Ask a Question - or - Return to the Faith and Spirituality Forum Index

Question Title	Posted By	Question Date
Dialogue with the Orthodox	Ryan	Friday, December 7, 2012
Question: Hi Brother, Lately I have been engaging in pretty intensively detailed dialogue with a Russian Orthodox friend of mine. We have been going back and forth over several issues and intricacies. In the course of our conversation he brought up this quote by Pope Saint Gregory I: "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren." ~ Letter to Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople How am I to interpret the context of this? Of course, I understand this does not affect the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, although sometimes the Orthodox claims that the Church in the West grew progressively alienated from its First Millennium roots produce a strong superficial argument given the fact that, they claim, their Church represents a closer Faith to that of the Apostolic Age and First Millenium, and their remarkable ability to preserve that image despite several rising modernist trends is certainly something to behold. Of course, I already demonstrated that such "traditions" are insignificant next to the tradition that promotes all Tradition: obedience. If those traditions come at the cost of obedience to the Papacy, then are they traditions? They do however claim that the Papacy of today or even of the Middle Ages does not resemble the Papacy of the First Millennium. The claim is that the West introduced several innovations rooted more in medieval politics than contingency with the Orthodox Faith. Although I have already answered that point in my own dialogue, I'm wondering about your thoughts on all this. Out of all the dialogues I've had with Protestants, atheists, secularists, etc, the hardest so far has been with Orthodox. Thus, at this point in my faith maturity I am striving to better articulate my defense of the Catholic Faith in such a sense that may serve evangelization better. As usual, I come here with these claims in good faith.
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OMSM(r) Dear Ryan: Well, first it must be established that Pope St. Gregory actually said this. Non-Catholics quote popes all the time that do not actually exist. This is just another ignorant myth purposely misinterpreted and understood in order to bolster the false claims of the Orthodox and other bigots against the papacy, a papacy that Jesus personally established. Thus, then these bigots trash the papacy, they are trashing Jesus. Second, the full context must be known. This means the entire letter must be examined to have any hope of what the Pope is saying. Third, an examination of the Pope's other writings is required, also, to see what the term "universal Bishop" means and whether or not Pope Gregory was denying his own papal authority. There is an analysis of this issue in an article entitled, Pope Gregory the Great and the "Universal Bishop" Controversy. Fourth, the opinions of one man, even that of a Pope, even that of a saint, do not outrank the official Magisterium. Protestants love to point out non-infallible opinions of popes and saints to refute Catholic teachings. Such anti-Catholics are either idiots, utterly ignorant of Scripture and history, and/or totally ignorant about how teaching is promulgated in the Church, or just ordinary bigots in denial, or all of the above. I also recommend the Encyclopedia article, John the Faster, which states: [The term universal bishop seems to] mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See. In other words, this quote, as usual, has nothing to do with what your Orthodox is trying to assert. There is no such thing as a universal bishop in the Catholic Church. Universal bishop means that all other bishops derive their power and authority from that universal bishop. This is not how bishops receive their authority in the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops receive their power and authority directly from God. This term "universal bishop" refers to a non-existent ecclesial economy. This is all that Pope Gregory is saying — that no bishop is a universal bishop to which all other bishop's derive their authority. Each bishop derives his authority directly from God, but each bishop must be in communion with the Roman See. The Pope is not a universal bishop, but he is a universal pastor and father. The term Pope is merely an English transliteration of the Greek (pateras) and Latin (pater) words for father. It is absolutely clear that Jesus appointed Peter (Kepha in Aramaic that Jesus spoke), and on this Kepha Jesus built his Church. This Kepha and his successors are to be the "father" of the Church, who will have the keys of of the kingdom (the authority delegated by God) to open and shut. Isa 22:20-22 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. This cannot be any clearer. Anyone who thinks that Jesus did not establish the Chair of Peter to replace the Chair of Moses (see Matt 23:2), and that those who sit in this chair of authority as Christ's vicar (prime minister), have the keys to administer His Church, is delusional, intellectually dishonest, and/or an idiot. God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below: Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum. Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum

Question Title

Posted By

Question Date

Dialogue with the Orthodox

Ryan

Friday, December 7, 2012

Question:

Hi Brother,

Lately I have been engaging in pretty intensively detailed dialogue with a Russian Orthodox friend of mine. We have been going back and forth over several issues and intricacies. In the course of our conversation he brought up this quote by Pope Saint Gregory I:

"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
~ Letter to Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople

How am I to interpret the context of this? Of course, I understand this does not affect the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, although sometimes the Orthodox claims that the Church in the West grew progressively alienated from its First Millennium roots produce a strong superficial argument given the fact that, they claim, their Church represents a closer Faith to that of the Apostolic Age and First Millenium, and their remarkable ability to preserve that image despite several rising modernist trends is certainly something to behold.

Of course, I already demonstrated that such "traditions" are insignificant next to *the* tradition that promotes all Tradition: obedience. If those traditions come at the cost of obedience to the Papacy, then are they traditions? They do however claim that the Papacy of today or even of the Middle Ages does not resemble the Papacy of the First Millennium. The claim is that the West introduced several innovations rooted more in medieval politics than contingency with the Orthodox Faith. Although I have already answered that point in my own dialogue, I'm wondering about your thoughts on all this.

Out of all the dialogues I've had with Protestants, atheists, secularists, etc, the hardest so far has been with Orthodox. Thus, at this point in my faith maturity I am striving to better articulate my defense of the Catholic Faith in such a sense that may serve evangelization better. As usual, I come here with these claims in good faith.

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OMSM(r)

Dear Ryan:

Well, first it must be established that Pope St. Gregory actually said this. Non-Catholics quote popes all the time that do not actually exist. This is just another ignorant myth purposely misinterpreted and understood in order to bolster the false claims of the Orthodox and other bigots against the papacy, a papacy that Jesus personally established. Thus, then these bigots trash the papacy, they are trashing Jesus.

Second, the full context must be known. This means the entire letter must be examined to have any hope of what the Pope is saying.

Third, an examination of the Pope's other writings is required, also, to see what the term "universal Bishop" means and whether or not Pope Gregory was denying his own papal authority.

There is an analysis of this issue in an article entitled, Pope Gregory the Great and the "Universal Bishop" Controversy.

Fourth, the opinions of one man, even that of a Pope, even that of a saint, do not outrank the official Magisterium. Protestants love to point out non-infallible opinions of popes and saints to refute Catholic teachings. Such anti-Catholics are either idiots, utterly ignorant of Scripture and history, and/or totally ignorant about how teaching is promulgated in the Church, or just ordinary bigots in denial, or all of the above.

I also recommend the Encyclopedia article, John the Faster, which states:

[The term universal bishop seems to] mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See.

In other words, this quote, as usual, has nothing to do with what your Orthodox is trying to assert.

There is no such thing as a universal bishop in the Catholic Church. Universal bishop means that all other bishops derive their power and authority from that universal bishop. This is not how bishops receive their authority in the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops receive their power and authority directly from God.

This term "universal bishop" refers to a non-existent ecclesial economy. This is all that Pope Gregory is saying — that no bishop is a universal bishop to which all other bishop's derive their authority. Each bishop derives his authority directly from God, but each bishop must be in communion with the Roman See.

The Pope is not a universal bishop, but he is a universal pastor and father. The term Pope is merely an English transliteration of the Greek (pateras) and Latin (pater) words for father.

It is absolutely clear that Jesus appointed Peter (Kepha in Aramaic that Jesus spoke), and on this Kepha Jesus built his Church. This Kepha and his successors are to be the "father" of the Church, who will have the keys of of the kingdom (the authority delegated by God) to open and shut.

Isa 22:20-22 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

This cannot be any clearer. Anyone who thinks that Jesus did not establish the Chair of Peter to replace the Chair of Moses (see Matt 23:2), and that those who sit in this chair of authority as Christ's vicar (prime minister), have the keys to administer His Church, is delusional, intellectually dishonest, and/or an idiot.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below:
Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum.
Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum
Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum
Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum
Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum