magee argued, however, that in addition to his universal ministry the pope is head of a "particular church" -- the Latin-rite Catholic Church -- distinguished by its own liturgy and discipline.

Maintaining a distinction between the pope's role as head of the universal church and as a patriarch, Msgr. Magee said, could be seen as protecting and opening up "the rightful place of other particular churches within catholicity."

END

Click to expand...

Joshua G. said:

So, it's not only that the Pope does not interfere in the administrations of the Eastern Rite, he has no right to, for infallibility doesn't cover this. Correct me where I am wrong.

Also, the Pope does not and cannot appoint bishops in the Eastern Rite. Is this also correct?

Click to expand...

The Eastern churches have their own canon law and are not bound by the Code of Canon Law of the Western church. Each church is governed by a patriarch (the patriarchs of Alexandria, Babylon, and Cilicia, and three patriarchs of Antioch). A patriarch with his synod has the highest authority within his jurisdiction and is even able to appoint bishops and create dioceses. Nonetheless, the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, whose membership includes the Eastern Rite patriarchs, has general competence over the Eastern rites.

Click to expand...

Eucharisted said:

I found this so-called "quote" from Pope Gregory the Great:



I've seen some lies on Orthodox websites about Catholic doctrine (saying we buy souls out of Purgatory, saying we sell New Age artwork, etc.), but this one takes the cake. I googled the quote, and the only websites that came up with it are two anti-Catholic, one Orthodox, and one Protestant (see for yourself). I also used Yahoo to search for a legitimate source of the quote, but again, the same results - and a couple more Orthodox websites - was returned (see for yourself).

Click to expand...

Eucharisted said:

I did. I got reported.

Click to expand...

Eucharisted said:

If a Pope ever says something that isn't Catholic doctrine, he is speaking his own mind, and heresy if what he says is not according to Catholic doctrine. The argument over what Pope said what on the papacy is fallacious, based on a misunderstanding of papal infallibility. Because it is a fallacy, it is void.

Click to expand...

Eucharisted said:

I did. I got reported.

Click to expand...

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.

Click to expand...