Yes.
This letter is interesting. Is it the same one you have been using earlier in support of the notion there was not only confusion about the office of the "Apostolic See", but also direct opposition to such a concept? For the purposes of the remainder of this post I will assume your answer to that question is "yes".
Indeed, when I read that letter, I reach the exact opposite conclusion. I read it, basically, as Pope Gregory the Great admonishing the head of a recognized ecclesiastical "Fraternity" for trying to assert as much authority as his (Gregory's) office demands. Therefore, this is why we read Gregory using such language and warning against the pride of the enemy.
Also, briefly, it matters not that the title "Pope" was used to describe bishops earlier in Church history, as one of your own sources (correctly) points out, the term "pope" derives from the Latin papa meaning merely "father". As all bishops are priests, the term fits, and is only reserved for the Holy Father today merely because of tradition (note my intentional use of the lowercase "T"), and nothing more. Indeed today, in Romance languages such as Italian, the Pope is still refered to as "Papa".
Like you, I do not wish to debate this point further, because of weariness on my part too but also because I feel quite confident an average, open minded lurker who is so interested would reach the same conclusion as I, after reading the letter in question. You and I will simply have to "agree to disagree" on this matter, at least at this time.
Thank you for your cordial reply. May God bless you as well.
“I read it, basically, as Pope Gregory the Great admonishing the head of a recognized ecclesiastical “Fraternity” for trying to assert as much authority as his (Gregory’s) office demands.”
I’m not sure how you come to such a conclusion, except perhaps by assuming that was already the case and then reading the letter from that vantage point. Gregory does not say “Hey, you’re stealing my title!”, but, rather, that the title belongs to no one in particular. In this case, let’s read an example where Gregory has the opportunity to embrace his role as Universal Bishop or head of the church. Here is the letter in full, but first I am going to quote the RCC usage of it:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
Now here are the Roman quotations of this letter, wherein they assert that Gregory is a champion of the Primacy of Rome. Take special note of the clever use of ellipses:
Pope Gregory I
“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm
I provide their versions of the quotations only to highlight for you the parts they omit. And, really, there is no reason for them to omit them. The lines they remove are small sentences, and then they continue quoting right after they finish. It’s quite an embarrasing display!
In this letter, Gregory is specifically attributing to the Bishops of Alexandra and Antioch the “Chair of Peter” and its authority that they bestowed upon him. In the first quotation, the Romans omit the sentence which says: “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, [they omit here] yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. [They rebegin here]” After telling them about the “special honor” that is respectively given to both parties, Gregory immediately goes into a discussion on what that special honor is... which is the Primacy of Peter they all enjoy.
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.”
Notice how different this reads when one does not omit what the Romans omit! Gregory declares that the See of Peter is one see... but in THREE places, over which THREE Bishops preside, which is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, the latter of which he was now writing to.
So while the Romans insist that the Primacy of Peter refers to the Bishop of Rome, Gregory applies the Primacy of Peter to ALL the major Bishops of the See. They are, in effect, ALL the Church of Peter, and possess his chair and authority.
And Gregory, of course, isn’t alone in this. Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
So while you may have particular people saying that the Roman Bishop has authority, or has the chair of Peter, yet these same accolades are given to multiple Bishops, all said to have the “throne” or authority of “Peter.”
In this way we can truly understand Gregory’s rejection of the title of Universal, since to do so would be to steal the Throne from beneath the other Bishops he honored as equals.
This is why I laugh when the Romanists chest beat about their church and how we don’t submit. It was not until after Gregory that the “spirit of anti-Christ” that he warned about would gain the victory in attaining for itself Universality in Rome.
I don't know that I said there was "confusion" about the office, using that precise word, yet due to the many layers of complexity in regards to development of this particular theological concept (as with a few others also, here on these pages frequently contended for) clarity, far too often, is in short supply.
Since we do all prefer clarity if available, it is much for reason of desire for clarity and simplicity also, that descriptive statements regarding Latin church "Tradition" such as I highlighted in my last note, themselves evolved into being. It for reason of those type of statements "as established by Christ, handed down to us by the Apostles" be misleading, due to encapsulating misrepresentation of the actual historical record, that individuals such as Webster base grievance, and myself also raise objection.
