St. Gregory the Great and Papal Supremacy

Fr. Edward Hawarden, Charity and Truth (1728) pp. 233-243.

Pope Pelagius II had for his successor St. Gregory I, called the Great and the Apostle of England. He sat in St. Peter's chair 13 years, 6 months, and 10 days, from the year of Christ 590 to 604, and was the first who assumed the humble title of Servus Servorum Dei, Servant of the Servants of God. "The more evident it is," says he, "that the See Apostolic has from God a preeminence over all other sees, the more solicitous I am, amongst many other cares, when my consent is desired for the consecration of a bishop." Thus St. Gregory.¹

Again, "As to what they say of the See of Constantinople, who doubts but that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the Emperor and the Bishop of that See constantly own?" Says St. Gregory, in a letter to John, Bishop of Syracusa.² And writing to the same Bishop concerning the Byzantine primate in Africa: "Whereas he owns himself subject to the See Apostolic, when bishops commit a fault, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when there is no fault to be punished, by way of humility, all are equal."³ For in this sense the bishop and his flock are equal, or rather, he ought to be the more humble of the two. In this sense, if we believe St. Gregory,⁴ St. Paul thought the Corinthians equal to himself, "aequales enim vobis sumus, in quo [i.e., quatenus] vos stare cognoscimus" (2 Cor 1:23). Again, in a letter to Eusebius, Urbicius, and other bishops invited to Constantinople, he tells them that if anything be there concluded in a synod, "it will be of no force unless the See of Rome consents to it."⁵

Among the instructions which St. Gregory gave to his warden going into Spain, one relates to a Bishop called Stephen, condemned by a synod of prelates to whom he was not subject. His words are these: "If it be said, that the Bishop has neither a metropolitan nor a patriarch, this cause ought to have been heard and decided by the See Apostolic, which is the head of the whole Church, as the Bishop above mentioned is also known to have desired."⁶

St. Gregory also asserted his supremacy in fact, when he gave his disciple St. Augustine, the first bishop of Canterbury, "jurisdiction over all the British bishops," then residing in Wales.⁷

What the Bishop of Ravenna answered, whom St. Gregory had reprehended for wearing the pallium at undue times, is a further confirmation of it. "I reflect," says he, "that I was bred up in Rome. And how should I presume to oppose that most holy See, which prescribes laws to the universal Church?"⁸

It may be objected that when the bishops of Constantinople, John the Younger surnamed the Faster, and his successor Cyriacus, assumed the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, which St. Gregory calls Universal Bishop, he inveighed against it, as a most "wicked title."⁹

This is very true, but not at all to the purpose. Ecumenical Patriarch, which St. Gregory calls Universal Patriarch and Universal Bishop, is (as he understood the word) the same as the only patriarch, the only bishop, or the bishop to whom all other bishops are subject as his deputies and vicars only. In which sense it agrees to Christ alone, and cannot without blasphemy be applied to any other, much less to the bishops of Constantinople, who never claimed any jurisdiction over the Roman See.

That St. Gregory understood the title of Ecumenical Patriarch in the sense now mentioned is plain from his own words. "If one," says he, "be called Universal Patriarch, the name of patriarch is taken from all the rest."¹⁰

The title therefore of Ecumenical Patriarch, in the bishops of Constantinople, as St. Gregory understood it, was a proud, blasphemous, antichristian, and diabolical title. And so his predecessor Pelagius II had also understood it. But, as Monsieur Du Pin rightly observes, the bishops of Constantinople meant it in an innocent sense. John of Cappadocia, says he, "called the Faster, was one of great piety and charity. He was sharply reproved by St. Gregory for taking upon him the name of Ecumenical Patriarch, because this Pope looked upon this title as a sign of ambition, although in the sense of the Greeks it was innocent, and signified nothing, less than St. Gregory thought."¹⁵

And here I cannot but observe three or four things. The first is, that since St. Gregory was so very zealous against the bare appearance or shadow of usurpation in the bishop of Constantinople, he would have been far enough from assuming a supremacy over all other bishops (as he certainly did) if it had not been the undoubted privilege of his See.

