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

[St_Barnabus]

In conclusion to this long saga - LOL - we can settle with observing that Gregory's letter was addressed to an individual bishop as a matter of discipline. It was NOT a Bull, or Encyclical teaching or addressing the entire Church on either faith or morals. Therefore, it should NOT be understood in the light of an infallible declaration. Keep this in mind, that popes write many letters (epistles) such as this, but they are not official documents requiring belief by the faithful.

 

[Joshua G.]

I am still trying to wrap my head around what you've quoted.

Can you list out some major differences between what John the Faster was trying to claim and what the RCC claims for the office of the Pope. I think that's what it comes down to. The answer to my question may lie in what you've quoted above, but as I said, I am having a difficult time deciphering it.

Thank you so much for your patience.

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

In conclusion to this long saga - LOL - we can settle with observing that Gregory's letter was addressed to an individual bishop as a matter of discipline. It was NOT a Bull, or Encyclical teaching or addressing the entire Church on either faith or morals. Therefore, it should NOT be understood in the light of an infallible declaration. Keep this in mind, that popes write many letters (epistles) such as this, but they are not official documents requiring belief by the faithful.

There's irony in warning an Orthodox against treating a Pope's (or anyone's) words as infallible

 

[St_Barnabus]

Can you list out some major differences between what John the Faster was trying to claim and what the RCC claims for the office of the Pope.

From the same article, Josh:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]

[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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]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]

REPLY: 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] ?"

I hope you are ok with this extra info. It paints a pretty good picture, I believe, of what you are asking.[/FONT]

 

[Montalban]

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.

That's never been my understanding.

The Pope can act without consulting any other bishop, and can directly intervene in any part of the church he so sees fit. He is the ruler of the whole church, but of course rules through others because the logisitics of running it all himself would be impracticle.

My understanding is also that to be 'Catholic' you must be in communion with the Pope. He doesn't need to be in communion with you to be Catholic.

 

[Montalban]

he is right, most EO do not really understand what the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy

Do you have a survey to show this? I'd be interested in knowing more about how you acquire this knowledge of EO minds.

 

[Montalban]

well as pointed out before, the Catholic Church agrees with Pope St. Gregory about the "Universal Bishop" the Pope in Rome is not set up like the Universal Bishop that the debate St.Gregory was a part of.
it is taken out of context when used agianst the Catholic understanding of the Papacy

What is your understanding of "Universal Bishop" and also what "Universal Bishop" is used as when its used 'here' in an 'ant-Catholic' fashion?

Just so I can compare the two.

regards,
M.

 

[Joshua G.]

What is your understanding of "Universal Bishop" and also what "Universal Bishop" is used as when its used 'here' in an 'ant-Catholic' fashion?

Just so I can compare the two.

regards,
M.

I am sorry for being so slow on the uptake, but I still don't see the answer to this question. That's fine if at this time no one has a precise answer. Lack of an answer certainly doesn't prove anything either way but if anyone here is able to offer it, that would be great.

If you feel it has been answered, can you link that exact post. It is entirely possible that I either did not read it slowly enough or simply skipped it.

Thank you.

Josh

 

[St_Barnabus]

Oh my, I can't believe this ... let's try one more time.

1. Pope Gregory was the Church's Universal Bishop, and he knew it.

2. He was upset that a subordinate wanted to adopt the title for himself.

3. He wrote a letter to him deploring his action, and finally excommunicated him. This letter has been taken out of context by other religions to imply that Gregory did not believe he was the Universal Bishop of the Church.

4. The College of Bishops have equal authority under the Supreme Pontiff, but "Jack" wanted this title for himself above the others.

5. Anti-Catholics twisted this letter to falsely prove that there is no such title or office as a Universal Bishop.

6. Canon Law calls the Roman Pontiff, the Universal Bishop in today's church.

If this isn't clear, then I don't think anyone is looking for an answer at this time, but rather a debate.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Oh my, I can't believe this ... let's try one more time.

