The Pope

[John of Patmos]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

[Wandile]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Nice name , John of Patmos, I like it.

Maybe somebody can provide evidence but as far as I'm aware , there was never a rejection of it. In turn certain Popes such as St.Gregory the Great claimed to have a universal jurisdiction. Even Pope St Clement wrote to the Corinthians about their affairs (If he never had such jurisdiction, why would he interfere in the first place)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

Pope St Gregory said :

As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." (Lib. ix., Ep. 12);
 
 "If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility." (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)

He also said :

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)

The only "evidence" that I've seen presented is the fact that some chose to ignore such claims made by the Popes of Rome. This is not evidence of no authority but is merely evidence that certain people were simply disobedient  

However I'll leave it at that. Don't want to be too controversial now  

God Bless you

[mike]

Even Pope St Clement rote to the Corinthians about their affairs (If he never had such jurisdiction, why would he interfere in the first place)

Greece was under Roman jurisdiction so that is a non-argument.

[#1Sinner]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

If you are talking Universal Jurisdiction as dogmatically defined at V1 I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to find a single Father supporting it.

Start with these:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=39:the-vatican-dogma

I'm a recent convert to Orthodoxy, myself. I came from a traditionalist (SSPX) background. Let me know if I can be of any help.

[William]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

[Justin Kissel]

St. Cyprian of Carthage was very supportive of Rome when it worked to his favor, but when he disagreed with Rome he had no problems saying outright that Rome was wrong. So, for example, when Pope Stephen of Rome and St. Cyprian disagreed about the validity of certain baptisms, St. Cyprian arranged a council and opposed the views of Rome. Rome fired back by condemning the decisions of the Council. St. Cyprian then responded by holding another Council, with more bishops, reaffirming what they had decided at the previous council.

Of course many examples that can be brought forth are of this type, because while there were claims from early on (especially from mid-5th century), it would be anachronistic to read modern papal claims back into the ancient texts and actions. Rome sometimes got involved in the affairs of others just like other sees did. For example in the late 4th to early 5th centuries, Alexandria got involved with the affairs of Constantinople several times, often having a significant impact (for better or worse). It's hard to pick apart what was Rome's genuine belief about it's role, and what the genuine belief of others about Rome's role.

[Wandile]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

[ErmyCath]

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

ETA -- Here it is:

"Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles, which is the See of one in three places, received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate."

[#1Sinner]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

Whether or not the roman pope claims that exact title for himself is of no consequence. The fact that he does indeed claim absolute jurisdiction over every bishop, diocese and Christian is enough to conclude that he regards himself as such. I believe the title "Vicar of Christ"  drives this point home since obviously Christ is the head of all things.

[KBN1]

One can quote-mine the Fathers for just about anything so long as you ignore context and history.  The operation of the first millennium Church doesn't support Rome's claim, though.  So either the rest of Christendom had it wrong from the beginning and were, for the most part, out of line all along, or Rome developed an idea that they have read into history and now misunderstand their role in the Church of the first millennium.  My two cents.

[William]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

[Wandile]

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.

[William]

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.

Why are you quoting Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_papal_primacy#Leo_I

[#1Sinner]

One can quote-mine the Fathers for just about anything so long as you ignore context and history.  The operation of the first millennium Church doesn't support Rome's claim, though.  So either the rest of Christendom had it wrong from the beginning and were, for the most part, out of line all along, or Rome developed an idea that they have read into history and now misunderstand their role in the Church of the first millennium.  My two cents.

I am currently reading a book entitled: The True and False Infallibility of the Pope by Bishop Fessler who was a secretary at Vatican 1. In this book he makes the following, stunning statement in regards to those who reject the Vatican 1 proclamation of papal infallibility: "...(Those who say) I must not accept a Catholic doctrine on faith when the teaching Church declares it to be of the Faith, because I myself do not find the doctrine in Scripture, the Fathers or other genuine ancient sources of Christian doctrine....(one substitutes) their individual, subjective belief for the objective truth declared by the Church, which truth is based upon the teaching office of the holy Catholic Church."

In other words, if we come up with some novel teaching that you can't find justification for in the history, theology or experience of the Church, just ignore that and accept it as divinely inspired. One wonders how traditionalists reject Vatican 2 given this blind adherence to whatever Rome promulgates.

