[MarMema]

[MarMema]

ping

[gbcdoj]

The Pope Who Condemned Primacy

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

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

The article's author casts doubt on himself by being so ill-informed as to claim that it was not unusuual for a letter to take one year to get from Rome to Constantinople at this time. Nonsense, utter and unadulterated nonsense. It would have highly unusual--not inexplicable--but the point would certainly be that, if a letter took so long to arrive, it was delayed for some reason, which would be important to figure out in order to understand what happened. Simply to explain it as "not unusual" is to evade the question raised by the timing. Historians are supposed to be quick to pick up on this sort of circumstance--it's part of interpreting one's sources properly.

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!

[FormerLib]

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)

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.

[amihow]

All you are doing is proving the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope in faith and morals when he speaks "from the chair of Peter" and the insistence that the Pope is not infallible or impeccable in his private writings.

Those are the Pope's private opinions and Popes are often wrong. The doctrine of infallibility was explained, not first thought about, at the Council of Trent and at VII in such a way as to leave no doubt in any person of good will what it was.

RED HERRING

[sanormal]

Does anyone ever mention that Roman Primacy and authority was a matter of Imperial Law, regardless of the chattering of clerics? Just wondering.

[Antoninus]

More semi-historical gibberish, I see. Par for the course for the Catholic-haters on FR, unfortunately.

[Rytwyng]

Oh, this is going to be a fun thread.