• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
and if we understood the role of the pope and bishop properly, then we would understand why so many things are the way they are and we wouldn't be as confused.

Each one, preist, bishop, pope have a certain anatomy that none of us fully understand. "Why don't the bishop just do this, or why don't the pope just do that.." well, becuase it's not that easy.

The pope is basically just the final word when there is a dispute over doctrine. He's not ruler of all the land.

He's our visible spiritual head, or "front man" who represents Christ to us but he's not King of the Catholics.

I think we confuse the fact that in addition to, separate from being pope, he is a head of state, the Vatican. That he governs.
 
Upvote 0

BAFRIEND

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2007
15,847
1,173
✟23,362.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The pope is basically just the final word when there is a dispute over doctrine. He's not ruler of all the land.

in rabbinic terms in Mt 18:18 constitutes the authority from Jesus personally what is allowed or forbidden under law (what is bound on earth is also bound in heaven)

in Mt 20 Jesus tells Peter, "As the Father has sent me so I send you" and goes on to empower the priesthood to forgive sins

sorry, but your post makes it sound like the Pope is nothing more than someone who expresses a personal opinion that settles disputes; from God- it is a more than that alone
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Macarius

Progressive Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2007
3,263
771
The Ivory Tower
✟74,622.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Please forgive the intrusion, but I wish to ask a question. Ignoring titles (which are often more hyperbole than precision), I'm curious as to what role the posters here do envision for the bishop of Rome.

I understand that the Orthodox find in St. Gregory's quote an argument against the modern papacy (and I don't wish to further explain why, if you're interested in our replies please post in TAW and I'll supply them there), and that the RCC says we are misundestanding what is meant by "universal bishop."

In the RCC today, the Pope has the only authority to call councils, to approve councils, to deliver or decide on official doctrine, to settle disputes, and is the final word on the appointment or removal of bishops, priests, deacons, and orders. Forgive my ignorance, but the above is correct, yes?

To me, and this is where I (sincerly) need your help - as I hate anything approaching a strawman and wish to avoid committing one - how is that different from a universal bishop? I am admittedly bias, but I see that as the role of a bishop (overseer / teacher), but over the entire universal (oecumene) church. I'm certain there is a counter-explanation, and am wondering if one of the posters here could supply the RCC understanding of "universal bishop" and how it differs from the modern RCC understanding.

Thank you in advance, and forgive me if I offend.

In Christ,
Macarius
 
Upvote 0

BAFRIEND

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2007
15,847
1,173
✟23,362.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Please forgive the intrusion, but I wish to ask a question. Ignoring titles (which are often more hyperbole than precision), I'm curious as to what role the posters here do envision for the bishop of Rome.

I understand that the Orthodox find in St. Gregory's quote an argument against the modern papacy (and I don't wish to further explain why, if you're interested in our replies please post in TAW and I'll supply them there), and that the RCC says we are misundestanding what is meant by "universal bishop."

In the RCC today, the Pope has the only authority to call councils, to approve councils, to deliver or decide on official doctrine, to settle disputes, and is the final word on the appointment or removal of bishops, priests, deacons, and orders. Forgive my ignorance, but the above is correct, yes?

To me, and this is where I (sincerly) need your help - as I hate anything approaching a strawman and wish to avoid committing one - how is that different from a universal bishop? I am admittedly bias, but I see that as the role of a bishop (overseer / teacher), but over the entire universal (oecumene) church. I'm certain there is a counter-explanation, and am wondering if one of the posters here could supply the RCC understanding of "universal bishop" and how it differs from the modern RCC understanding.

Thank you in advance, and forgive me if I offend.

In Christ,
Macarius

one thing i think people kind of miss abuot the changes in the papacy in the 12th century- as for giving more emphasis on the central authority and going more codified- the Church itself in practice neve really changed

for instance- while the Pope is given the authority to appoint bishps- that does not mean (like in the modern instance of the SSPX) that another bishop will no defy him on it- and of course Lafebvre did just that and he and his bishops were excommunicated by JPII

the fact is that down the road the papacy can and will be remolded like clay
 
Upvote 0

Sphinx777

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2007
6,327
972
Bibliotheca Alexandrina
✟10,752.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
in rabbinic terms

Was it rabbinic terminology in 16th century Italy???

I am thinking no!!!

'Tis outrageous!!!



outrageous.jpg



;) :D :angel:



.
 
Upvote 0

Eucharisted

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2009
6,962
324
United States
✟8,761.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
THE CATECHISM

Supreme Pontiff, 882
associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, 1369
divine assistance to, 892
episcopal college and, 880-87, 895, 1559
infallibility of, 891
offices, power, and authority of, 100, 882, 892, 937, 1463, 2034

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.191 Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.192
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The episcopal college and its head, the Pope
880
When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406
885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407
886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first "by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church," and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.
887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414


895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.



