Body: | Apostate church organization: 588 - 606 AD:
The final dog fight between Rome and Constantinople for control of the
world!
This was a departure from the simple bible blueprint of a group of equal
elders (presbyters) governing only within their own local church.
Summary of this section:
1 588 AD Constantinopolitan synod: John IV the Faster,
patriarch of Constantinople, is granted the title of "oecumenical" or
"universal bishop," but doesn't start using it till 595 AD.
2 590 AD: Gregory I, the great, becomes Patriarch of Rome,
590-604 AD
3 595 AD: John IV the Faster, starts using the title of
"universal bishop" and Gregory I, denies the title even for himself. Biship
of Rome, Gregory I protests John IV the Faster's use of the title
"universal bishop" saying such a claim is a sign "the antichrist is near"
and calls it a "proud and profane title" and equates John IV's to the devil
himself.
4 595 AD: John IV the Faster dies on September 2, shortly
after claiming to be pope of the world.
5 602 AD Roman Emperor Maurice is murdered in a coup by
Phocas, who then becomes emperor.
6 604 AD Gregory, the bishop of Rome dies and is replaced by
Sabinian, who reigns for two years.
7 606 AD Sabinian, the bishop of Rome dies and is replaced by
Boniface III. Phocas writes to the new bishop of Rome, Boniface III and
through imperial decree of the Roman government, proclaims Boniface III, as
the "Head of all the Churches" and "Universal Bishop". Phocas transfers the
title from Constantinople to Rome. Boniface III, Bishop of Rome takes
title: "universal Bishop": Catholicism is formally born in its final
evolved form but the east never accepts Rome's claims and finally split
fellowship with Rome in 1054 AD.
8 607 AD: Boniface III dies on 19 February, shortly after
claiming to be pope of the world. It is interesting that the first eastern
leader (John IV) to proclaim himself as "universal bishop" and the first
western (Boniface III) leader, to do the same, died within 12 months of
claiming to be the "universal bishop". Was God sending a message here?
9 In summary, when John IV, Patriarch of Constantinople,
started calling himself the "Universal Bishop" Gregory I, Patriarch of
Rome, did not say, "Hey that's my title, you have right to wear it."
Instead Gregory said that no man should consider himself the "Universal
Bishop" calling it the sign the "antichrist" was near. (see 2 Thess 2:3-4)
The bishop of Constantinople, John IV. was saying, "I am over you", Gregory
was saying, "we are equal", even though Gregory would readily make the
false claim that he, not John, was a successor of Apostle Peter.
Click to View Learn from the Bible Blueprint, how the church was organized
by the apostles!
Click to View Find a local congregation of the New Testament church that is
organized exactly as the Bible says
The Historical Development of the Papal and Patriarchal Systems of
Centralized Church Government.
Click to View
John Paul II
Catholic, Bishop of Rome, Pope
Click to View Introduction
Click to View Graphical Mouse Rollover of gradual change of organization over time
Click to View 4 Competing views of organization
Click to View Outline: 33-150 AD
Click to View Outline: 150-250 AD
Click to View Outline: 250-451 AD
Click to View Outline: 451-588 AD
Click to View Outline: 606 AD-Today
Click to View Catholic organization today
Click to View Orthodox organization today
Click to View True Bible organization today
Click to View Find a local congregation of the New Testament church in your own home town.
Click to View
Bartholomew
Orthodox, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch
588 - 606 AD: The final dog fight between Rome and Constantinople for
control of the world!
A. Our comments and observations:
588 AD marked the beginning of a great power struggle and rivalry
between Old Rome (West, Italy) and New Rome (East, Constantinople). It was
actually this power struggle that accelerated the Bishop of Rome to take on
the title of Universal Bishop. Neither one was "over" the others district,
but were viewed as equals, although Rome had made claims of supremacy that
were not accepted elsewhere.
Later this title was confirmed to John IV., the Faster, when he was
officially proclaimed "universal bishop" via a synod in 588 AD by the
emperor. Gregory strongly renounced any suggestion that he was a "universal
Bishop" and viciously objected to John IV's use of it.