1. Pope Gregory was the Church's Universal Bishop, and he knew it.

2. He was upset that a subordinate wanted to adopt the title for himself.

3. He wrote a letter to him deploring his action, and finally excommunicated him. This letter has been taken out of context by other religions to imply that Gregory did not believe he was the Universal Bishop of the Church.

4. The College of Bishops have equal authority under the Supreme Pontiff, but "Jack" wanted this title for himself above the others.

5. Anti-Catholics twisted this letter to falsely prove that there is no such title or office as a Universal Bishop.

6. Canon Law calls the Roman Pontiff, the Universal Bishop in today's church.

If this isn't clear, then I don't think anyone is looking for an answer at this time, but rather a debate.

 

[Philothei]

Oh my, I can't believe this ... let's try one more time.

1. Pope Gregory was the Church's Universal Bishop, and he knew it.

2. He was upset that a subordinate wanted to adopt the title for himself.

3. He wrote a letter to him deploring his action, and finally excommunicated him. This letter has been taken out of context by other religions to imply that Gregory did not believe he was the Universal Bishop of the Church.

4. The College of Bishops have equal authority under the Supreme Pontiff, but "Jack" wanted this title for himself above the others.

5. Anti-Catholics twisted this letter to falsely prove that there is no such title or office as a Universal Bishop.

6. Canon Law calls the Roman Pontiff, the Universal Bishop in today's church.

If this isn't clear, then I don't think anyone is looking for an answer at this time, but rather a debate.

I thought it was said that the idea of the "universal" bishop was the not same as what the Pope stands for...Now it seems it is said that "as subortinate" assumed the "idea of Universal Bishop" I am confused here...

So by your definition if the "universal bishop" only applies to the Bishop of Rome .... then how could St. Gregory say that the universal idea of Bishop the Patriarch was assuming was acting as the anti-Christ etc...
He must then have been excluding himself somehow..or it would have been contradictory... Maybe I am totally wrong here but for sure confused

Thanks for the reply and your patience

 

[Montalban]

Oh my, I can't believe this ... let's try one more time.

1. Pope Gregory was the Church's Universal Bishop, and he knew it.

2. He was upset that a subordinate wanted to adopt the title for himself.

3. He wrote a letter to him deploring his action, and finally excommunicated him. This letter has been taken out of context by other religions to imply that Gregory did not believe he was the Universal Bishop of the Church.

4. The College of Bishops have equal authority under the Supreme Pontiff, but "Jack" wanted this title for himself above the others.

5. Anti-Catholics twisted this letter to falsely prove that there is no such title or office as a Universal Bishop.

6. Canon Law calls the Roman Pontiff, the Universal Bishop in today's church.

If this isn't clear, then I don't think anyone is looking for an answer at this time, but rather a debate.

Where in the letter do you believe he condemns others for trying to use the phrase, and not anyone per se using it?

My understanding is that the very term "universal bishop" or rather "bishop of bishops" was first used derisively by Tertullian. Are you aware of anything like this?

 

[Montalban]

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).

Originally the objection was that the quote is incorrect. Now it seems that it is correct but not used in the right context. Is that now the case?

 

[Aeyamar]

I know this was already quoted, but it seems to be the best explanation of what exactly Gregory meant exactly when he wrote against the idea of a universal bishop.

It is evident from all the 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 --

Personally I find it hard to believe he was speaking against Papal authority, especially since Gregory did more to expand it than almost any other pope. To boil down what the above says, his main objections were the following:

That the title was being used by a bishop who could not claim authority over the church since the primacy of the See of Rome above that of Constantinople had already been established by ecumenical council (and thus the Bishop of Constantinople could not be a universal bishop over and above Rome).

That the title, or at least the way he thought the title was being used, implied that the universal bishop was the only real bishop, and thus the only one that had the authority to, for example, run a diocese.

The last objection seems to be where people are getting stuck. The question is whether or not the papacy has become the effective equivalent of the only bishop given the many powers his office holds. I don't believe so (of course I'm Catholic, so big surprise there) mostly because of how sparsely that power is used. For example, the pope almost never interfere's with a bishop running his diocese, unless something very significant begins to go wrong and for the most part bishops have quite a lot of authority in how they run their diocese and in groups have quite a bit of influence on how the church is run as a whole.

