Posted on 07/04/2005 5:53:36 AM PDT by MarMema
ping
This is mistaken. St. Gregory opposed the title of "Universal" because he understood it to mean that no one else was a bishop, i.e., that John the Faster, as "Universal Patriarch", was the only bishop in the whole world!
Some Roman Catholic writers claim that Gregory was vindicating the supremacy to himself. But it was not so. The letters of St. Gregory the Great are available to anybody who wishes to read them. The readers can judge by themselves.
Was it really not so?
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 thy 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 of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give 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! ...
Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity, lest, by something being given peculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them. How is it then that we do not seek the glory of this title even when offered, and another presumes to seize it for himself though not offered? (Register V, Epistle XX)
And he elsewhere claims the supremacy:
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. (Register IX, Epistle XII)
even in Rome the right to claim a primacy was not recognized
Historically, this is untenable. Primacy of Rome based on divine right was claimed by the Popes since the fourth century, and accepted also outside of Rome, by such great Western Fathers as St. Augustine himself. See Dom John Chapman's excellent articles here, which have been excerpted from Studies on the Early Papacy:
The Condemnation of Pelagianism - Part I
The Condemnation of Pelagianism - Part II
When we click on the link to your website, we are brought to a page that features a picture entitled "a Papal Nuncio enjoys a laugh with Joseph Goebbels."
Thanks for sharing your anti-Roman Catholicism with us.
This anti-Catholicism puts all of your recent postings in true perspective, and I'm grateful that you're so open about it.
You know, I remember seeing a photo, from 1965 I think, in which Pope Paul VI got up from the papal throne in Saint Peter's Basilica and hurried down to meet the delegation sent from the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (perhaps at the time that the mutual excommunications of 1054 were rescinded, an act I'm sure you would consider to be invalid).
To the horror of some of his aides, Pope Paul knelt down and kissed their feet as a prelude to offering them the kiss of peace.
I guess that, for people like yourself, the Pope should have kissed something else.
That the author blithely accepted this explanation and you did not notice it's improbability makes one wonder what else in the article might be inaccurate or unsupportable interpretation of texts. Some of the responses begin to point out examples. Together, all of this screams: PROPAGANDA!
It also helps to know a little of the personal history of the author, Fr. Cognetti.
Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. of Rome's "Russicum" puts it very well, if a little bluntly:
"There are over 300,000 Catholics in European Russia, 65,000 of them in Moscow alone. To say that a church doesn’t have a right to erect a diocese there is absurd, especially when the Orthodox plant metropolitans wherever they want. Let’s take the example of Austria. Vienna has been a Catholic see since the first millennium, yet the Russian Orthodox have a metropolitan, not just “in” Vienna but “of” Vienna … that’s his title. Yet there probably aren’t 5,000 Russian Orthodox in the whole of Austria. Fair is fair. Is Moscow their canonical territory? Yes, but guess whose canonical territory Vienna is. They come up with the argument, we believe in the principle of “one bishop, one city.” Want to guess how many Orthodox bishops there are in New York? I mean, for God’s sake. The problem is, nobody talks to them like that because nobody knows what I know. Catholics hear this stuff and say, “Oh, gee, aren’t we awful.” Give me a break."
"What (Cardinal) Kasper can hope for is a renewal of the dialogue. What he needs to do is to reassure Moscow once again is that the Catholic church regards the Russian Orthodox church as a sister church, that we are there to take care of Catholics, not to fish in their pond. We’ve said this a million times. (Metropolitan) Kirill has been making some good noises lately. He’s said the dialogue has never been interrupted, which is true, and that while the official position of both churches is that we shouldn’t be fishing in one another’s waters, but there are clergy on both sides who don’t respect those norms. There are Orthodox clergy who proselytize among Catholics, we know that for a fact. The Russian Orthodox opened up a parish in Palermo! All the Russians in Palermo you could fit into a telephone booth. Who’s the priest? He’s a converted Catholic. When it was opened up, in the journal of the Moscow patriarchate, it stated quite clearly that this is a step toward recovering the Byzantine heritage of Sicily. Furthermore, there’s a Greek monastery in Calabria that’s also proselytizing among the Catholics. There are loose cannons all over the place."
Very well put.
Thank you.
Other folks may try to quibble with the meaning of those words but it is clear that Saint Gregory the Great rejected the concept of any single bishop being above all others.
And you're comfortable with a converted Roman priest representing the Moscow Patriarchate in Sicily?
Must have been one of the contacts "Blackbird" made during his studies in Rome, before he became His All-Holiness!
How would you distinguish this, then?
For, after letters had been addressed to your Blessedness by my predecessor and myself in the cause of the archdeacon Honoratus, then, the sentence of both of us being set at nought, the said Honoratus was deprived of the rank belonging to him. Which thing if any one of the four patriarchs had done, such great contumacy could by no means have been allowed to pass without the most grievous offence. Nevertheless, now that your Fraternity has returned to your proper position, I do not bear in mind the wrong done either to myself or to my predecessor. (Register II, Epistle LII)
"Patriarcha Universalis" -- they never did learn how to translate Greek correctly, did they? Amazing. And look at the fallout their sloppy Greek has created!
Are you?
Oh, excuse me, I thought it was Alexy II who was always complaining about people proselytizing.
Did I get that wrong?
Or is it more likely that there's a bit of hypocrisy going on here?
Nothing like tasting your own medicine, isn't it?
Do you mean the Ukrainian Catholics who survived Stalin and whose churches were stolen and handed over to Moscow?
You would call genocide "medicine"?
I site the works of Croatian clergy during WWII, but I won't. Let's just leave it at that.
I site = I could cite
Yeah . . . better leave lots of things alone when it comes to all that stuff, huh? On both sides?
"Pure" Christianity, indeed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.