Gregory warns that John's use of "Universal Bishop" is a sign the
antichrist was near! He was referring to this verse: "Let no one in any way
deceive you, for it [the second coming] will not come unless the apostasy
comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of
destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or
object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God,
displaying himself as being God." (2 Thess 2:3-4)
What is most important here, is that when John IV, Patriarch of
Constantinople, started calling himself the "Universal Bishop" Gregory I,
Patriarch of Rome, did not say, "Hey that's my title, you have right to
wear it." Instead Gregory said that no man should consider himself the
"Universal Bishop" calling it the sign the "antichrist" was near. (see 2
Thess 2:3-4) The bishop of Constantinople, John IV. was saying, "I am over
you", Gregory was saying, "we are equal", even though Gregory would readily
admit he, not John, was a successor of Apostle Peter.
It is interesting that the first eastern leader (John IV) to
proclaim himself as "universal bishop" and the first western (Boniface III)
leader, to do the same, died within 12 months of claiming to be the
"universal bishop". Was God sending a message here?
B. What scholars say about this period:
"this patriarchal power was not from the beginning and to a uniform
extent acknowledged in the entire West. Not until the latter part of the
sixth century did it reach the height we have above described. It was not a
divine institution, unchangeably fixed from the beginning for all times,
like a Biblical article of faith; but the result of a long process of
history, a human ecclesiastical institution" (Philip Schaff, History of the
Christian Church, book 3, chapter 5)
"And such universal power had already been claimed by Roman pontiffs
before Gregory, such as Leo I., Felix, Gelasius, Hormisdas, in language and
acts more haughty and self-sufficient than his. [ie. Gregory 1]" (History
of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Vol 4, ch 4, 51. Gregory and the
Universal Episcopate)
C. 588 AD Constantinopolitan synod: John IV the Faster, patriarch of
Constantinople, is granted the title of "oecumenical" or "universal
bishop," but doesn't start using it till 595 AD.
This synod, rejects the decree of Roman emperor Justinian I in 533
AD, that proclaimed the bishop of Rome supreme head of all churches. Pope
Pelagius II immediately protests the synod of 588. The text of this synod
is unknown. A decretal which claims to be the words of the synod, is an
admitted forgery. We regret not having the words of this synod, for it
allows Catholics to make guesses about the content that no one knows are
for sure, creating confusion. We can only know the contents of the synod,
based upon others who reacted to it.
"In other letters we find him saying, "With respect to the
Constantinopolitan church, who doubts that it is subject to the apostolical
see?" and "I know not what bishop is not subject to it, if fault is found
in him" (Ep. vii. ind. ii. 64, 65). But the most memorable incidents in
this connexion are his remonstrances against the assumption by John the
Faster of the title of oecumenical or universal bishop. They began in 595,
being provoked by the repeated occurrence of the title in a judgment
against an heretical presbyter which had been sent to Rome. The title was
not new. Patriarchs had been so styled by the emperors Leo and Justinian,
and it had been confirmed to John the Faster and his successors by a
general Eastern synod at Constantinople in 588, pope Pelagius protesting
against it. Gregory now wrote to Sabinianus, his apocrisiarius at
Constantinople, desiring him to use his utmost endeavours with the
patriarch, the emperor, and the empress, to procure the renunciation of the
title; and when this failed, he himself wrote to all these in peculiarly
strong language. The title he called foolish, proud, pestiferous, profane,
wicked, a diabolical usurpation; the ambition of any who assumed it was
like that of Lucifer, and its assumption a sign of the approach of the king
of pride, i.e. Antichrist. His arguments are such as to preclude himself as
well as others from assuming the title, though he implies that if any could
claim it, it would be St. Peter's successors. Peter, he says, was the first
of the apostles, yet neither he nor any of the others would assume the
title universal, being all members of the church under one head, Christ. He
also states (probably in error) that the title had been offered to the
bishop of Rome at the council of Chalcedon, and refused. Failing entirely
to make an impression at Constantinople, he addressed himself to the
Eastern patriarchs. He wrote to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of
Antioch, representing the purpose of their brother of Constantinople as
being that of degrading them, and usurping to himself all ecclesiastical
power. They, however, were not thus moved to action; they seem to have
regarded the title as one of honour only, suitable to the patriarch of the
imperial city; and one of them, Anastasius, wrote in reply that the matter
seemed to him of little moment. The controversy continued after the death
of John the Faster. Gregory instructed his apocrisiarius at Constantinople
to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of
intercommunion, the renunciation of the proud and impious title which his
predecessor had wickedly assumed. In vain did Cyriacus send a nuncio to
Rome in the hope of arranging matters: Gregory was resolute, and wrote, "I
confidently say that whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires
to be so called in his elation, is the forerunner of Antichrist." At this
time he seems to have gained a supporter, if not to his protest, at any
rate to the paramount dignity of his own see, in Eulogius of Alexandria,
whom he had before addressed without result. For in answering a letter from
that patriarch, he acknowledges with approval the dignity assigned by him
to the see of St. Peter, and expresses adroitly a curious view of his
correspondent, as well as the patriarch of Antioch, being a sharer in it.