I also wonder how St Vincent of Lerins would react to such a statement given his criteria for Catholic orthodoxy.

[Wandile]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This he ascribed to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too

[#1Sinner]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This ascribes to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too

This is EXACTLY what Vatican 1 makes the pope to be, despite sophistry to the contrary.

[Wandile]

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position  and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.

Why are you quoting Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_papal_primacy#Leo_I

Forgot to reference that also    but because what it says is true. Its plain history that's why

[KBN1]

One can quote-mine the Fathers for just about anything so long as you ignore context and history.  The operation of the first millennium Church doesn't support Rome's claim, though.  So either the rest of Christendom had it wrong from the beginning and were, for the most part, out of line all along, or Rome developed an idea that they have read into history and now misunderstand their role in the Church of the first millennium.  My two cents.

I am currently reading a book entitled: The True and False Infallibility of the Pope by Bishop Fessler who was a secretary at Vatican 1. In this book he makes the following, stunning statement in regards to those who reject the Vatican 1 proclamation of papal infallibility: "...(Those who say) I must not accept a Catholic doctrine on faith when the teaching Church declares it to be of the Faith, because I myself do not find the doctrine in Scripture, the Fathers or other genuine ancient sources of Christian doctrine....(one substitutes) their individual, subjective belief for the objective truth declared by the Church, which truth is based upon the teaching office of the holy Catholic Church."

In other words, if we come up with some novel teaching that you can't find justification for in the history, theology or experience of the Church, just ignore that and accept it as divinely inspired. One wonders how traditionalists reject Vatican 2 given this blind adherence to whatever Rome promulgates.

I also wonder how St Vincent of Lerins would react to such a statement given his criteria for Catholic orthodoxy.

Interesting.  Please post about this book in the Reviews section when you finish it.

[Cyrillic]

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.

[Wandile]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This ascribes to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too

This is EXACTLY what Vatican 1 makes the pope to be, despite sophistry to the contrary.

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

 The title (in Gregory's understanding) seemed to claim that John the Faster was not the bishop of Constantinople but of the whole world hence the title implies that all are vicars. You seem to forget or rather ignore that Gregory claimed universal ordinary jurisdiction and at the same time denounced the title of Ecumenical Patriarch (Universal bishop).

[JamesR]

Which Pope? The Copts, Alexandrian Patriarch...etc. The Roman Patriarch wasn't called the Pope until relatively later, and thus it's a point of debate between us about whether or not certain Fathers were even talking about Rome when mentioning the Pope.

[Cyrillic]

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

The Pope can fire your bishop whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

[Wandile]

Which Pope? The Copts, Alexandrian Patriarch...etc. The Roman Patriarch wasn't called the Pope until relatively later, and thus it's a point of debate between us about whether or not certain Fathers were even talking about Rome when mentioning the Pope.

Facepalm

[#1Sinner]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This ascribes to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too

This is EXACTLY what Vatican 1 makes the pope to be, despite sophistry to the contrary.

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

You the title seemed to claim that John the Faster was not the bishop of Constantinople but of the whole world hence the title implies that all are vicars. You seem to forget or rather ignore that Gregory claimed universal ordinary jurisdiction and at the same time denounced the tire of Ecumenical Patriarch (Universal bishop).

The pope is the Vicar of Christ to whom all must be in subjection and against whose judgement there is no recourse.

You speak of your bishop being the canonical bishop of your diocese; answer me this: Could the pope remove your bishop at anytime for any reason?

[#1Sinner]

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

The Pope can fire your bishop whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Bingo.

[Wandile]

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

The Pope can fire your bishop whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Because he has the authority to do so.

I remember an early church quote which said "The Pope is to patriarchs, what patriarchs are to bishops". Patriarchs deposed bishops and and put other bishops in power on a number of occasions. (like what the EP did in Antioch, Alexandria etc...)

[JamesR]

Which Pope? The Copts, Alexandrian Patriarch...etc. The Roman Patriarch wasn't called the Pope until relatively later, and thus it's a point of debate between us about whether or not certain Fathers were even talking about Rome when mentioning the Pope.

Facepalm

I think a bigger facepalm is your deliberate neglect to mention the fact that the primacy was shared by Alexandria and Antioch as well; not just Rome. Or the fact that you also conveniently failed to mention that Greece was under the jurisdiction of Rome at the time.