1559 "One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college."39 The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church's ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop.40 In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom.



891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421


100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.



892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.



937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (CD 2).



1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69


2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.
 
Upvote 0

Eucharisted

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2009
6,962
324
United States
✟8,761.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Can I just ask in what "light" is this statement applied?



thanks :)

CD - Christus Dominus
2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.
 
Upvote 0

St_Barnabus

Secular Carmelite OCDS
Jun 6, 2008
1,822
394
Midwest USA
✟62,116.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Macarius said:
I am wondering if one of the posters here could supply the RCC understanding of "universal bishop" and how it differs from the modern RCC understanding.

What do you mean by the "modern RCC understanding?" The most modern understanding of the Pontiff is written in the Code of Canon Law, and refers to him as the Bishop of the Roman Church. Are we on the same page?

THE ROMAN PONTIFF
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
 
Upvote 0

Macarius

Progressive Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2007
3,263
771
The Ivory Tower
✟74,622.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What do you mean by the "modern RCC understanding?" The most modern understanding of the Pontiff is written in the Code of Canon Law, and refers to him as the Bishop of the Roman Church. Are we on the same page?

THE ROMAN PONTIFF
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

So to rephrase my question - how is his role as pastor of the universal church (with full, immediate and universal ordinary power) different from saying he is a universal bishop? I'm understanding that you consider those to be different things, and I'm wondering what the difference is (as I'm currently not understanding it).

The catechism quote given above just made me more confused, honestly, as it seems to be consistent with how I understand St. Gregory's reference to a universal bishop. Obviously we're still understanding these terms differently.

Thanks for the help so far! This is enlightening.

In Christ,
Macarius
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
and if we understood the role of the pope and bishop properly, then we would understand why so many things are the way they are and we wouldn't be as confused.

Each one, preist, bishop, pope have a certain anatomy that none of us fully understand. "Why don't the bishop just do this, or why don't the pope just do that.." well, becuase it's not that easy.

The pope is basically just the final word when there is a dispute over doctrine. He's not ruler of all the land.

He's our visible spiritual head, or "front man" who represents Christ to us but he's not King of the Catholics.
BINGO!
This is why people think that they are justified in suing the Pope for any scandal that happens anywhere in the world. They are looking at the Pope from a worldly point of view, as if he is like a worldly King with armies and physical control over people. But he is only our spiritual leader. He has no physical control over us. If everyone always followed whatever the Pope taught, there would be no scandals and no need for the confessional.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

St_Barnabus

Secular Carmelite OCDS
Jun 6, 2008
1,822
394
Midwest USA
✟62,116.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Macarius said:
So to rephrase my question - how is his role as pastor of the universal church (with full, immediate and universal ordinary power) different from saying he is a universal bishop? I'm understanding that you consider those to be different things, and I'm wondering what the difference is (as I'm currently not understanding it).

Could it be a matter of semantics that causes misunderstanding?

In reality, the Pope is/was, first of all, a Bishop who has been elevated by election to the office of Pope, and is now by virtue of that office, the Head of the College of Bishops. In reality, he is still the universal Bishop of bishops, so to speak, with the proper title of Pope.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This is a good discussion to have right now, for me, at least.

I am taking a church history course (Catholic) and we have obviously been following the development of the office of the papacy. It has become very clear to me that the issue is not as cut and dry as I used to think (and was told, as a Catholic). I'm not sure how it makes me feel. Confused, I suppose.

I think oftentimes that we as Catholics due the complexity of this issue a great injustice by suggesting that everything is and has always been so clear-cut.

as do we Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The other key thing to remember is that the Pope is not in hostile territory. The Pope is able to travel freely, he has the beautiful St. Peter's Basilica to celebrate the Mass in, and to can greet his faithful.

I don't know if any of you saw the 60 Minutes interview with His All Holiness Bartholomew, but his headquarters are not anything spectacular. He cannot travel freely, he lives in a country that is hostile to his faith, and basically wants him dead.

So politically speaking, the Ecumenical Patriarch is weaker because Constantinople is not the great power that she once was.

Not only is the EP in hostile territory, but so is the Jeruselum Patriarch, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Antioch. And it is only within the past 20 years that the Moscow Patriarch has come out of hostile territory.

So I think that because the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy are in these situations, and the current Pope of Rome is politically strong, people assume it was always that way.

Constantinople was once the powerhouse of all of Christendom and the world (prior to the schism). There used to be over 80 clergy to serve communion on Sunday at the Church of Hagia Sophia during the time of St. John Chrysostom because so many people came for Divine Liturgy. They had to have two choirs take turns singing during the Liturgy so that one would not get too worn out. The Emperor Himself used to ride in on a horse.