"Who does not know," he says, "that the church was built and established on
the firmness of the prince of the apostles, by whose very name is implied a
rock? Hence, though there were several apostles, there is but one apostolic
see, that of the prince of the apostles, which has acquired great
authority; and that see is in three places, in Rome where he died, in
Alexandria where it was founded by his disciple St. Mark, and in Antioch
where he himself lived seven years. These three, therefore, are but one
see, and on that one see sit three bishops, who are but one in Him Who
said, I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." But when Eulogius in
a second letter styled the bishop of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly
rejected such a title, saying, "If you give more to me than is due to me,
you rob yourself of what is due to you. Nothing can redound to my honour
that redounds to the dishonour of my brethren. If you call me universal
pope, you thereby own yourself to be no pope. Let no such titles be
mentioned or ever heard among us." (Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian
Biography, Gregorius, 51, I, p 425)
D. 590 AD: Gregory I, the great, becomes Patriarch of Rome, 590-604 AD
Gregory writes the Roman Emperor Maurice and asks for the title
"universal bishop" to be stripped from the bishop of Constantinople, but
Maurice refuses.
"with Gregory I. (590-604) a new period begins. Next to Leo I. he
was the greatest of the ancient bishops of Rome, and he marks the
transition of the patriarchal system into the strict papacy of the middle
ages. For several reasons we prefer to place him at the head of the
succeeding period." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book
3, chapter 5)
"The first Leo and the first Gregory are the two greatest bishops of
Rome in the first six centuries. Between them no important personage
appears on the chair of Peter; and in the course of that intervening
century the idea and the power of the papacy make no material advance. In
truth, they went farther in Leo's mind than they did in Gregory's. Leo
thought and acted as an absolute monarch; Gregory as first among the
patriarchs; but both under the full conviction that they were the
successors of Peter (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book
3, chapter 5)
E. Gregory's Territory and the development of Cardinal Bishops:
"He [Gregory, 590 AD] was bishop of the city of Rome, metropolitan
over the seven suffragan (afterwards called cardinal) bishops of the Roman
territory, and patriarch of Italy, in fact of the whole West, or of all the
Latin churches." (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Book 4,
ch 4, 51. Gregory and the Universal Episcopate)
"As metropolitan or archbishop, the bishop of Rome had immediate
jurisdiction over the seven suffragan bishops, afterward called cardinal
bishops, of the vicinity: Ostia, Portus, Silva candida, Sabina, Praeneste,
Tusculum, and Albanum." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
book 3, chapter 5)
F. 595 AD: John IV the Faster, starts using the title of "universal bishop"
and Gregory I, denies the title even for himself
John IV the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, starts using the
title of "oecumenical" or "universal bishop" in his letters condemning a
heretic bishop in 595 AD. Although the title was first granted in 588, this
first official use of the title starts a firestorm of protest in Rome from
Gregory I. The real battle and controversy began in 595, but was never
settled. This was the beginning of a split that would see the Greek
orthodox church and Roman Catholic church formally sever fellowship in 1054
AD. This proves that in the early church did not have an officially
designated "universal bishop", or else Constantinople would never have
taken the title.
