Replies

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?

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.

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.

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;

Previous to this time, the Christian world had only three commonly recognized patriarchates — Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

[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.

Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.

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.

"Also, briefly, it matters not that the title "Pope" was used to describe bishops earlier in Church history..."

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.

Like you, I do not wish to debate this point further, because of weariness on my part too...

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.

...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.

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.

The Water is Wide - Charlotte Church & Enya