We have already mentioned that the title of
œcumenical had been given to the Bishop of Rome as a mere
honour in the Council of Chalcedon; that Pope Felix bad
affected to give to his see the title of catholic
in the same sense; and that some Oriental monks had called
Pope Agapitus œcumenical Patriarch. These
precedents were copied at Constantinople. The emperors were
bent upon raising the Patriarch of that capital, which they
called the new Rome, to the same degree of honour
as belonged to the one of ancient Rome, still keeping him in
the second rank, but only in respect of seniority. The
Emperor Maurice thus gave to John the Faster the title of
œcumenical Patriarch.
Pope Pelagius II. and his successor Gregory
the Great protested against this title. Gregory then wrote
those famous letters which so absolutely condemn the modern
Papacy. We will give some extracts from them.
At the beginning of his episcopate, Gregory
addressed a letter of communion to the Patriarchs John of
Constantinople, Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregory of Antioch,
John of Jerusalem, and to Anastasius, formerly Patriarch of
Antioch, his friend. If he had considered himself the chief
and sovereign of the Church; if he had believed he was so by
divine right, he would certainly have addressed the
Patriarchs as subordinates; we should find in that
encyclical letter some traces of his superiority. The fact
is quite the reverse of this. It speaks at great length of
the duties of the episcopate, and not even dreams
of mentioning the rights which such a dignity would
have conferred on him.
He particularly insists upon the duty of a
bishop not to permit himself to be engrossed by the cares of
external things, and concludes his encyclical letter with
his confession of faith, in order to prove himself in
communion with the other Patriarchs, and through them with
all the Church. St. Greg. Pap. Epist.
25, lib. 1.
Such silence on St. Gregory's part
concerning the pretended rights of the Papacy is of
itself significant enough, and Romish theologians would find
it difficult of explanation. What, then, shall they oppose
to the letters from which we are about to give a few
extracts, and in which St. Gregory most unreservedly
condemns the very idea which is the foundation of their
Papacy as they understand it—that is, the universal
character of its authority?
Gregory to John, Bishop of
Constantinople:
"You remember, my brother, the peace and
concord which the Church enjoyed when you were raised to the
sacerdotal dignity. I do not, therefore, understand how you
have dared to follow the inspiration of pride, and have
attempted to assume a title which may give offence to all
the brethren. I am the more astonished at it that I remember
your having taken flight to avoid the episcopate; and yet
you would exercise it to-day, as if you had run toward it,
impelled by ambitious desires. You who used to say so loud
that you were unworthy of the episcopate, you are no sooner
raised to it than, despising your brethren, you aspire to
have alone the title of bishop. My predecessor, Pelagius, of
saintly memory, wrote very seriously to your Holiness upon
this subject. He rejected, in consequence of the proud and
magnificent title that you assumed in them, the acts of the
synod which you assembled in the cause of Gregory, our
brother and fellow-bishop; and to the archdeacon, whom,
according to usage, he had sent to the Emperor's court, he
forbade communion with you. After the death of Pelagius,
having been raised, notwithstanding my unworthiness, to the
government of the Church, According to
St. Gregory, every bishop has a part in the government of
the Church, the authority residing in the episcopate.
it has been my care to urge you, my brother, not by writing,
but by word of mouth, first by my envoy, The Bishop of Rome had kept representatives at the court of
Constantinople ever since that city had become the imperial
residence. and afterward through our common son,
Deacon Sabinian, to give up such assumption. I have
forbidden him also to communicate with you if you should
refuse to yield to my request, in order that your Holiness
may be inspired with shame for your ambition, before
resorting canonical proceedings, in case shame should not
cure you of pride so profane and so reprehensible. As before
resorting to amputation, the wound should be tenderly
probed, I pray you—I entreat you—I ask with the greatest
possible gentleness, that you, my brother, will resist all
the flatterers who give you an erroneous title, and that you
will not consent to ascribe to yourself a title as senseless
as vainglorious. Verily I have tears for this; and from the
bottom of my heart I ascribe it to my own sins that my
brother has not been willing to return to lowliness—he who
was raised to the episcopal dignity only to teach other
souls to be lowly; that he who teaches others the truth
would neither teach it to himself, nor consent, for all my
prayers, that I should teach it him.
"I pray you, therefore, reflect that by your
bold presumption the peace of the whole Church is troubled,
and that you are at enmity with that grace, which was
given to all in common. The more you grow in that
grace, the more humble you will be in your own eyes; you
will be the greater in proportion as you are further removed
from usurping this extravagant and vainglorious title. You
will be the richer as you seek less to despoil your brethren
to your profit. Therefore, dearly beloved brother, love
humility with all your heart. It is that which insures peace
among the brethren, and which preserves unity in the
Holy Catholic Church.