G. What Gregory I, actually said in 595 AD to protest John IV the Faster's
use of the title "universal bishop": "the antichrist is near"
"Lo, he [Peter] received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power
to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole
Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle;
while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called
universal bishop." (Gregory the Great, book V, Epistle XX. To Mauricius
Augustus)
"Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory
Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople,
seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to
call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor
[Pelagius] knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the
holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have
taken care to send copies to your Holiness. ... wherein by a new act of
pride [John claiming title of Universal Bishop], all the bowels of the
Universal Church are disturbed. But, if he [John] should altogether refuse
to be bent from the stiffness of his elation, then, with the succour of
Almighty God, we may consider more particularly what ought to be done."
(Gregory the Great, book V Epistle XLIII. To Eulogius and Anastasius,
Bishops)
"a proud and profane title ... I have however taken care to admonish
earnestly the same my brother and fellow-bishop [John of Constantinople]
that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain
from the appellation of a foolish title. ... the appellation of a frivolous
name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous
things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the
case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very
frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the
language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the
wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever
calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation
the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all
others." (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XXXIII. To Mauricius
Augustus)
"Still it is very distressing, and hard to be borne with patience,
that my aforesaid brother and fellow-bishop [John of Constantinople],
despising all others, should attempt to be called sole bishop. But in this
pride of his what else is denoted than that the times of Antichrist are
already near at hand?" (Gregory the Great, Book V, Epistle XXI. To
Constantina Augusta)
"For, having confessed thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, thou
hast at length been brought to such a pass as, despising thy brethren, to
covet to be named the only bishop. And indeed with regard to this matter,
weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius
of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod, which had been
assembled among you in the case of our once brother and fellow-bishop
Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the
archdeacon whom he had sent according to custom to the threshold of our
Lord, to celebrate the solemnities of mass with you." (Gregory the Great,
Book V, Epistle XVIII. To John, Bishop)
"If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ
partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the
apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the Head of the
universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to
put all his members under thyself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I
ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising
the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start
up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and
to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will
exalt my throne above the starts of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of
the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights
of the clouds; I will be like the most High (Isai. xiv. 13)." (Gregory the
Great, Book V, Epistle XVIII. To John, Bishop)
Still it is very distressing, and hard to be borne with patience,
that my aforesaid brother and fellow-bishop, despising all others, should
attempt to be called sole bishop. But in this pride of his what else is
denoted than that the times of Antichrist are already near at hand? For in
truth he is imitating him who, scorning social joy with the legions of
angels, attempted to start up to a summit of singular eminence, saying, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven, I will sit upon the mount
of the testament, in the sides of the North, and will ascend above the
heights of the clouds, and I will be like the most High (Isai. xiv. 13).
(Gregory the Great, Book V, Epistle XXI. To Constantina Augusta)
H. What scholars say about Gregory's protest of John's use of the title
"universal bishop":
"Gregory likens anyone who would claim to be 'universal bishop' to
Lucifer himself who attempted to raise his throne above the throne of God
Himself (Isaiah 14). Would the modern claims of the papacy qualify for
Gregory's ridicule? This author believes that they would." (James R. White,
Answers to Catholic Claims, p 122, 1990)
"The Reformers also discovered that tradition contradicted
tradition. For example, the tradition of the Roman church teaches that the
pope is the head of the church, a bishop over all bishops. But Gregory the
Great, pope and saint at the end of the ancient church period, said that
such a teaching came from the spirit of Antichrist ('I confidently affirm
that whosoever calls himself -sacerdos universalis- [universal priest or
bishop], or desires to be so called by others is in his pride a forerunner
of Antichrist')." (Robert Godfrey, What Still Divides Us?, p14, edited by
Don Kistler, 1995)
"The attitudes and practices of the Fathers and councils reveal that
the church never viewed the bishops of Rome as being endowed with supreme
authority to rule the church universal. And there never has been a supreme
human ruler in the church. This whole concept was repudiated by Pope
Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604) when he rebuked the bishop of
Constantinople for attempting to arrogate to himself the title of
'universal bishop'. He insisted that such a position and title are unlawful
in the church of Jesus Christ" (William Webster, Roman Catholicism, edited
by John Armstrong, page 280, 1994)
"He [Gregory I] even solemnly protested, as his predecessor Pelagius
II. had done, against the title of universal bishop, which the
Constantinopolitan patriarch, John Jejunator, adopted at a council in 587;
he declared it an antichristian assumption, in terms which quite remind us
of the patriarchal equality, and seem to form a step in recession from the
ground of Leo. But when we take his operations in general into view, and
remember the rigid consistency of the papacy, which never forgets, we are
almost justified in thinking, that this protest was directed not so much
against the title itself, as against the bearer of it, and proceeded more
from jealousy of a rival at Constantinople, than from sincere humility.