[#1Sinner]

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

The Pope can fire your bishop whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Because he has the authority to do so.

I remember an early church quote which said "The Pope us to patriarchs, what patriarchs are to bishops". Patriarchs deposed bishops and and put other bishops in power (like what the EP did in Antioch, Alexandria etc...)

Hence he is little more then the pope's vicar since he rules at his own good pleasure.

Putting it another way: If I rent a house I run the day to day activities. I decide what is for dinner, how the furniture is arranged etc. However, the owner of the house can kick me out whenever he wants. There can be only one owner of the house just like there can be only one bishop of the diocese. If your bishop needs to answer to somebody else (the pope), he is not in charge of that diocese. In reality, the pope could simply fire every bishop on earth and declare himself the ordinary of every diocese. Now tell me again how much authority your bishop has?

[Iconodule]

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

The Pope can fire your bishop whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Because he has the authority to do so.

I remember an early church quote which said "The Pope is to patriarchs, what patriarchs are to bishops".

Could you find the source for it? I doubt it's very early at all.

[JamesR]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title.

The title doesn't matter; the implication of the title does. If there wasn't anything wrong with the concept itself, then why would the title be condemned? Your narrow, simplistic reasoning is akin to that of Evangelical Protestants.

The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Except he didn't; at least not in the same way as you would (mis)lead us to believe, as others have demonstrated.

[Cyrillic]

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

The Pope can fire your bishop whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Because he has the authority to do so.

I remember an early church quote which said "The Pope us to patriarchs, what patriarchs are to bishops". Patriarchs deposed bishops and and put other bishops in power (like what the EP did in Antioch, Alexandria etc...)

Hence he is little more then the pope's vicar since he rules at his own good pleasure.

Putting it another way: If I rent a house I run the day to day activities. I decide what is for dinner, how the furniture is arranged etc. However, the owner of the house can kick me out whenever he wants. There can be only one owner of the house just like there can be only one bishop of the diocese. If your bishop needs to answer to somebody else (the pope), he is not in charge of that diocese. In reality, the pope could simply fire every bishop on earth and declare himself the ordinary of every diocese. Now tell me again how much authority your bishop has?

This.

[#1Sinner]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title.

The title doesn't matter; the implication of the title does. If there wasn't anything wrong with the concept itself, then why would the title be condemned? Your narrow, simplistic reasoning is akin to that of Evangelical Protestants.

The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Except he didn't; at least not in the same way as you would (mis)lead us to believe, as others have demonstrated.

I'm pretty sure he is being sincere. Having a fair amount of experience on his side, I can assure you he is showing the classic "double-think" that comes with having to square Vatican 1 papal supremacy with how the Church always regarded the Bishop of Rome.

[Wandile]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title.

The title doesn't matter; the implication of the title does. If there wasn't anything wrong with the concept itself, then why would the title be condemned? Your narrow, simplistic reasoning is akin to that of Evangelical Protestants.

The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Except he didn't; at least not in the same way as you would (mis)lead us to believe, as others have demonstrated.

Except he did. Go to the Philvaz link please. A lot of modern scholars admit that Gregory was the founder of such claims. Only the "netodox apologists" dispute this. But then again you have to believe that because he is a saint on your calendar after all

[#1Sinner]

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title.

The title doesn't matter; the implication of the title does. If there wasn't anything wrong with the concept itself, then why would the title be condemned? Your narrow, simplistic reasoning is akin to that of Evangelical Protestants.

The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Except he didn't; at least not in the same way as you would (mis)lead us to believe, as others have demonstrated.

Except he did. Go to the Philvaz link please. A lot of modern scholars admit that Gregory was the founder of such claims. Only the "netodox apologists" dispute this. But then again you have to believe that because he is a saint on your calendar after all

Even if we were to concede that Pope Saint Gregory the Great was claiming absolute Universal Jurisdiction (which he didn't), doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that St Peter himself seemed blissfully unaware of his exalted rank and authority in the Church? Why did it take over 500 years for the Vicars of Christ to start to realize the great mission they had from the Lord? Better, why did it take 1800+ years to dogmatize it?

[Fabio Leite]

So, St. Gregory denied the title of universal bishop, but acted as such?