"When the Apostle Paul heard certain of the
faithful say, 'I am of Paul of Apollos, and I of
Cephas,' he could not see them, without horror, thus
rending the body of the Lord, to attach his members to
various heads; and he exclaimed, 'Was Paul crucified for
you?—or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' If he could
not bear that the members of the body of the Lord should be attached piecemeal to other heads than that of Christ,
though those heads were Apostles, what will you say to
Christ, who is the head of the universal Church—what will
you say to him at the last judgment—you who, by your title
of universal, would bring all his members into
subjection to yourself? Whom, I pray you tell me, whom do
you imitate by this perverse title if not him who, despising
the legions of angels, his companions, endeavoured to mount
to the highest, that he might be subject to none and be
alone above all others; who said, 'I will ascend into
heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I
will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the
sides of the North; I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds; I will be like the Most High'? What are your
brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but the stars
of God? Their lives and teaching shine, in truth, through
the sins and errours of men, as do the stars through the
darkness of the night. When, by your ambitious title, you
would exalt yourself above them, and debase their title in
comparison with your own, what do you say, if not these very
words, I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne
above the stars of God? Are not all the bishops the
clouds that pour forth the rain of instruction, and who are
furrowed by the lightnings of their own good works? In
despising them, my brother, and endeavouring to put them
under your feet, what else do you say than that word of the
ancient enemy, I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds? For my part, when, through my tears, I see all
this, I fear the secret judgments of God; my tears flow more
abundantly; my heart overflows with lamentations, to think
that my Lord John—a man so holy, of such great abstinence
and humility, but now seduced by the flattery of his
familiars—should have been raised to such a degree of pride
that, through the lust of a wrongful title, he should
endeavour to resemble him who, vaingloriously wishing to be
like God, lost, because he was ambitious of a false glory,
the grace of the divine resemblance that had been granted to
him, and the true beatitude. Peter, the first of the
Apostles, and a member of the holy and universal
Church; Paul, Andrew, John—were they not the chiefs of
certain nations? And yet all are members under one only head. In a word, the saints
before the law,
the saints under the law, the saints under
grace — do they not all constitute the body of the
Lord? Are they not members of the Church? Yet is there none
among them who desired to be called universal. Let
your Holiness consider, therefore, how much you are puffed
up when you claim a title that none of them had the
presumption to assume.
"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, 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.
. . . 'The Lord, wishing to recall to a
proper humility the yet feeble hearts of his disciples, said
to them, 'If any man desire to be first, the same shall be
last of all;' whereby we are clearly taught that he who is
truly high is he who is most humble in mind. Let us,
therefore, beware of being of the number of those 'who love
the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the
markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.' In fact,
the Lord said to his disciples, 'Be ye not called Rabbi,
for one is your Master . . . and all ye are brethren.
Neither be ye called Fathers, for ye have but one Father.'
"What then could you answer, beloved
brother, in the terrible judgment to come, who desire not
only to be called Father, but universal Father of the world?
Beware then of evil suggestions; fly from the counsel of
offence. 'It is impossible,' indeed, 'but that
offences will come; but,' for all that, 'Woe unto him
through whom they come!' In consequence of your wicked
and vainglorious title, the Church is divided and the hearts
of the brethren are offended.
. . . "I have sought again and again, by my
messengers and by humble words, to correct the sin which has
been committed against the whole Church. Now I
myself write. I have omitted nothing that humility made it
my duty to do. If I reap from my rebuke nothing better than
contempt, there will nothing be left for me but to appeal to
the Church."
By this first letter of St. Gregory we see,
first, that ecclesiastical authority resides in the
episcopate, and not in any one bishop, however high in
the ecclesiastical hierarchy; secondly, that it was not his private cause that Gregory defended against John of
Constantinople, but that of the whole Church;
thirdly, that he had not himself the right to judge the
cause, and was compelled to refer it to the Church;
fourthly, that the title of universal bishop is
contrary to God's word, and vainglorious and wicked;
fifthly, that no bishop, however high in the ecclesiastical
hierarchy, can assume universal authority, without invading
the rights of the entire episcopate and lastly, that no
bishop in the Church can claim to be Father of all
Christians without assuming a title which is contrary to the
Gospel, vainglorious, and wicked.
John of Constantinople, having received his
title of universal from the Emperor, Gregory wrote
the following letter to that prince: Letters of St. Gregory, Book V. Letter 20, Benedictine
edition.
"Our very pious lord does wisely to
endeavour to accomplish the peace of the Church that he may
restore peace to his empire, and to condescend to invite the
priesthood to concord and unity. I myself desire it
ardently; and as much as in me lies, I obey his worshipful
commands. But since not my cause alone, but the cause of God
is concerned; since it is not I alone who am disturbed, but
the whole Church that is agitated; since the canons, the
venerable councils, and the commandments of our Lord Jesus
Christ himself are attacked, by the invention of a certain
pompous and vainglorious word; let our most pious lord cut
out this evil; and if the patient would resist him, let him
bind him with the bonds of his imperial authority. In
binding such things you will give liberty to the
commonwealth, and by excisions of this sort you will
diminish the malady of your empire.
"All those who have read the Gospel know
that the care of the whole Church was confided by our Lord
himself to St. Peter, first of all the Apostles. Indeed, he
said to him, 'Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.'
Again it was said to him, 'Satan has desired to sift
thee as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren.' It was also said to him, 'Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it: and l will give
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'
He thus received the keys of the celestial kingdom; the
power to bind and loose was given to him; the care of all
the Church and the primacy were committed to him; and yet he
did not call himself universal Apostle. But that
most holy man, John, my brother in the priesthood, would
fain assume the title of universal bishop. I can
but exclaim, O tempora! O mores!"
We cannot pass over these words of St.
Gregory without pointing out their great importance. This
learned doctor interprets, as we have seen, the texts of the
Gospel, which refer to St. Peter, in the sense most
favourable to that Apostle. He exalts Peter as having had
the primacy in the Apostolic college; as having been
intrusted by the Lord himself with the care of the whole
Church. What does he infer from all this? Ever since the
Popes have abused the texts that he quotes, in order to
attribute to themselves an absolute, and universal authority in the Church, we know how they
reason. They give to the language of the Gospel, in the
first place, the very broadest and most absolute sense, and
then apply it to themselves as the successors of St. Peter.
St. Gregory acts quite otherwise: he places Peter's
prerogatives side by side with his humility, which kept him
from claiming universal authority; he is so far
from holding himself out as Peter's heir, that he only
quotes the example of that Apostle to confound John of
Constantinople, and all those who would claim universal
authority in the Church. Thus he attacks, by St. Peter's
example, the same authority that the popes have since
claimed in the name of St. Peter and as his successors.