From the same motive the Roman bishops avoided the title of patriarch, as
placing them on a level with the Eastern patriarchs, and preferred the
title of pope, from a sense of the specific dignity of the chair of Peter.
Gregory is said to have been the first to use the humble-proud title:
"Servant of the servants of God." His successors, notwithstanding his
protest, called themselves "the universal bishops" of Christendom. What he
had condemned in his oriental colleagues as antichristian arrogance, the
later popes considered but the appropriate expression of their official
position in the church universal. (History of the Christian Church, Philip
Schaff, Vol 3, ch 5, 64. The Papacy from Leo I to Gregory I. a.d. 461-590.)
Especially exposed to criticism were Gregory's joyful and flattering
congratulations to Phocas, the bloody usurper who overthrew the Eastern
Emperor Maurice. Unless Gregory was strangely ignorant of the character and
the doings of Phocas, this certainly was a sad blot upon his record; since
it reveals him as indulging a, grudge which he had entertained against
Maurice, in a spirit and manner alike unseemly and unchristian.' [Epist.
xiii. 31, 38.] But while censure has its place, Gregory, taken all in all,
was, for his age, an eminent and commanding example of the Christian
bishop. Though his tone was less lofty than that of some of his successors,
Gregory's view of his office did not fall much short of the full papal
theory. He disclaimed, it is true, high-sounding titles, such as "universal
pope" and "universal bishop." But he had a special incentive to this. To
disclaim such titles gave greater force to his criticism of the Patriarch
of Constantinople for styling himself universal bishop. Gregory complained
bitterly of the assumption of the Eastern prelate, and declared it a
fitting introduction to the proud and godless reign of Antichrist.
Nevertheless, in the very letters in which he voices his complaints, he
claims for the Roman see that general oversight of the Church which one
might naturally connect with the rejected name. [Epist. v. 18, 20, 21, ix.
68.] Boniface III., therefore, was adding little or nothing to the actual
claims of the papacy, when, a few years after Gregory's death, he accepted
from Phocas the title which had been so obnoxious to his illustrious
predecessor. (Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, Vol 2,
p116-117)
"The activity, of Gregory tended powerfully to establish the
authority of the papal chair. He combined a triple dignity, episcopal,
metropolitan, and patriarchal. He was bishop of the city of Rome,
metropolitan over the seven suffragan (afterwards called cardinal) bishops
of the Roman territory, and patriarch of Italy, in fact of the whole West,
or of all the Latin churches. This claim was scarcely disputed except as to
the degree of his power in particular cases. A certain primacy of honor
among all the patriarchs was also conceded, even by the East. But a
universal episcopate, including an authority of jurisdiction over the
Eastern or Greek church, was not acknowledged, and, what is more
remarkable, was not even claimed by him, but emphatically declined and
denounced. He stood between the patriarchal and the strictly papal system.