The second is, that catholic, ecumenical, and universal (if we regard their original signification) are equivalent terms. If so, there is a sense in which every Catholic is a universal Christian, that is, a Christian of the universal Church, and every Catholic bishop is a universal bishop, that is, a bishop of the universal Church. And if the bishops of Constantinople (who never pretended to have any jurisdiction or precedence over Rome), by assuming the title of Ecumenical Patriarchs, meant only this, that Constantinople had a jurisdiction over all the other patriarchal sees in the East, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, although the Popes in St. Gregory's time had never confirmed this privilege or claim, yet there was nothing either of heresy or of blasphemy in it.

The general council at Constantinople,¹⁶ an. 381, Can. 3, and that at Chalcedon,¹⁷ an. 451, Can. 28, gave to the See of Constantinople a precedence of "honor"¹⁸ before the other patriarchs of the East. Which the bishops of Constantinople practiced, even in regard to "jurisdiction,"¹⁹ but without the consent of Rome. For St. Leo told Anatolius that the See of Rome had not received the canons of the second general Council,²⁰ and St. Gregory affirms the same, writing to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, and to Anastasius of Antioch. "The See of Rome," says St. Gregory, "has not hitherto had, nor does it receive those canons."²¹ As to the 28^th canon of Chalcedon, the Pope's legates openly protested against it,²² as St. Leo did also afterwards.²³ Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, an. 1215, cap. 5, granted to Constantinople a precedence of honor before the other eastern patriarchs.²⁴

The third thing to be observed is that the title of Ecumenical Patriarch both had been given to the bishops of Constantinople before John the Younger an. 586, and was given to them after Cyriacus. The clergy and monks of Antioch,²⁵ as well as the clergy of Constantinople²⁶ gave this title to John the Elder, an. 518. And in the Council of Constantinople, an. 536,²⁷ it is given at every turn to Menas, Bishop of that See, whom Pope Agapetus had ordained. The Emperor Justinian does the same, in his sanction to confirm this Council.²⁸ This Emperor, on other occasions, gives the title of Ecumenical or Universal Patriarch to Epiphanius,²⁹ Anthemius,³⁰ and Menas,³¹ bishops of Constantinople, as the Emperor Leo did also after him.³² I say, of Universal Patriarch, in regard to the Eastern Empire: a limitation which was always understood by the Greeks, when orthodox, and is sometimes expressed by the Emperor Justinian.³³

In the acts of the Seventh General Council an. 787, the bishops of Constantinople are often called Ecumenical Patriarchs.³⁴ The Empress Irene had given the same title to Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, of which Pope Adrian I complains.³⁵

The fourth and last thing to be observed is that St. Gregory was not ignorant that this title might be given, in an innocent manner, to the bishops of Rome. In the third action of the Council of Chalcedon it is given to St. Leo by Theodorus, a deacon of Alexandria,³⁶ by Ischyrion, a deacon of the same See,³⁷ by Athanasius, a priest of Alexandria,³⁸ and by Sophronius, a layman.³⁹ Two of the legates of St. Leo, subscribing the Council of Chalcedon, call him Bishop of the Ecumenical Church,⁴⁰ and the other legate calls him Bishop of the whole Curch.⁴¹ In the Council at Constantinople under Menas, an. 536, the abbots and monks of that city, of Jerusalem, and of Antioch call Pope Agapetus Ecumenical Patriarch.⁴²

Hence St. Gregory, writing to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, says that this title was "offered to his predecessors in the holy Council at Chalcedon, and by the Fathers after it."⁴³ But does St. Gregory accuse the Fathers, or the Council of Chalcedon, which he "reverenced"⁴⁴ so much, either of heresy or blasphemy? Far from it. He supposes that the giving of the title of Ecumenical Patriarch to St. Leo was authorized by this Council. He tells the Emperor Mauritius that "in honor to St. Peter, the holy Council of Chalcedon offered this title to the Pope."⁴⁵ He urges the same thing in his letter to John the Younger⁴⁶ and in a common letter to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch.⁴⁷ So, in a different sense, this title might be innocently condemned by St. Gregory, and be innocently given to his next successor but one: which the words of the librarian Anastasius, in the Life of Pope Boniface III,⁴⁸ probably imply.