But alas, those are days gone by.

The Church of Hagia Sophia was turned into a Mosque after the fall of Constantinople and is currently a Museum. :sigh:

I never thought about your point regarding most of our Patriarchs. huh... interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Macarius

Progressive Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2007
3,263
771
The Ivory Tower
✟74,622.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Could it be a matter of semantics that causes misunderstanding?

In reality, the Pope is/was, first of all, a Bishop who has been elevated by election to the office of Pope, and is now by virtue of that office, is the Head of the College of Bishops. In reality, he is still the universal Bishop of bishops, so to speak, with the proper title of Pope.

Wait, so he is a universal bishop (a bishop of bishops)? Then why isn't St. Gregory's theology problematic / concerning?

I mean, I also see a link here (I see the pope's role in the RCC today as, essentially, that of a universal bishop), but other poster's in this thread have distinguished the two, and that's what I'm still not understanding.

In Christ,
Macarius
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua G.
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Could it be a matter of semantics that causes misunderstanding?

In reality, the Pope is/was, first of all, a Bishop who has been elevated by election to the office of Pope, and is now by virtue of that office, the Head of the College of Bishops. In reality, he is still the universal Bishop of bishops, so to speak, with the proper title of Pope.

So, to piggy back off of Macarius' question, how is what you are saying above different from what St. Gregory was saying. This isn't accusation and as Macarius said, we aren't trying to "getcha!" for surely there is a dissimilarity, but from reading both Anglian's posts and yours as well as the Catechism, it is difficult for me, so far, to see any difference between what Pope Gregory was condemning and how the position of the Pope is understood in the RCC.

Thanks.

Josh

EDIT: didn't see that Macarius already responded. before I posted this. I'll let my post here stand anyway.
 
Upvote 0

St_Barnabus

Secular Carmelite OCDS
Jun 6, 2008
1,822
394
Midwest USA
✟62,116.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Macarius said:
Wait, so he is a universal bishop (a Bishop of bishops)? Then why isn't St. Gregory's theology problematic / concerning?

Let's use an analogy here in the US. Most of our Presidents were first a Senator, and then by virtue of their election, become the Senator of senators, with the proper title of President. As President, he has a more universal governance than that of his home state (diocese). The function of a senator is to legislate, and a President cannot be said to no longer legislate, but that he legislates in a higher capacity than the limited office he held formerly. He is the Supreme Legislator. It may be a poor analogy, but I don't know how else to explain it.

I haven't read St. Gregory's theology, so I cannot comment about an understanding that was promulgated in a former century. The Canon Law definition I presented is dated 2002, and to the best of my knowledge is the current understanding of the Church. The diffence in my analogy of the president and that of the Papal Office is the Divine charism of infallibility bestowed solely on the reigning Pontiff and his successors by God.

I mean, I also see a link here (I see the pope's role in the RCC today as, essentially, that of a universal bishop), but other poster's in this thread have distinguished the two, and that's what I'm still not understanding.

Well, it's probably a misunderstanding of terminology -- I haven't read the whole thread to see what you mean. But keep in mind that even though the pope possesses the "function" of universal bishop, he is still not "just a bishop" like all others -- if you follow me.

I can be called woman, mother, wife, etc. These are all functions of my office depending on how you use them to describe me. None are wrong. But my primary function is a Catholic child of God with all the rights and obligations of an heir to the Kingdom, and my baptism has conferred that indelible mark.

I'll take a look at what you are all saying about St. Gregory, and maybe I can sort it out a little better.
 
Upvote 0

St_Barnabus

Secular Carmelite OCDS
Jun 6, 2008
1,822
394
Midwest USA
✟62,116.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Praise God for information technology! I had not read the OP's words from St. Gregory before entering this thread, but I found an excellent apologetic reference here that shows the wider picture of the truth. I realize this is a long post, but it gives an overview that is quite helpful if you stay with it.

The epistle [Epp v:44], which is far too long to give in detail, may be summarized as follows -- [Pope Gregory the Great to John the Faster]
"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the only bishop. [...]

"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]."

"By this unspeakable title the Church is rent asunder and the hearts of all the faithful are offended. It is written 'Charity seeketh not her own'; but your Fraternity seeks far more than your own. Again, it is written: 'In honor preferring one another'; but you strive to take away the honor of all when you unlawfully seek to usurp it for yourself alone. Already more than once I have reproved your sin through my representative, and now I write myself. If you despise this reproof, I must have recourse to the Church, as the precept of the Gospel commands (Matt 18:15-17)."
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Now what is the precise meaning of "universal bishop?"[/FONT]
[...]
In the second place, it might signify a bishop who "held the primacy of the whole world" 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 with respect to 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 --
 
Upvote 0