He regarded the four patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem, to whom he announced his election with a customary confession of
his faith, as co-ordinate leaders of the church under Christ, the supreme
head, corresponding as it were to the four oecumenical councils and the
four gospels, as their common foundation, yet after all with a firm belief
in a papal primacy. His correspondence with the East on this subject is
exceedingly important. The controversy began in 595, and lasted several
years, but was not settled. John IV., the Faster, patriarch of
Constantinople, repeatedly used in his letters the title "oecumenical" or
"universal bishop." This was an honorary, title, which had been given to
patriarchs by the emperors Leo [457-474 Leo I] and Justinian [527-565
Justinian I], and confirmed to John and his successors by a
Constantinopolitan synod in 588. It had also been used in the Council of
Chalcedon of pope Leo I [440-461 AD]. But Gregory I. was provoked and
irritated beyond measure by the assumption of his Eastern rival, and
strained every nerve to procure a revocation of that title. He
characterized it as a foolish, proud, profane, wicked, pestiferous,
blasphemous, and diabolical usurpation, and compared him who used it to
Lucifer. ... Failing in his efforts to change the mind of his rival in New
Rome [Constantinople], he addressed himself to the patriarchs of Alexandria
and Antioch, and played upon their jealousy; but they regarded the title
simply as a form of honor, and one of them addressed him as oecumenical
pope, a compliment which Gregory could not consistently accept. After the
death of John the Faster in 596, Gregory instructed his ambassador at
Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition
of intercommunion, the renunciation of the wicked title, and in a letter to
Maurice he went so far as to declare, that "whosoever calls himself
universal priest, or desires to be called so, was the forerunner of
Antichrist." In opposition to these high-sounding epithets, Gregory called
himself, in proud humility, "the servant of the servants of God." This
became one of the standing titles of the popes, although it sounds like
irony in conjunction with their astounding claims. ... But his remonstrance
was of no avail. Neither the patriarch nor the emperor obeyed his wishes.
Hence he hailed a change of government which occurred in 602 by a violent
revolution. ... When Phocas [Roman emperor], an ignorant, red-haired,
beardless, vulgar, cruel and deformed upstart, after the most atrocious
murder of Maurice and his whole family (a wife, six sons and three
daughters), ascended the throne, Gregory hastened to congratulate him and
his wife Leontia (who was not much better) in most enthusiastic terms,
calling on heaven and earth to rejoice at their accession, and vilifying
the memory of the dead emperor as a tyrant, from whose yoke the church was
now fortunately freed. This is a dark spot, but the only really dark and
inexcusable spot in the life of this pontiff. He seemed to have acted in
this case on the infamous maxim that the end justifies the means. His
motive was no doubt to secure the protection and aggrandizement of the
Roman see. He did not forget to remind the empress of the papal proof-text:
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," and to add: "I
do not doubt that you will take care to oblige and bind him to you, by whom
you desire to be loosed from your sins." The murderer and usurper [Phocas]
repaid the favor by taking side with the pope against his patriarch
(Cyriacus), who had shown sympathy with the unfortunate emperor. He
[Phocas] acknowledged the Roman church to be "the head of all churches."
But if he ever made such a decree at the instance of Boniface III., who at
that time was papal nuntius at Constantinople, he must have meant merely
such a primacy of honor as had been before conceded to Rome by the Council
of Chalcedon and the emperor Justinian. At all events the disputed title
continued to be used by the patriarchs and emperors of Constantinople.
Phocas, after a disgraceful reign (602-610), was stripped of the diadem and
purple, loaded with chains, insulted, tortured, beheaded and cast into the
flames. He was succeeded by Heraclius. In this whole controversy the pope's
jealousy of the patriarch is very manifest, and suggests the suspicion that
it inspired the protest. Gregory displays in his correspondence with his
rival a singular combination of pride and humility. He was too proud to
concede to him the title of a universal bishop, and yet too humble or too
inconsistent to claim it for himself. His arguments imply that he would
have the best right to the title, if it were not wrong in itself. His real
opinion is perhaps best expressed in a letter to Eulogius of Alexandria. He
accepts all the compliments which Eulogius paid to him as the successor of
Peter, whose very name signifies firmness and solidity; but he ranks
Antioch and Alexandria likewise as sees of Peter, which are nearly, if not
quite, on a par with that of Rome, so that the three, as it were,
constitute but one see. He ignores Jerusalem. ... When Eulogius, in return
for this exaltation of his own see, afterwards addressed Gregory as
"universal pope," he strongly repudiated the title, saying: "I have said
that neither to me nor to any one else (nec mihi, nec cuiquam alteri) ought
you to write anything of the kind. And lo! in the preface of your letter
you apply to me, who prohibited it, the proud title of universal pope;
which thing I beg your most sweet Holiness to do no more, because what is
given to others beyond what reason requires is subtracted from you. I do
not esteem that an honor by which I know my brethren lose their honor. My
honor is that of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my
brethren. I am then truly honored when all and each are allowed the honor
that is due to them. For, if your Holiness calls me universal pope, you
deny yourself to be that which you call me universally [that is, you own
yourself to be no pope]. But no more of this: away with words which inflate
pride and wound charity!" He even objects to the expression, "as thou hast
commanded," which had occurred in his correspondent's letter. "Which word,
commanded, I pray you let me hear no more; for I know what I am, and what
you are: in position you are my brethren, in manners you are my, fathers. I
did not, therefore, command, but desired only to indicate what seemed to me
expedient." On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Gregory, while he
protested in the strongest terms against the assumption by the Eastern
patriarchs of the antichristian and blasphemous title of universal bishop,
claimed and exercised, as far as he had the opportunity and power, the
authority and oversight over the whole church of Christ, even in the East.