St. Gregory continues:
"Is it my cause, most pious lord, that I now
defend? Is it a private injury that I wish to avenge? No;
this is the cause of Almighty God, the cause of the
universal Church.
"Who is he who, against the precepts of the
Gospel and the decrees of the canons, has the presumption to
usurp a new title? Would to Heaven there were but one who,
without wishing to lessen the others, desired to be himself
universal! . . . .
"The Church of Constantinople has produced
bishops who have fallen in the abyss of heresy, and who have
even become heresiarchs. Thence issued Nestorius, who,
thinking, there must be two persons in Jesus Christ,
mediator between God and man, because be did not believe
that God could become man, descended thus to the very
perfidy of the Jews. Thence came Macedonius, also, who
denied that the Holy Spirit was God consubstantial with the
Father and the Son. But if any one usurp in the Church a
title which embraces all the faithful, the universal
Church—O blasphemy!—will then fall with him, since he makes
himself to be called the universal. May all
Christians reject this blasphemous title—this title which
takes the sacerdotal honour from every priest the moment it
is insanely usurped by one!
"It is certain that this title was offered
to the Roman Pontiff by the venerable Council of Chalcedon,
to honour the blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles. But
none of us has consented to use this particular title, lest,
by conferring a special matter upon one alone, all priests
should be deprived of the honour which is their due. How,
then, while we are not ambitious of the glory of a title
that has been offered to us, does another, to whom no one
has offered it, have the presumption to take it?"
This passage of Gregory is very remarkable.
He first asserts that it was a council that offered the
Bishops of Rome the honour of being called universal.
Would this council have done this with a view to honour
these bishops if it had believed that they already had
universal authority by divine right? Moreover, St.
Gregory asserts that the council wished to honour the
bishops as an honour to St. Peter. He, therefore,
did not believe that universal authority came to
them by succession from that Apostle. The Church of
Rome has cause to glory in St. Peter, for he made her
illustrious by his martyrdom. It was, therefore, in
remembrance of this martyrdom, and to honour this
first of the Apostles, that the General Council of Chalcedon
offered the Bishops of Rome this honorary
title. How shall we reconcile these statements of St.
Gregory with the pretensions of the modern Bishops of Rome,
who believe that of divine right they are invested
not only with the title of universal Bishop and common Father of the Faithful, but also with an
universal sovereignty?
These letters of St. Gregory are
unquestionable records attesting that the universal Church
was startled from the moment there appeared in her bosom the
first glimmerings of an universal power residing in
a single bishop. The whole Church understood that such
authority could not be established without depriving the
entire episcopate of its rights; in fact, according
to divine institution, the government of the Church is synodical. Authority can, therefore, only reside in the
entire body of legitimate pastors, and not in any individual
pastor.
We cannot declare in favour of the universal
authority of one without destroying the divine
principle of the organization of the Church.
This truth stands out prominently from the
writings of Pope Gregory the Great.
He writes upon the same subject to Eulogius,
Bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch. He
says to them: "Eight years ago, in the life of our
predecessor, Pelagius, of saintly memory, our brother and
fellow-bishop, John, taking occasion from some other matter,
assembled a synod in the city of Constantinople, and sought
to assume the title of universal, which our
predecessor no sooner learned than he sent letters by which,
in virtue of the authority of the Apostle St. Peter, he
nullified the acts of the synod."
Romish theologians have strangely misused
this passage in favour of their system. Had they compared it
with the other texts from St. Gregory on the same subject,
and with the whole body of his doctrine, they might have
convinced themselves of two things: First, that in this
passage Gregory only refers to the primacy granted by the
councils to the Bishop of Rome because of the dignity of his
see, made glorious by the martyrdom of St. Peter, first
of the Apostles. Secondly, that the only question before the
synod of Constantinople was one of mere discipline, in which
the accused priest had appealed to Rome. Pelagius, then
Bishop of Rome, was therefore judge in the last resort in
this matter, in virtue of the primacy granted to
his see. This primacy had been granted to his see for the
sake of St. Peter. The Council of Chalcedon, in order to
honour St. Peter, had also offered the title of universal to the Bishops or Rome, as we learn from St.
Gregory.
But between this and a
sovereignty of
divine right coming to the popes by succession from
St. Peter, there is a great gulf; yet Romanists have
found it all in the text from St. Gregory above quoted;
carefully avoiding, to quote, however, the other texts that
limit its meaning, and teach us the true doctrine of this
Pope. They often act thus in respect of their quotations
from the councils and the Fathers of the Church, as we have
already repeatedly shown.
St. Gregory continues:
"As your Holiness, whom I particularly
venerate, well knows, this title of universal was
offered by the holy Council of Chalcedon to the Bishop of
the Apostolic see, which, by God's grace, I serve. But'none
of my predecessors would use this impious word,
because, in reality, if a Patriarch be called universal,
this takes from all the others the title of Patriarch.
Far, very far, from every Christian soul be the wish to
usurp any thing that might diminish, however little, the
honour of his brethren! When we deny ourselves an honour
that has been offered to us, consider how humiliating it is
to see it violently usurped by another."
Roman theologians have carefully avoided
calling attention to this passage, where St. Gregory
considers himself a Patriarch equal to the other
Patriarchs; where he clearly says, if one of the
Patriarchs may claim to be universal, the others are, ipso facto, no more Patriarchs. This doctrine perfectly
agrees with that of the primacy granted to the
Patriarch of Rome, for St. Peter's sake, and in remembrance
of the martyrdom suffered by this first of the
Apostles at Rome; but does it agree with a
universal sovereignty,
coming by divine right to the Bishops of Rome,
through Peter, their assumed predecessor? Assuredly
not.
