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

[Eucharisted]

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

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.

Gregory the Dialogist - OrthodoxWiki

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).

 

[AllForJesus]

In my knowledge (though i must be completely wrong) even Eastern Catholic believe this: The pope not being universal bishop but being the first among the firsts... Correct me if it's the Eastern Catholic say something different.

So in this sense it's a accurate quote...

 

[Eucharisted]

In my knowledge (though i must be completely wrong) even Eastern Catholic believe this: The pope not being universal bishop but being the first among the firsts... Correct me if it's the Eastern Catholic say something different.

So in this sense it's a accurate quote...

It can't be accurate if it's not an actual quote. That's what concerns me, that the Orthodox are being taught false quotes from saints.

As for what the Eastern Catholics believe about the Pope, this is a good document on the subject.

 

[Anhelyna]

Eucharisted

it would be easier for you to get your answer by posting this in TAW - they won't actually eat you

 

[AllForJesus]

Didn't they put any book reference? or which sermon...? I will check in the books i have anyways... but just it makes it simpler if we know which one...

 

[Anglian]

It is not only the Orthodox, one sees this on some Protestant sites too.

It shows the dangers (as though there were not already clear) of not reading things in context, and in so doing, applying them to a context which they were never meant for. It is such a common practice (look at the thread in GT on Unam Sanctam to see it refuted) that one can only wonder whether it is intellectual laziness or just the assumption that the RCC is always in the wrong, which allows of its continuance?

John the Faster was asserting his right to be bishop over all his diocesan bishops and to interfere in the running of their affairs. Pope Gregory was condemning this as being incompatible with the role of bishops as always understood; no bishop should be this sort of universal bishop. To quote from Homes Dudden's 1905 work on Gregory:

"My brother, love humility, and do not try to raise yourself by abasing your brethren. Abandon this rash name, this word of pride and folly, which is disturbing the peace of the whole Church. How will you face Christ at the judgment, when by this sinful title you have tried to subject His members to yourself? 'Universal Bishop,' indeed! Why, you imitate Lucifer, who said: 'I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will be like the Most High' [Isa 14]."

Ah, say those who imagine that this is exactly what the Roman Pontiff has always done, this is inconsistent. Well, yes, if this was what Popes like Leo the Great and Gregory the Great had done, it would have been.

In excommunicating John the Faster, Gregory acted upon the traditional understanding of the role of the Pope, which was that of supreme arbiter in cases of dispute. If a patriarch or a bishop, both of whom inherited the role of the Apostles, erred, and persisted in error, then the See of St. Peter had the powers of St. Peter to act. It is in this sense that the Pope is Supreme (not universal) Pontiff.

Of course, knowing this would mean a few minutes reading things up and a willingness to understand that the Pope is not a spiritual dictator. This last would be such a revelation to some that it is unlikely they would believe it even were an archangel to tell them.

Still, we can continue to correct poor history wherever we come across it. A moment's thought ought to be enough to make the people think that there has to be more to it than meets the eye - but perhaps any stick to beat the Pope with will do? Who knows why people do these things?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Eucharisted]

It is not only the Orthodox, one sees this on some Protestant sites too.

It shows the dangers (as though there were not already clear) of not reading things in context, and in so doing, applying them to a context which they were never meant for. It is such a common practice (look at the thread in GT on Unam Sanctam to see it refuted) that one can only wonder whether it is intellectual laziness or just the assumption that the RCC is always in the wrong, which allows of its continuance?

John the Faster was asserting his right to be bishop over all his diocesan bishops and to interfere in the running of their affairs. Pope Gregory was condemning this as being incompatible with the role of bishops as always understood; no bishop should be this sort of universal bishop. To quote from Homes Dudden's 1905 work on Gregory:


Ah, say those who imagine that this is exactly what the Roman Pontiff has always done, this is inconsistent. Well, yes, if this was what Popes like Leo the Great and Gregory the Great had done, it would have been.

In excommunicating John the Faster, Gregory acted upon the traditional understanding of the role of the Pope, which was that of supreme arbiter in cases of dispute. If a patriarch or a bishop, both of whom inherited the role of the Apostles, erred, and persisted in error, then the See of St. Peter had the powers of St. Peter to act. It is in this sense that the Pope is Universal Pontiff.

Of course, knowing this would mean a few minutes reading things up and a willingness to understand that the Pope is not a spiritual dictator. This last would be such a revelation to some that it is unlikely they would believe it even were an archangel to tell them.

Still, we can continue to correct poor history wherever we come across it. A moment's thought ought to be enough to make the people think that there has to be more to it than meets the eye - but perhaps any stick to beat the Pope with will do? Who knows why people do these things?

peace,

Anglian

Thanks! Who's Homes Dudden?

 

[Anglian]

Eucharisted

it would be easier for you to get your answer by posting this in TAW - they won't actually eat you

Perhaps not But they will give the Orthodox understanding of this. It is, as my last post attempts to show, one of those commonly misunderstood things.

Hope you are well and that it is not too cold and snowy

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Thanks! Who's Homes Dudden?

