OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 02:16:29 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope Gregory Dialogos' quote  (Read 1043 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« on: September 26, 2008, 01:47:58 AM »

I've seen this quote appear several times on this forum:

"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." -Gregory Dialogos

This quote confuses me in several ways. For one, I'm not using this to try and disprove Roman Catholicism, I want to know what both Orthodox and Catholics have to say. The Catholic interpretation of this (to my knowledge) says that the Patriarch of Constantinople was raising himself to the "One High Priest," by calling himself ecumenical. The Orthodox would say he was warning the patriarch against Papism (whatever the correct terminology is).  Either way, we know by the word Oecumenical, which can mean different things, more correctly translates as imperial. To my knowledge, Pope Gregory had mistranslated the patriarch's title, since Oecumenical is a broad word and can mean both universal or imperial. I also want to know if the Church ever resolved this issue. Did Rome go all the way to 1054 in communion with Constantinople, but still thought the patriarch was wrong to call himself ecumenical? Also, I'm confused because I've heard Pope Gregory Dialogos has many quotes that are actually quite contrary to this particular quote, which makes him hard to understand. Could someone clarify this situation?
Logged

signature
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2008, 02:03:42 AM »

In fact, here is a catholic website dealing with this quote:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm
Logged

signature
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,649



« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2008, 08:59:53 AM »

In fact, here is a catholic website dealing with this quote:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm

Usually I find articles from Bonocore here. AAARg. I once saw a "timeline" he had a hand in which claimed that Theodosius gave the title EP as a counter to Gratian giving the title pontif to the Pope of Rome.  A glaring anachronism for starters.

This is article isn't too bad.  Of course, it has its inadequacies.

He mentions that St. Gregory talks of Constantinople having heresiarchs.  This of course was before Pope Honorius (who of course isnt' mentioned).

Of course it is interesting so much emphasis on the title, whereas in substance, the Vatican indeed only has one bishop.

Another thing sidestepped and not mentioned in the article is that St. Gregory during this cotroversy wrote that the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria (through St. Mark) and Antioch are all one Petrine See.  I've yet to see an explanation, then why Antioch shouldn't be ahead of Alexandria, since Antioch is Petrine directly, Alexandria second hand.  Could it be because that was the secular order within the empire, like the Fathers alluded to in Constantinople c. 3 and Chalcedon c. 28 (btw, St. Gregory is quite wrong on the Pope's veto power: even Pope St. Leo recognized that his own bishops were not following his veto of canon 28)? Roll Eyes

I always love this quote:

"As regards the Church of Constantinople,WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it."

So the brother bishop of Constantinople, a/k/a the percursor of antichrist, continually acknowleges Rome.  I've never seen the antichrist cited as a Church Father for papap supremacy outside of a Chick tract.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2008, 11:11:14 PM »

Also, did Pope Gregory really excommunicate the patriarch?
Logged

signature
Tags: Petrine Primacy 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.045 seconds with 31 queries.