St. Gregory continues to unfold a teaching
contrary to the modern Papal system:
"Therefore," he says, "let your Holiness not
give to any one in your letters the title of universal,
lest you deprive yourself of your own due, by offering to
another an honour that you do not owe to him. For
my part, though separated from you by great distance of land
and sea, I am, nevertheless, closely bound to you in heart.
I am confident that such are also the sentiments of your
Holiness toward me; if you love me as I love you, no
distance can separate us. Thanks be, then, to that grain of
mustard-seed, which was, indeed, in appearance, small and
contemptible, but which, spreading afar its branches, sprung
all from one root, has formed a shelter for all the birds of
the air! Thanks be, also, to that leaven which, hidden in
three measures of meal, has joined in one unity the whole of
mankind. Thanks, again, for that little stone, broken
without effort from the mountain, that has covered the whole
surface of the earth, which has so extended itself as to
make out of the human race, now united, the body of the
universal Church, which has even made distinctions of the
parts serve to rivet the bonds of unity.
"Hence it follows, that we are not far from
you, since we are one in Him who is everywhere. Let
us give Him thanks for having so destroyed all enmities
that, in his humanity, there is in the world but one fold
and one flock, under one shepherd, which is Christ himself.
Let us always remember these warnings of the Preacher of
truth: 'Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace.' (Ephes. 4:3.) 'Follow peace
with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see
the Lord.' (Heb. 12:14.) The same said to
his disciples, 'If it be
possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all
men.' (Romans 12:18.) He knew that the good could have
no peace with the wicked; therefore, he says at once, as you
know, 'If it be possible.'"
Let us pause a moment over this part of
Gregory's letter. Is it not remarkable that, in speaking of
the Church as one flock under the guidance of a single pastor, which is Jesus Christ, he expressly says
that Jesus Christ is the only visible pastor of the
Church, or, which is the same thing, that he is the pastor
in his humanity, in his flesh, according to the
whole strength of the expression, "in carne suâ?"
Does not this exclude all idea of a
universal pastor, taking the place of and representing
Christ? Therefore, does it not, in one word, destroy all the
assumptions of the modern Papacy, and reduce the true Papacy
to a primacy established by the Church?
Further, St. Gregory, in quoting the epistle
to the Romans, calls these Romans "disciples"
of St. Paul. St. Paul only wrote his epistle to the
Christians at Rome, a.d. 58.
There were then at Rome very few Christians—not established
as a Church, properly so called, and assembling at, the
house of Aquila, one of their number. They had come to Rome
from various countries that had been evangelized by St.
Paul, and are thus called by St. Gregory his disciples. They
wrote to him, beseeching him to visit and instruct them.
Paul replied to them by his letter, in which he promises to
evangelize Rome. He went there two years later.
There he found some Jews, who only knew the Christians by
name, and who, therefore, cannot have already been converted
by St. Peter, their special Apostle. Paul formed a church at
Rome, and gave it for a bishop one Linus, his disciple, whom
Tertullian, St. Irenæus, and Eusebius mention, as we have
already seen, as the first Bishop of Rome.
Where, now, is the alleged episcopate of St.
Peter at Rome, upon which the Ultramontanes base all their
systems? St. Peter evidently came to Rome but a short time
before be suffered martyrdom there. It was because of
the martyrdom of the first of the Apostles,
and not because of his episcopate at Rome, that the
councils, like that of Chalcedon and that of Sardica, for
example, granted certain special privileges to the
Bishops of Rome. Nor does St. Gregory, in his letters to the
Patriarchs, endeavour to ascribe to himself, by right of
Apostolic succession from St. Peter, an authority which was
not his; he even very justly traces his Church back to St.
Paul, and not to St. Peter. Thus, when, in another place, he
calls the authority of his predecessor the authority of
St. Peter, he means by that only the rights which the
Bishops of Rome had received from the councils for the
honour of St. Peter, who had made that Church
illustrious by his glorious death!
Could any one find in St. Gregory's letter
to the Patriarchs the language of a superiour toward his
subordinates? St. Gregory, as first bishop of the
Church, as first of the Patriarchs, takes
the lead, calls the attention of the other Patriarchs, his brethren, to the encroachments of one of their
number. He entreats them to join him in resisting what he
regards as a misfortune for the whole episcopate; nay, for
the universal Church. He does not make the
slightest allusion to any superiour authority in himself; he
appeals only to the divine precept and to the canons,
against an usurpation, which he calls diabolical. Is this
the language of a chief, of a universal monarch? Clearly
not. We cannot read this beautiful letter of St. Gregory to
the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria without being
convinced that such a Papacy as is now assumed to be of divine right, was unknown to him; that he cried out
against tendencies that may be looked upon as the first
attempts at universal jurisdiction; that he looked
upon those first attempts as an enterprise which might upset
the Church and which threatened the rights of the entire
priesthood. Perhaps he attached too much importance to a
purely honorary title which only emanated from the
imperial authority; but he saw, under this title, an
anti-canonical undertaking, and the first attempts at a universal Papacy. What would he say of this Papacy
itself, with all its modern pretensions? He would justly
show himself its greatest enemy, and would see in it the
source of all the evils with which the Church has been for
centuries overwhelmed.
The Patriarch of Alexandria, not replying to
him, Gregory wrote asking for his opinion.
Letters of St. Gregory, Book VI., Ep.
60, Benedictine Ed.
Thereupon John of Constantinople died.
Gregory wrote at once to his successor, Cyriacus, who had
sent him a letter of communion. He congratulates him upon
his faith, but adds, concerning the title of universal,
which he had followed the example of his predecessor in
taking:
"We shall truly be at peace,
Ibid. Book VII. Ep. 4. if you
renounce the pride of an impious title, according to the
word of the Apostle of the Gentiles, 'O Timothy, keep
that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and
vain babblings.' (1 Tim. 6:20.) It is indeed too unjust
that those who have become the preachers of humility, should
glory in a vain title of pride. The Preacher of truth says,
'God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ.' (Gal. 6:14.) Hence he is truly
glorious who glories not in temporal power, but in what
he suffers for the name of Christ. In this we heartily
embrace you, in this we recognize you as priest, if,
repelling the vanity of titles, you occupy an holy see with
holy humility.
"For we have been offended in respect to a
sinful title; we have had a grudge concerning it, we have
declared loudly on the subject. Now you know, my brother,
that the Truth hath said, 'If thou bring thy gift
to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath
aught against theeleave there thy gift before the altar, and
go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then
come and offer thy gift.' (St. Matt. 5:23, 24.) Thus,
although every fault is wiped away by the sacrifice, the
evil of giving offence to the brethren is so great, that the
Lord will not accept from him who is guilty of it the
sacrifice that usually atones for sin. Hasten, therefore, to
purify your heart of this offence, that the Lord may look
with favour upon the offering of your gift."
Gregory having occasion to write again to
Cyriacus, alludes again to the subject, so much importance
did he attach to it:
"I could not express to you in this letter,"
says he, Ibid. Book VI. letter v.
"how my soul is bound to you; but I pray Almighty God, by
the gift of his grace, to strengthen still more this union
between us, and destroy all occasion of offence, in order
that the holy Church, united by a confession of the true
faith, of which the bonds are riveted by the reciprocal
sentiments of the faithful, may suffer no damage from any
discussions that the priests may have among themselves. As
for me, in spite of all I say, and through all the
opposition that I make to certain acts of pride, I preserve
charity in the depth of my heart, God be thanked, and while
I sustain externally the claims of justice, I do not
inwardly repel those of love and affection.
"On your part, reciprocate my sentiments,
and respect the rights of peace and affection, that
remaining in unity of spirit, there may be left no subject
of division between us. We shall the more easily obtain the
grace of the Lord if we come before him with united hearts."
Cyriacus was not touched by Gregory's tender
exhortations, who, some time after, wrote to the Patriarch
of Antioch, blaming him, in a friendly way, for not
attaching enough importance to the usurpation of their
brother of Constantinople. We see by that letter that the
Patriarch of Antioch feared to draw upon himself the
displeasure of the Emperor if he declared against the
Patriarch of Constantinople. He wrote his friend St. Gregory
a very flattering letter. "But," replied the great Pope,
"your Holiness, I perceive, would have your letter like the
bee that carries both honey and a sting, that you might both
satisfy me with honey and sting me. But I have found in this
an occasion to reflect upon these words of Solomon,
'Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an
enemy are deceitful.' (Prov. 27:6.)
"As regards what you say to me concerning
the title whereat I am offended, that I should yield,
because the thing is of no importance, the Emperor has
written me to the same effect. That which he says by virtue
of his power, I know you say out of friendship. I am not
surprised to find the same expressions in your letter as in
that of the Emperor, for love and power have many things in
common; both are in the first rank, and they always speak
with authority.
"When I received the synodical letter from
our brother and fellow-bishop, Cyriacus, I did not see fit
to put off replying to him, in spite of the impious title he
assumed in it, lest I should thereby trouble the unity of
the holy Church; but I took care to tell him my opinion
touching this grand and superstitious title; I told him that
he could not have peace with us if he did not refrain from
taking this title of pride, which was but an invention
of the first apostate. You must not consider this same
affair as unimportant; for, if we tolerate it, we corrupt the faith of the whole Church. You know how
many, not heretics only but heresiarchs, have arisen in the
church of Constantinople. Not to speak of the injury done to
your dignity, it cannot be denied that if any one bishop be
called universal, all the Church crumbles
if that universal one fall. But far be it from me
to lend an ear to such folly, to such levity!
I confide in the all-powerful Lord, who will fulfil the
promise he has made, 'Whosoever exalteth himself shall
be abased.'" (Luke 14:11.)
No one could more wisely estimate than does
St. Gregory the serious inconveniences that the Church might
suffer from a central authority assuming to represent
and sum up the Church. Man, whatever he may be, and
frequently from the superiour dignity itself with which he
is invested, is subject to errour: if the Church be
summed up in him, the Church falls with him. Such is
St. Gregory's reasoning. He foresaw but too well; and the
Roman Church has fallen into endless errours, with a Pope
who claims to sum her up in his own person, and to be her
infallible personification.
Happily the Church of Jesus Christ is
neither that of one time nor that of one place,
and she may always be distinguished by the Catholic
criterion so clearly set forth by the Fathers of the
Church. Otherwise, we must cease to believe the promises of
Christ, and must say in an absolute sense what St. Gregory
said hypothetically, The universal one has fallen, the
whole Church has fallen!
They said at the court of Constantinople,
that Gregory only made such fierce war against the title of
universal from jealousy of the Bishop of the New
Rome, and to debase him. The Emperor and Cyriacus wrote thus
to him with all the respect that was his due; but Gregory
made Cyriacus clearly understand that he had misjudged him.
He sent to him and to the Emperor a deacon, Anatolius by
name, to undeceive them, giving him letters for the Emperor
and the Patriarch. To the latter, after thanking him for his
flattering words, he says: Book VII. Ep.