Anglican scholar, fellow of Lincoln College when he wrote the two volumes on St. Gregory, later Master of Pembroke College Oxford. A respected authority on these things, and one with no Catholic bias at all.

If one starts with the view that the Pope is a 'universal bishop', and one starts with no understanding of the role of a bishop, or the role of the Pope, it is easy to see how the error arises. It should not, however, go uncorrected.

Like HD, I am not a Catholic, and although nowhere near the Greek and Latin scholar he was, impartial enough to want the historical truth to be out there.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Eucharisted]

Anglican scholar, fellow of Lincoln College when he wrote the two volumes on St. Gregory, later Master of Pembroke College Oxford. A respected authority on these things, and one with no Catholic bias at all.

If one starts with the view that the Pope is a 'universal bishop', and one starts with no understanding of the role of a bishop, or the role of the Pope, it is easy to see how the error arises. It should not, however, go uncorrected.

Like HD, I am not a Catholic, and although nowhere near the Greek and Latin scholar he was, impartial enough to want the historical truth to be out there.

peace,

Anglian

Thanks again!

 

[Rhamiel]

neat thread, maybe we can talk more about what it means for the pope to be first among equals?

 

[Anglian]

Dear brother,

A good idea.

My own Church, like the EO, recognise that the early Church accorded the See of St. Peter a primacy of honour.

What might be useful is if we could proceed on the basis that the understanding of the role of the Pope has developed. That is not to say that the full grown oak was not visible in the acorn, but it is to say that the sapling we see in the second century was not identical to the oak we now have - although it would become that oak.

I say this because so many discussions on this theme break down as Catholics insist that St. Leo the Great's powers were what Benedict XVI's are, and Orthodox deny it. If Catholics mean that, properly understood, they were, I have no problem (though many OC would); if Orthodox mean that the powers were not understood then the way they are now, I don't think we should object.

Any office which has lasted nearly two thousand years (and what other is there?) has developed over time. Our understanding of the role of the successor of St. Peter has been one of the dividing lines between us; perhaps if we Orthodox understood the concept of a developing understanding, it would help us?

If I have transgressed the limits of your generous hospitality is saying this, I apologise, and will withdraw the post gladly. I seek only to see where such a discussion might start.

peace,
Angian

 

[Eucharisted]

Any office which has lasted nearly two thousand years (and what other is there?) has developed over time.

In light of the prophecies of the Messiah, that is theologically impossible. It would mean Jesus Christ has Himself changed, and God cannot change. It is, however, non-theologically possible for the office to change - for example, to change the title of the office.

 

[Anglian]

In light of the prophecies of the Messiah, that is theologically impossible. It would mean Jesus Christ has Himself changed, and God cannot change.

Thank you, brother. What I should have written is that our understanding of that office has developed. Would that be accurate?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Eucharisted]

Thank you, brother. What I should have written is that our understanding of that office has developed. Would that be accurate?

peace,

Anglian

Yes. The office has also changed titles, too. As we progress deeper into the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ, our understanding of the Church deepens as well.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

While I will not vouch for the accuracy or inaccuracy of Orthodoxwiki (like all wiki sites, one must take the writings with a grain of salt), if you are interested in reading about the Orthodox view of Papal Primacy from legitimate sources, here are two:

Papal Primacy by Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue by The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky of the Orthodox Church in America

I am not posting these links to cause debate, but rather to inform and educate my friends in OBOB about the Orthodox position on Papal Primacy.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Handmaiden,

Thank you so much.

It is always good to have access to what we each hold.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Eucharisted]

While I will not vouch for the accuracy or inaccuracy of Orthodoxwiki (like all wiki sites, one must take the writings with a grain of salt), if you are interested in reading about the Orthodox view of Papal Primacy from legitimate sources, here are two:

Papal Primacy by Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue by The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky of the Orthodox Church in America

I am not posting these links to cause debate, but rather to inform and educate my friends in OBOB about the Orthodox position on Papal Primacy.

Thanks for the links!

 

[Anglian]

Yes. The office has also changed titles, too. As we progress deeper into the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ, our understanding of the Church deepens as well.

Thank you. That is a very good way of putting it.

What I think I see across the ages is an office instituted by Christ, the uses of which only became apparent as the challenges facing His Church became clear.

Thus, as Christians disagreed about how they should interpret certain matters, they discovered the supreme wisdom of Christ in providing someone who could adjudicate in matters of perplexity.

Across the ages, our understanding of this office has developed. Those, such as my own Church, separated since the 450s, still hold the understanding then present; we have not understood what has happened since. Perhaps if we did, we would see that what has happened is that that sapling has gown into a mighty oak?

peace,

Anglian

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Glad to be of help Anglian.

I would also invite anyone who has questions about the Eastern Orthodox Church to stop by The Ancient Way. As Michie, Gwendolyn, Anhelyna, Rhamiel, and other members of OBOB can testify, we are always more than happy to entertain any questions our Catholic friends may have and share our baklava with them.