[Wandile]

So, St. Gregory denied the title of universal bishop, but acted as such?

No he denied the Title and acted as the Bishop of Rome who has universal jurisdiction as he claimed. See Pope Francis' comments on how he is first and foremost Bishop of the City of Rome. Secondly he runs the church.

[mike]

Secondly he runs the church.

As that is an insignificant addition...

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Many things...

First, Pontifex Maximus, when translated properly, is eerily close to "Universal Bishop."

Secondly, St. Cyprian said all Bishops are equal, and that quote that you have Peter the Roman is completely fabricated and out of context that you got from Catholic Answers.

Thirdly, St. Irenaeus said: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Rome hasn't preserved the Apostolic Faith, so they are no longer given that privilege.

[#1Sinner]

So, St. Gregory denied the title of universal bishop, but acted as such?

No he denied the Title and acted as the Bishop of Rome who has universal jurisdiction as he claimed. See Pope Francis' comments on how he is first and foremost Bishop of the City of Rome. Secondly he runs the church.

You are engaging in obfuscation and semantics. I don't care if the pope doesn't officially have the title of "Grand Daddy of the Vatican Realm" since he does have that authority. Ditto for "Universal Bishop." The pope has absolute, unhindered authority to depose, appoint and otherwise overrule any bishop and all bishops together. Could the pope get rid of every bishop on earth and take direct control of every diocese? Could he disband all dioceses and make one grand diocese of Rome with himself the bishop?

Your task is to show that this is how the Universal Church always viewed the Bishop of Rome's authority which you haven't; because, you can't.

[ErmyCath]

Maybe someone can explain what universal jurisdiction would have meant to a first millennium Pope and how it would have been exercised.  Then, one should attempt to show a Pope in the first millennium actually exercised that authority.

Writing about how exalted is the Roman See is one thing -- a very common thing for the Fathers. So, discussing what they wrote is always going to be proof texting because we now have the lens of another millennium of baggage through which to examine those texts. The actions are much more important. That's why those pointing out that the pope appoints and deposes every bishop in the world at this point are correctly discussing the issue of jurisdiction.

[Cyrillic]

First, Pontifex Maximus, when translated properly, is eerily close to "Universal Bishop."

No, that's nonsense. The Pope inherited the title from the Emperor who in turn took it from the Roman Senate.

Julius Caesar, for example, was, at one point in time, a Pontifex Maximus, or a Supreme Roman Pontiff. What other Pontiff do you think infallibly pronounced the Julian Calendar to be the correct one?

[JamesR]

Maybe someone can explain what universal jurisdiction would have meant to a first millennium Pope and how it would have been exercised.  Then, one should attempt to show a Pope in the first millennium actually exercised that authority.

I second this; many folks here are rejecting the papacy on the grounds that the Pope can depose any Bishop he wants at any time. Well, what exactly then does "proper" universal jurisdiction (if it even exists) mean? I take it that the problem is more so with modern Rome's definition of universal jurisdiction.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The difference here is between Primacy which Orthodox accept of the Bishop of Rome and Supremacy which is what he enjoys as Pontifex Maximus of the Roman Church.

Julius Caesar, for example, was, at one point in time, a Pontifex Maximus, or a Supreme Roman Pontiff. What other Pontiff do you think infallibly pronounced the Julian Calendar to be the correct one?

Did St. Gregory have this title when he was Bishop of Rome?

[Cyrillic]

Did St. Gregory have this title when he was Bishop of Rome?

Yes.

[#1Sinner]

Maybe someone can explain what universal jurisdiction would have meant to a first millennium Pope and how it would have been exercised.  Then, one should attempt to show a Pope in the first millennium actually exercised that authority.

I second this; many folks here are rejecting the papacy on the grounds that the Pope can depose any Bishop he wants at any time. Well, what exactly then does "proper" universal jurisdiction (if it even exists) mean? I take it that the problem is more so with modern Rome's definition of universal jurisdiction.

Universal Jurisdiction seems to have a very narrow definition of itself.

Jurisdiction= The right to rule, govern or legislate
Universal= Covering a whole area, occurring everywhere

Thus, if the pope has universal jurisdiction he is the ultimate, and in essence, the only real authority in the Church.

What other definition is possible?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: The Pope