It is also important to note that this was also probably an objection to John just claiming the title with no right to it. Pope Gregory was elected to his position of power and primacy with the consent of all the Roman Cardinals, whereas I believe the title John was trying to claim was simply assumed by him. (Although this title had been used sporadically before to refer to the Patriarch of Constantinople, he was the first to use it as an official title)

 

[Montalban]

Aeyamar, where is this quote from?

Are you aware that when 'catholic' was first used (by Ignatius) he said that everywhere a church is, headed by a bishop, there is the Catholic Church? This means that one can have, I believe, many Catholic Churches, whilst all are indeed still 'one' - the mystery of God is reflected here - as there are three persons, each fully God, all One

 

[Montalban]

I apologise for not citing Ignatius in my previous post...
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.



See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"

(emphasis added)

St. Ignatius “The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans" Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop

 

[Montalban]

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.

Here's what one pope said of his own authority...

III. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
IV. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
V. That the pope may depose the absent.
...
VII. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
...
XIII. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
XIV. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
XV. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
XVI. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
XVII. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
XVIII. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
XIX. That he himself may be judged by no one.
XX. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
XI. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
...
XXIV. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
XV. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
XVI. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
XVII. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

Pope Gregory VII The Dictatus papae (1075) quoted in Miller, M. C., (2005), "Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict: A Brief History with Documents", (Bedford; New York), pp81-83.

 

[St_Barnabus]

I thought it was said that the idea of the "universal" bishop was the not same as what the Pope stands for...Now it seems it is said that "as subortinate" assumed the "idea of Universal Bishop" I am confused here...

Did you note my post from Canon Law that calls the Roman Pontiff the Bishop of the Roman Church? Whatever one wants to believe about our history and St. Gregory, it cannot be assumed that the church has never believed in the primacy of the Pope as Head of the College of Bishops. I don't understand at this point why it is so difficult to follow the logic of this argument; i.e., that John the Faster wished to usurp the title for himself in detriment to the entire College of Bishops.

So by your definition if the "universal bishop" only applies to the Bishop of Rome .... then how could St. Gregory say that the universal idea of Bishop the Patriarch was assuming was acting as the anti-Christ etc...
He must then have been excluding himself somehow..or it would have been contradictory... Maybe I am totally wrong here but for sure confused.

From the link I posted earlier:

Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:
"I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" (Epistles 7:33).

Predictably, anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.

And here is the truthful context in light of Catholic teaching:

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.

My poor head is aching from trying to be perfectly clear. There are many apologists who have also given arguments on the internet, and I suggest that further research will have to be done by those who aren't able to grasp my limited presentation.

The bottom line is, Catholics have no problem with believing as we do, so we have no homework assignment. The burden falls to EO's if they wish to do honest research to truly understand, rather than supplant; it is readily available.

Thank you for your inquiry. God bless.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Aeyamar, where is this quote from?

Are you aware that when 'catholic' was first used (by Ignatius) he said that everywhere a church is, headed by a bishop, there is the Catholic Church? This means that one can have, I believe, many Catholic Churches, whilst all are indeed still 'one' - the mystery of God is reflected here - as there are three persons, each fully God, all One

Actually, in that part of the quote it says "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" but when talking about the a bishop it says, "wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there"

"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107

And the only Church that has historically called herself "The Catholic Church" and is still universally known by that name today is the one with a Pope in Rome.

And by the way, speaking of Saint Ignatius, here is another quote from him:

“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110

 

[St_Barnabus]

My understanding is that the very term "universal bishop" or rather "bishop of bishops" was first used derisively by Tertullian. Are you aware of anything like this?

No, and I have no desire to do homework to enter debate with you, since the outcome will not change a thing concerning either of our beliefs. It is an unproductive debate that requires far too much time dealing with sophism.

God bless.