"With respect to the church of Constantinople," he asks in one of his
letters, "who doubts that it is subject to the apostolic see?" And in
another letter: "I know not what bishop is not subject to it, if fault is
found in him." "To all who know the Gospels," he writes to emperor Maurice,
"it is plain that to Peter, as the prince of all the apostles, was
committed by our Lord the care of the whole church (totius ecclesiae cura)
.... But although the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind
and to loose, were entrusted to him, and the care and principality of the
whole church (totius ecclesiae cura et principatus), he is not called
universal bishop; while my most holy fellow-priest (vir sanctissimus
consacerdos meus) John dares to call himself universal bishop. I am
compelled to exclaim: O tempora, O mores!" We have no right to impeach
Gregory's sincerity. But he was clearly inconsistent in disclaiming the
name, and yet claiming the thing itself. The real objection is to the
pretension of a universal episcopate, not to the title. If we concede the
former, the latter is perfectly legitimate. And such universal power had
already been claimed by Roman pontiffs before Gregory, such as Leo I.,
Felix, Gelasius, Hormisdas, in language and acts more haughty and
self-sufficient than his. No wonder, therefore that the successors of
Gregory, less humble and more consistent than he, had no scruple to use
equivalent and even more arrogant titles than the one against which he so
solemnly protested with the warning: "God resisteth the proud, but giveth
grace to the humble." But it is a very remarkable fact, that at the
beginning of the unfolding of the greatest power of the papacy one of the
best of popes should have protested against the antichristian pride and
usurpation of the system." (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff,
Vol 4, ch 4, 51. Gregory and the Universal Episcopate)
I. Catholic attempts for damage control: Catholics, aware of the obvious
damage Gregory's views of any man calling themselves, "universal Bishop",
does towards the modern papal system, will give some very feeble rebuttals.
We list them here now with our comments:
Catholics say: Gregory himself said: "the Church of Christ, who
doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See". Answer: True, but the
Roman bishop had a habit of making these kinds of claims. The fact remains
that all the councils and canons before this, showed that Rome did not have
total, absolute control of the universal church. In 325, three patriarchal
churches equally ruled the world. In 381 AD, Second Ecumenical Council
tried to change the number of ruling churches from 3 to 2 equal powers, and
3 secondary powers. In 451 AD, The fourth ecumenical council, 5 equal
patriarchal churches were the rule of the day. While Rome always had top
prestige, it was always understood that Rome did not have total control,
but shared power with the other patriarchal churches.
Catholics say: Gregory's protest of John the Faster, Patriarch of
Constantinople, taking the title of Universal Bishop, is itself an act
where he exercised his [Gregory's] universal jurisdiction. Answer: Although
Gregory's protest could be viewed as exercising his Papal power, there is
not reason why we are forced to interpret it this way. After all, every
Bishop protested many things of other Bishops for hundreds of years, and
Catholics do not view these protests as acts of exercising their universal
jurisdiction. In 416 AD, when Roman Bishop. Pope Innocent I, claimed the
"chair of Peter" and the Bishop of Constantinople protested was the Bishop
of Constantinople exercising the universal jurisdiction? So the Catholic
comment is as illogical as it is wrong. But it gets worse for the Catholic
position. Catholics see Gregory's protest of John the Faster, taking the
title of Universal Bishop, as meaning, that it was Gregory's Title and
position alone and that John the Faster was usurping Gregory's position.