31.
"It must be not only by words, but by deeds,
that you show to me and to all your brethren the splendour
of your charity, by hastening to renounce a title of pride,
which has been a cause of offence to all the churches.
Fulfil these words, 'Endeavour to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace, (Eph. 4:3,) and this
other, 'Give none occasion to the adversary to speak
reproachfully.' (1 Tim. 5:14.) Your charity will shine
forth if there be no division between us in respect to a
vainglorious title. I call Jesus to witness, from the depth
of my soul, that I do not wish to give offence to any
person, from the least to the greatest. I desire all to be
great and honoured, provided such honour detracts nothing
from that which is due to Almighty God. Indeed, whoever
would be honoured against God is not honourable in my eyes.
. . . In this matter I would injure no one; I would only
defend that humility which is pleasing to God and the peace
of the holy Church. Let the things newly introduced be
therefore abrogated in the same manner as they have been
established, and we shall preserve amongst us the purest
peace of the Lord. What kindly relations can exist between
us if our sentiments are but words, and we wound one another
with our deeds?"
In his letter to the Emperor, Gregory
devotes himself to refuting the argument that was drawn from
the insignificance of this honorary title, to which they
pretended, at Constantinople, not to attach any great
importance. "I pray your Imperial Piety," be says,
Book VII. Ep. 33. "to observe
that there are some frivolous things that are inoffensive,
but also some others that are very hurtful. When Antichrist
shall come and call himself God, it will be in
itself a perfectly frivolous thing, but a very pernicious
one. If we only choose to consider the number of syllables
in this word, we find but two, (De-us;) but if we
conceive the weight of iniquity of this title, we shall find
it enormous. 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 errour 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."
Nowadays they teach, in the name of the
Church and in favour of the Bishop of Rome, the same
doctrine that St. Gregory stigmatized with so much energy.
The partisans of the Papacy teach continually that the Pope
has a universal authority—that he is the
universal bishop — that, properly speaking, he is the
only bishop, the source whence flows all
ecclesiastical dignity, including the episcopate,
which is but indirectly and mediately of
divine right.
Such is the instruction that they would now
foist upon us as Catholic doctrine. Do our modern
innovators apprehend that Pope Gregory the Great regarded
such a doctrine as diabolical, and has, in
anticipation, called this Pope, so invested with an assumed
universal episcopate, Antichrist?
St. Gregory was in the habit of taking no
important decision without giving information of it to the
other Patriarchs. He therefore wrote to those of Alexandria
and Antioch, to inform them what course he had adopted with
regard to the new Patriarch of Constantinople. Eulogius,
Patriarch of Alexandria, was persuaded, and announced to
Gregory that be would no longer give the title universal
to the Bishop of Constantinople; but, thinking to flatter
Gregory, whom he loved and who had done him service on many
occasions, he gave the same title to him, and wrote that if
he did not give it to the Bishop of Constantinople, it was
in submission to the COMMANDS of
Gregory. Gregory answered at once, and the following passage
from his answer shows what idea he had of his own authority
as bishop of Rome:
"Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us
that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them
certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using
this phrase regarding me, as you have commanded.' I
pray you let me never again hear this word command;
for I know who I am and who you are. BY YOUR
POSITION YOU ARE MY BRETHREN; by your virtues you
are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have
only been careful to point out things which seemed to me
useful. Still I do not find that your Holiness has
perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress
on your memory; for I said that you should no more give
that title to me than to others; and lo! in the
superscription of your letter, you give to me, who have
proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of universal
and of Pope. May your sweet Holiness do so no more
in future, I beseech you; for you take from yourself
what you give in excess to another. I do not ask to increase
in dignities, but in virtues. I do not esteem that an honour
which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My
honour is that of the whole Church. My honour is the
unshaken firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly
honoured when no one is denied the Honour due to him. If
your Holiness calls me universal Pope, you deny that you
are yourself what I should then be altogether. God
forbid! Far from us be the words that puff up vanity and
wound charity."
Thus did Pope Gregory condemn, even in the
person of the Bishop of Rome, the title of Pope and
that of universal. He acknowledges that the
Patriarch of Alexandria is his equal, that be is not
entitled to lay any commands upon him and consequently that
he has no authority over him.
How is this orthodox doctrine of St.
Gregory's to be reconciled with the modern teaching
that ascribes to the Pope a universal authority of
divine right?Let the defenders of the Papacy answer.
St. Gregory, consistent with himself, sees
the unity of the Church only in the true faith, and never
makes the least allusion to the necessity of being in
communion with the Church of Rome.
And no wonder; for he did not regard the see
of Rome as the only see of St. Peter. He expressly
acknowledged that the sees of Alexandria and Antioch were,
quite as much as that of Rome, the see of the first of the
Apostles, and that these three sees were but one. Let us
quote his words. He writes thus to Eulogius, Patriarch of
Alexandria: Ib. Book VII. Ep. 39.
"Your Holiness has spoken to me at large, in
your letters, of the see of St. Peter, prince of the
Apostles, saying that he still resides here by his
successors. Now, I acknowledge myself unworthy not only of
the honour of the chiefs, but even to be counted in the
number of the faithful. Yet I have willingly accepted all
that you have said, because your words regarding the see of
Peter came from him who occupies that see of Peter.