[1] Lib. 2, Epist. 30 ad Joan. Subdiaconum, Tom. 5, Conc., p. 1114. E.

[2] Lib. 7, Ep. 64, p. 1348, D.

[3] Lib. 7, Ep. 65, p. 1349, AB.

[4] Lib. 1, Ep. 24, p. 1044, CD.

[5] Lib. 7, Ep. 70, p. 1352, E.

[6] Lib. 11, Ep. 56, p. 1543, BC.

[7] Lib. 12, Ep. 15, p. 1558, E.

[8] Joannes Ravenas Episc. inter Epist. S. Greg, Lib. 2, Epist. 55, p. 1129, DE.

[9] Lib. 4, Ep. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39; Lib. 6, Ep. 4, 24, 28, 30, 31; Lib. 7, Part 1, Ep. 30; Part 2, Ep. 70; Lib. 11, Ep. 47. Vet. Edit. T. 5, Conc., p. 1181 &c.

[10] Lib. 4, Ep. 36, p. 1187, DE.

[11] Lib. 4, Ep. 34, p. 1189, AB.

[12] Lib. 4, Ep. 38, p. 1191, AB.

[13] Lib. 6, Ep. 30, p. 1276, BC.

[14] Lib. 7, Part 2, Ep. 70, p. 1352, DE.

[15] Sixth Century (London, 1693) p. 67.

[16] T. 2, Conc. Labb., p. 947, C.

[17] T. 4, Conc., p. 769, AD.

[18] Mons. Tillemont, T. 9, p. 490; T. 15, p. 709.

[19] Tillem., T. 15, p. 702, art. 127.

[20] T. 4, Ep. 53, Conc., p. 845, CD.

[21] Lib. 6, Ep. 31, T. 5, Conc., p. 1277, B.

[22] T. 4, Conc., p. 817, E.

[23] Ep. 53, T. 4, Conc., p. 844, C &c.; Ep. 54, Ibid., p. 847, C &c; Ep. 55, Ibid., p. 850, B; Ep. 61, p. 882, D; Ep. 62, p. 884, B &c.

[24] T. 11, Conc., p. 153, C.

[25] T. 5, Conc., p. 157, C.

[26] Ibid. p. 161, E. Vide etiam p. 177, A; p. 180, A-B-DE; p. 181, C-D; p. 185, AB-D-E; p. 212, D.

[27] T. 5, Conc., p. 46, E; p. 60, CD; p. 72, E; p. 81, E; p. 89, B; p. 97, CD; p. 253, AB.

[28] Novella 42. T. 2, Juris Civilis (Amstelodami, 1681) p. 539.

[29] In Co. Lib. 1, Tit. 1, §7, p. 8; Lib. 1, Tit. 4, p. 36. Novella 3, p. 477; Nov. 7, p. 485.

[30] Nov. 16, p. 502.

[31] Nov. 79, p. 569.

[32] Stephano Patriarchae universali, Constit. 2-13, 15, 75, pp. 678-682, 690.

[33] Nov. 67, p. 559; Nov. 57, p. 551.

[34] T. 7, Conc., p. 132, A, B-E; p. 133, A; p. 136, D-E; p. 145, BC; p. 153, A, C; p. 161, C; p. 169, A; p. 188, A, E; p. 189, A, D; p. 192, A, E; p. 193, CD; p. 197, A.

[35] Ibid., p. 117, E.

[36] T. 4, Conc., p. 395, A.

[37] Ibid., p. 399, AB.

[38] Ibid., p. 406, D; p. 411, AB.

[39] Ibid., p. 411, DE.

[40] Ibid., pp. 579, 580, E; pp. 581, 582, A.

[41] Ibid., pp. 579, 580, E.

[42] T. 5, Conc., p. 21, C.

[43] Lib. 7, Ep. 30, T. 5, Conc., p. 1308, C.

[44] Lib. 1, Ep. 24 ad Joannem Episc. Constantinopolitanum, Eulogium Alexandrinum, &c., p. 1045, E.

[45] Lib. 4, Ep. 32, p. 1182, CD.

[46] Lib. 4, Ep. 38, p. 1192, D.

[47] Lib. 4, Ep. 36, p. 1187, DE.

[48] T. 5, Conc., p. 1615, AB.