This is simply not the case and we can prove it: Gregory never takes the
title for himself. It is clear that Gregory did not think ANY man on earth,
including himself, should wear the title of Universal Bishop. Catholic
denials of this fact are a combination of wishful thinking and blind
self-delusion.
Catholics say: Gregory was merely condemning John the Faster's
misuse of the term, "Universal Bishop" because John was using it to
proclaim himself the "only real Bishop, to the exclusion of all others",
rather than the correct view, namely the "top Bishop among other bishops",
as Gregory viewed it. Answer: This is historically wrong and a deliberate
misreading of what Gregory did in fact say and mean. But we ask Catholics
to consider the fact that they believe Pope Leo I, in 451AD, took the title
of "Universal bishop". (The truth is that Pope Leo I never did use this
title, but it is a Catholic myth.) But since Catholics believe Pope Leo I
did use the title, then obviously John the Faster was using the term in
exactly the same way as Leo when the Bishop of Constantinople had
complained. For Catholics, the term was already in use and well defined.
This was a time of power struggle between Rome and Constantinople. The
final proof that John did properly define the term, is that Boniface III
defined the term EXACTLY the same way as John did.
Catholics say: Gregory objected to John's use of the title
"universal bishop" could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that
term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all
other "bishops" were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their
own. What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal
Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who
proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588.
Gregory condemned the patriarch's act because universal jurisdiction
applies solely to the pope. Answer: This has to be one of the clearest
cases of illogical double talk we have ever heard. Notice first they say
Gregory objected that John was using the title to exclude all other
bishops. Then second they say Gregory objected because the title applied
only to him, as the Pope, meaning that John had stolen the title from
Gregory. So which is it? Did Gregory object because John was wrongly
defining the title to mean something different than how Gregory would use
the title, or was John correctly defining the title, but had no right to
use it because it belonged solely to Gregory? Catholics want it both ways!
Here are the facts: First, John never claimed to exclude all other bishops
with the title any more than Boniface III did a few years later when he
took on the title. We challenge Catholics to prove John ever defined the
term in this way! So the first point is irrelevant and a misreading of what
John did actually say. Second, Gregory never said the title was wrong
because it was solely his to wear, but that no man should ever wear the
title. We challenge Catholics to show us where Gregory ever actually used
the title, "Universal Bishop"! Finally, the modern Catholic papacy is where
the Pope has total universal control of the entire church world wide. His
views cannot be overturned by anyone! Isn't this exactly the definition
they say John was applying to Universal Pope? In fact, the Pope today,
really is in a class by himself with no others. Why are Catholics so
illogical?
J. 602 AD Roman Emperor Maurice is murdered in a coup by Phocas, who then
becomes emperor.
K. 604 AD Gregory, the bishop of Rome dies and is replaced by Sabinian, who
reigns for two years.
L. 606 AD Sabinian, the bishop of Rome dies and is replaced by Boniface
III. Phocas writes to the new bishop of Rome, Boniface III and through
imperial decree of the Roman government, proclaims Biniface III, as the
"Head of all the Churches" and "Universal Bishop". Phocas transfers the
title from Constantinople to Rome. Boniface III, Bishop of Rome takes
title: "universal Bishop": Catholicism is formally born in its final
evolved form but the east never accepts Romes claims and finally split
fellowship with Rome in 1054 AD.
"The Roman bishop claims, that the four dignities of bishop,
metropolitan, patriarch, and pope or primate of the whole church, are
united in himself. The first three offices must be granted him in all
historical justice; the last is denied him by the Greek church, and by the
Evangelical, and by all non-Catholic sects." (Philip Schaff, History of the
Christian Church, book 3, chapter 5)
Click to View Learn from the Bible Blueprint, how the church was organized
by the apostles!
Click to View Find a local congregation of the New Testament church that is
organized exactly as the Bible says
Compiled and edited by Steve Rudd
Click Your Choice
Back to START
|