by Fr. Gregorio Cognetti

Everybody knows that one of the major divergences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics is based on the position of the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church.  According to the Romans the Pope is the head of the Universal Church According to Orthodox doctrine, instead, the Pope of Rome is a bishop equal in dignity to the other bishops.  At this point it is interesting to read a qualified opinion: that of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (+ 604 A.D.), whose feast is celebrated on 12 March.

St. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (feast: 2 September) was a contemporary of St. Gregory.  St. John was very pious and ascetic.  He prayed at length during the night, and, in order to avoid being overcome by sleep, he used to pin nails into the wax of a candle: the clatter of the nails on a metal dish put under the candle awoke him if he had fallen asleep.  Throughout his life St. John was not one to seek human glory. Nevertheless, in the year 587 Emperor Maurice gave him officially the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch.”

Today this title sounds a little lofty, but this was not the case in the sixth century. Ecumenical comes from the Greek word oikoumene, that literally means “the inhabited world.”  Due in part to lack of geographical knowledge and in part to the typical pride of conquerors, the Romans identified the “inhabited world” with the Roman Empire, and therefore, at that time, “ecumenical” was nothing more than a synonym of “Imperial”. Constantinople was the “ecumenical” town. The chief librarian of Constantinople, for example, was called “Ecumenical librarian”.  But this implied only that he was the librarian of the imperial town, and not that he had authority over all the librarians in the empire. “Ecumenical Patriarch,” therefore, in Greek, was understood only as “the Patriarch of the Imperial town”: just a synonym of Patriarch of Constantinople.  As a matter of fact, this title is attested in sporadic use long before.

All the trouble started when the title was communicated to the Pope of Rome: it was translated into Latin as Patricharcha Universalis, i.e., “Universal Patriarch.”  Pope Gregory reacted because he thought that John was arrogating the supremacy in the Church.  Of course, this was not Patriarch John’s aim. Some Roman Catholic writers claim that Gregory was vindicating the supremacy to himself. But it was not so.  The letters of St. Gregory the Great are available to anybody who wishes to read them. The readers can judge by themselves. Let us start from this letter that he addressed to Patriarch John:

“Consider, I pray thee, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that [the title of Ecumenical Patriarch] is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless thou thyself wilt have power to grow so far as thou determinist with thyself to do so. And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou are not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren…

“Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John-what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head… “…the prelates of this Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon.  But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren…” (Book V, Epistle XVIII)

We do not know St. John the Faster’s reply. Probably he did not reply at all because he died about one year after St. Gregory’s letter (mail was very slow in that period, and one year was not an unreasonable time for a letter to travel from Rome to Constantinople).  But St. Gregory continued to express his opinion on Universal Episcopacy.  He wrote to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria and to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch in such terms: “This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated.  But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren…” (Book V: Epistle XLIII)

To Emperor Maurice:

“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. (Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)

And again to Eulogios, Bishop of Alexandria:

“Your Blessedness…  You address me saying, ‘As you have commanded.’  This word ‘command’, I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers… “…in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope.  But I beg you most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself…  For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.”  (Book VIII: Epistle XXX)

This story teaches us another lesson.  Many times, when we are confronted by the spectacle of events that do not fit the glorious image of the Holy Orthodox Church, we are ready to ask why God allows that such an evil thing happen in His Church. Undoubtedly many people at the time of these events grieved because of the misunderstanding that embittered the relationships between two pious bishops, between two great saints of the Church.  And surely, at that time, somebody asked why God allows that such an evil thing happen in His Church. The answer is clear today.  The Holy Spirit allowed this misunderstanding so that the opposition of a very eminent Pope to papal authority be well documented.  Without these letters we would not have the striking evidence that even in Rome the right to claim a primacy was not recognized.

All quotations are from A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (1894), P. Schaff and H. Wace eds. Vol. 12. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan. The emphases are the author’s.  Reprinted with permission from The Dawn, July 1993.