A special honour has no charms for me; but I greatly rejoice
that you, who are very holy, only ascribe to me what you
also give to yourself. Indeed, who is ignorant that the holy
Church has been made fast upon the solidity of the prince of
the Apostles, whose name is the type of the firmness of his
soul, and who borrowed from the rock his name of Peter?—that
it was said to him by the Truth, 'I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . When thou art
converted strengthen thy brethren. . . Simon, Son of Jonas,
lovest thou me? Feed my sheep." Therefore, though there
were many Apostles, the single see of the prince of the
Apostles prevailed by his princedom; which see now exists in
three places; for it is he that made glorious that see where
he condescended to rest (quiescere) and close his
present life. It is he who adorned the see, whither he sent
the Evangelist, his disciple. It is he who strengthened the
see, which he occupied for seven years, although finally
compelled to leave it. Since then there is but one see of
the same Apostle, and three bishops now hold it by divine
authority. All the good I bear of you I also impute to
myself."
Observe that St. Gregory, in speaking of
Rome, only says that St. Peter rested there and died there. To Alexandria he only sent his disciple;
but at Antioch he held the see for seven years. If,
then, in the strict acceptation of the words, any bishop has
inherited the see of St. Peter, it must be,
according to St. Gregory, the Bishop of Antioch. The great
Pope was well aware that Peter only went to Rome to die
there; that the Roman Church was already founded and
governed by a bishop; he accordingly limits himself to
saying that he made glorious the see of Rome by the
martyrdom he suffered there, while he designates Antioch as
the true episcopal see of Peter. We believe that St. Peter
was, strictly speaking, no more Bishop of Antioch
than of Rome; but we only wish to show what was the opinion
of St. Gregory; and that opinion, whatever it was, is no
less a withering argument against the pretensions of the
court of Rome.
Writing to Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch,
to offer consolation in his sufferings, Gregory says:
Ib. Book VIII. Ep. 2. "Behold
now, your Holiness is weighed down with many tribulations in
your old age; but remember what was said of him whose
seat you fill. Is it not of him that the Truth himself
said, 'When thou shalt be old . . . another shall gird
thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not"? (John
21:18.)
We know that these words were addressed by
our Lord to St. Peter. In another letter to the same
Anastasius, St. Gregory thus expresses himself, after having
quoted what be believed to be the words of St. Ignatius of
Antioch:
"I have introduced in my letter these words
drawn from your writings, that your Holiness may know that
your own holy Ignatius is also ours. For as we have in
common the master, the prince of the Apostles, we must
neither of us exclusively claim the disciple of this prince
of the Apostles." Ib. Book V. Ep. 39.
St. Gregory wrote to Eulogius, Patriarch of
Alexandria, "We have received, with the same tenderness as
it was given us, the benediction of St. Mark the Evangelist,
or rather, more properly speaking, of the Apostle St.
Peter." Ib. Book VIII. Ep. 39.
He wrote again to the same, after having
congratulated him upon his refutation of the errours of the
Monophysites:
"Praise and glory be in the heavens to my
saintly brother, thanks to whom the voice of Mark is heard
from the chair of Peter, whose teaching resounds
through the Church as the cymbal in the tabernacle, when he
fathoms the mysteries—that is to say, when, as priest of the
Most High, he enters the Holy of Holies."
Ib. Book X. Ep. 35.
Was any thing more flattering ever said to
the Bishops of Rome than Gregory here says to Eulogius of
Alexandria? Does not the saintly Pope seem to copy the very
words of the Council of Chalcedon, "Peter has spoken by the
mouth of Leo"? Why draw such vast consequences from the
words of the Fathers of Chalcedon, spoken in praise of the
Bishop of Rome, and yet draw none whatever from those of the
great Pope addressed to the Patriarch of Alexandria? He
wrote again to the same: Ibid. Book XII.
Ep. 50. "The bearers of these presents, having come
to Sicily, were converted from the errours of the
Monophysites and have joined the holy Church universal. Desiring to go to the Church of the blessed Peter, prince of
the Apostles, they have besought me to give them
commendatory letters to your Holiness, in order that you
might assist them against the attacks of their heretical
neighbours."
In another letter, in which he discourses of
simony, he writes to Eulogius : "Root out this simoniacal
heresy from your most holy see, which is ours
also." He calls the Church of Alexandria a most holy
church. Ibid. Book XIII. Ep. 41.
With such evidence before us, how can we draw any conclusion
in favour of the Roman see from expressions like these of
apostolic see, or holy see? Such epithets
were common, during the first eight centuries, to all the
churches founded by the Apostles, and were never exclusively
employed to describe the Church of Rome.
From what we have shown of the doctrine of
St. Gregory respecting the see of St. Peter, it is easy to
see that no absolute sense can be honestly attached to such
expressions as these, "My son, the lord Venantius has
come toward the blessed Apostle Peter to beg me to
commend his cause to you," etc. Ibid.
Book II. Ep. 53. "The care of the whole Church was
confided to Peter, prince of the Apostles."
Ibid. Book V. Ep. 20. "He
received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, the power to bind
and to loose was given to him, the care of the whole Church,
and the princedom were intrusted to him."
Ibid. "Who does not know that the
holy Church has been strengthened by the firmness of the
prince of the Apostles?" Ibid. Book VII.
Ep. 40.
These expressions certainly belong to St.
Gregory; but is it fair to quote them separately and give
them an absolute sense? Yet this is the course of the Romish
theologians, not only with the works of Gregory, but with
all those of the other Fathers of the Church. In this manner
they have succeeded in deceiving a great number of the
faithful, and even many sincere theologians; the latter
could not suspect such a strange dishonesty in writers who
at every turn are boasting of their devotion to the cause of
the Church and truth, and they have thought it safe to quote
from them at second hand.
We can now understand what St. Gregory meant
by the see of St. Peter, and by the titles of first and
prince of the Apostles. But that we
may throw still stronger light upon his thoughts, we will
quote a few more texts, both decisive and clear, which shall
determine the exact meaning of these phrases, that have been
so culpably misused by the advocates of Popery.