As for direct opposition to the concept one Apostolic See being sole "papacy" as we know of it today, absolutely, for at that time spoken of Rome was still somewhat upright concerning the issue...not claiming such title for itself, unless Gregory somehow asserted or accepted the "title" spoken of in his letter, when as he made mention of his own predecessors having had not accepted Universal as title.
In closer examination of much else also, and not only of this letter of [Pope] Gregory's... as we wade into those troubled waters where ideas of one sole Universal papacy sprang (the letter itself being but an islet in those wider waters) to the extent the directly quoted above be true (if at all so) it would need be limited to reference of the likes of a Patriarchate, which at that time was not held only by the bishop of Rome, but of which there were three, with these other two not directly beholden to Rome, as GPH has mentioned, and I believe George C. Michalopulos makes brief note of as presented by one Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse of the AOI;
[time = circa Council of Chalcedon for the above]
In light of the above, while also returning to context of Gregory's letter itself, the conclusion cannot arise; that Gregory thought for himself to be a Universal bishop of bishops, and was offering correction to another for trying to assert as much authority as his (Gregory's) office demands as you put it. Instead, as he much criticizes that very idea itself repeatedly in no uncertain terms, he also does not in the slightest suggest such be reserved for the office and position he himself held, even by way of oblique reference.
From the paragraph speaking of "Fraternity" as salutation, it becomes apparent that in tradition even in Rome's own view up until that time, consideration that the Apostolic See of Rome, this Patriarchate as it were (one of three) did not yet view it's own bishop, as singular bishop over all ---West, East, North & South. The full grasping for and gaining of the "singular" as Gregory spoke of [below] had not yet occurred, thus nullifying consideration that singular "Papacy" was ever so, not only from the very beginnings of the church, but as far along as Gregory's own time.
I must ask, but better perhaps you could ask yourself, is the failure to pick up on those sort of things due to; not being able to consider possibility that this "universal bishop" idea (which the papacy much is) carries along within itself some degree of error ---or at least was considered so by Pope Gregory the Great?
At that juncture, Gregory himself represents a pause as it were, in the centuries march of development towards office of Papacy, as known of in later times. The unfolding of this idea of "Universal" at once encompassing all, referencing all, being condensed down to a single point, a sole office to which all others must fully bow towards (or risk incurring wrath of God?), though not a straight-line history simple to trace, traces for can still be found in the assorted materials of the historical record.
Speaking of not so straight lines, we need look only inwardly too, into our very own hearts, ourselves as Christian but imperfect, to see the human dimension which played it's own role(s) in this unfolding, this "unpacking" of Pontificate as it became. I dare say if we were to do it all over again the results might be much worse (given the state of the human heart, wicked beyond measure ---who can know it?) if that be any consolation.
I must stop you there, for it does matter, for reason that quotes including the word "pope" from ECF prior to Gregory the Great at least, are not in all instances of citation referring to the one in Rome. Though it escapes me for the moment, and such things can be exceedingly tedious to go digging for precise example of, it does come to mind that I have seen such play out (years ago) on this very forum ----- a "papist" citing one particularly devastatingly powerful to papist cause of apologetic quote from a quite early ECF, which when more closely examined in the context from which it was derived, was not talking about ---the one in Rome. So it can matter, albeit of fairly rare occurrence. There is more along those lines, with finer gradients of subtly regarding other church teaching, preaching, letters, etc., from earliest record, but that extent of mention must suffice for now.
I do weary of the discussion, yet included no sign-off as it were, but more a hope for real and actual blessing for those whom may become distressed, when the weight of the overall image emerges more fully into the light, for such can be testing of one's faith when it be discovered partially mislaid near to the very altar one may find communion with the Spirit of the Lord, hence my focus upon the blood of Christ itself, not the particulars of the maintenance of said altar, as remedy for also as Origin pointed towards; the difference between ideal, and empirical church.
I'm not so sure of that, although I do see how your own take on things may compel *some* to merely take your own word for it, thus you may be correct as to "casual".
Reading more in-depth, and coming to understanding which itself may require additional searching both beyond the numerous items I provide link to, and within one's own self, could be anything but casual, being as it is a time consuming process. To those who have traveled with us both thus far...if ya' think this is all too much to be reading, consider for a moment the effort put into the writing of it. This place, and this sort of conversation wears me out, yet I am compelled from within to share as best I can.