St. Gregory, in his book upon the
Pastoral Rule, lays down this principle: that the
pastors of the Church should not use their authority toward
blameless believers, but only toward sinners whom gentleness
could not correct. In support of this principle he quotes
the examples of the Apostles Peter and Paul. "Peter," he
says, "the first pastor holding the princedom of the
holy Church, by the will of God, (auctore Deo,) showed
himself humble toward the faithful, but showed how much
power he had beyond others when he punished Ananias and
Sapphira; when it became necessary to punish sins, he
remembered that he was the highest in the Church,
(summus,) and in taking vengeance of the crime, he exercised
the right of his power."
St.
Greg. Pastoral Rule, Part II. Chap. vi.
In the same passage he proves by the example
of St. Paul, as well as by that of St. Peter, that the
pastor should be humble toward the faithful, and only
exercise his power when he is compelled to take in hand the
cause of justice. Thus St. Paul declared himself the servant
of the faithful, the least among them; "but," adds St.
Gregory, "when he finds a fault to correct, he remembers he
is master, and says, 'What will ye? I will come
to you with a rod of iron.' Hence," concludes St.
Gregory, the highest places are best filled when he who
presides rules rather his own vices than the brethren. But
when those who preside correct those who are
subject unto them, they should observe this duty," etc.
St. Greg. loc. cit.
It appears from this that St. Gregory
regarded St. Paul as well as St. Peter and their successors
as filling the highest place in the Church, as presiding in the Church. If he says that Peter held the
princedom, he also says that Paul was master;
he uses the same word (summus) to signify the
authority of St. Peter and that of St. Paul, and of all
those who have the right to exercise authority in the
Church. Would he have expressed himself in a manner so
general, if by this word princedom he had meant to
signify a superiour authority ascribed exclusively to St.
Peter? Just as by the see of St. Peter, he means
the first degree of the episcopate represented by the
Patriarchs; so likewise by the words "superiour
authority," he only means that of the episcopate which
the pastors of the Church have inherited.
The more intimate we grow with the works of
the Fathers of the Church, the more we are convinced of
their unanimity in considering the authority in the church
as one and possessed jointly and severally by the
first pastors or the bishops. At first blush we might
believe that the word "princedom," or that of "prince"
of the Apostles, given by them to St. Peter, clashed with
this principle. St. Gregory has shielded us from this false
interpretation. For while ascribing to Peter the princedom of the Church, he has not exalted him more
than St. Paul. He shall tell us so most clearly in his own
words. We read in his Dialogues:
"Peter. How can
you prove to me that there be those who do no miracles, and
yet are not inferior to those who do them?
"Gregory. Dost
thou not know that the Apostle Paul is the brother
of Peter, first of the Apostles in the princedom?
"Peter. I know
this perfectly," etc., etc. St. Greg.
Dialogues, Book I. chap. 12.
Thus Paul was the equal or
brother
of Peter in the Apostolic princedom. Is it possible
to say with greater clearness that by such titles no
particular personal and exclusive dignity was intended?
In another place St. Gregory regards St.
Paul as having a right, as well as St. Peter, to the title
of first Apostle. In relating in his Dialogues the
death of one Martin, a priest, he says that this holy man
saw Peter and Paul calling him to heaven: "I see, I see,"
said Martin. "I thank you. I thank you!"
As he often repeated these words, his
friends about him asked him to whom he spoke. He wondered at
their question, and said, "Do you not see here the holy
Apostles? do you not perceive Peter and Paul the first
of the Apostles?" Ibid. Book IV.
Chap. 11.
And lastly, Gregory leads us to think that
St. Peter was never Bishop of Rome. We have already quoted
some positive texts on this point. Here is another to
confirm them:
"It is certain," he says, "that at the time
when the holy Apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom,
the faithful came from the East to beg the bodies of these
Apostles, who were their fellow-countrymen. They
carried these bodies as far as the second mile stone, and
deposited them in the place called the Catacombs.
But when they would have taken them up, to continue their
journey, the thunder and lightning threw those who attempted
it into such a panic that no one has ever again dared to
attempt their removal." Letters of St.
Gregory, Book IV. Ep. 30.
It is not our business to discuss the truth
of this story; but one truth may be clearly inferred from
this recital, namely, that the Eastern people could claim
the body of St. Peter because he was of their country,
and that the Romans never dreamed of answering that his body
belonged by a better title to them, because be had been
their bishop.
Thus the doctrine of Gregory the Great upon
the Church destroys, piece by piece, the whole Papal system.
We defy the Romanists to find in the writings of this great
Pope a single word which gives any idea of that universal
monarchy whose centre is in the Church of Rome, and whose
sovereign the bishop of that city. This doctrine runs
utterly counter to that of St. Gregory. According to him,
the unity of the Church results from the reciprocal
relations of its chiefs. "May your piety," he wrote to
Anastasius, Archbishop of Corinth, "reply to our letters in
which we have notified him of our ordination, and by replying (litteris reciprocis)
give us the pleasure
of knowing that the Church is united."
He defines the "unity of the Catholic
Church" as "the totality (compago) of the body of
Christ." Ibid. Book II. Ep. 47.
He does not swerve from this: the individual churches are
the members of the church; each church is governed by its
pastors; the authority is the same, of divine right, in all
the pastors of the Church; the whole edifice is supported
upon the see of St. Peter; that is, upon the patriarchates
of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, which exercise, of
ecclesiastical right, a supervision over the whole
Church.
Can any thing be conceived more
diametrically opposed to the Papal system than this doctrine
of St. Gregory?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário