Part 1; Part 2

This is part 3 of the refutations to the "orthodox" article entitled: "All bishops are successors of Peter (Florilegium)" [1].

In this article we will elucidate the views of the most glorious Pope St. Gregory the Great, exposing his belief in depth, not only through his words but mainly by his attitudes, because, as will be exposed in this text, the enemies of the Church of Christ take advantage of the pious words of the Holy Pope to practice the most blatant disobedience.

Let's quote:

“To Eulogius, Bishop. Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria. Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair.”

~Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, Letter 40 (New Advent)

Whoever reads the article realizes that the author asks them to send citations so that he can insert them in his article. Well, I would like to contribute with them, due to the pity I feel for their own incapacities, to add a quote, better, from that same letter:

Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside[2]

I place this passage hoping that this quote will get a big smile from the face of the "orthodox", so that, thus, they can finally open their mouth, which lately has been so closed.


THE SAME MISTAKES

Unfortunately, the “orthodox” constantly fall into the same mistakes already abundantly described, mistakes that I made evident in my first article [3]. Their quotes, when they are not fake or cut and sewn, end up being distorted by a pitiful interpretation. So they act with the holy sayings of the priests, victimizing them either with levity or with ignorance.

These errors can be divided into 2, and of these 2 all the others proceed as ramifications: The first is to mix the different meanings of “I am Peter, I am successor of Peter”; the second is to assume that the Petrine authority of Rome denies any other authorities, when, in fact, it only overrides the other authorities, and, from above, exalts them by ensuring that they can be obeyed.

 THE OWN ST. GREGORY MAGNUS EXPLAINS THE MEANING

After saying that the 3 are like a single apostolic see, the holy priest continues:

whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.[2]

 As I made a point of alerting them in the first article, several times the holy priests claim that someone can be Peter in the sense that that person follows the faith of Peter, therefore, by the gift of divine unity, that person is Peter. But this is a conception by participation, so someone is Peter as he follows what Peter says, which is often applied to those bishops who are in communion with Rome. Rome is Peter for a different characteristic: She is Pedro for carrying the post of apostolic principality of the head of the Church, who is Peter. A similar thing is said about the Petrine succession, Antioch is successor to the extent that he had Peter as his first bishop, Rome is successor to Peter because he inherited the gifts of Petrine primacy, which are very different things.


JUST AS PETER IS YOUR, IGNATIUS IS MINE

A perfect example of what I speak is contained in the 39th epistle of book 5, St. Gregory the Great says the following thing:

These words, as you see, taken from what you had written, I insert in my epistles, that your Blessedness may perceive with regard to Saint Ignatius that he is not only yours, but also ours. For, as we have his master, the Prince of the apostles in common, so also no one of us ought to have to himself alone the disciple of this same Prince.[4]

Saint Gregory the Great tells the Bishop of Antioch that in the same sense that both have Peter, equally, both have Saint Ignatius. Now, Saint Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch, he had no relationship with Rome, how could Saint Gregory take for himself something of Saint Ignatius?

Quite simply, both St. Ignatius and St. Gregory were defenders of the faith of the true Church. Therefore, both are holders of the same faith, and so St. Gregory can say, "I have Saint Ignatius". Can you imagine if I used this passage to say that St. Gregory was Ignatius' successor? It would be shameful... but there are people who do something like that.


THE OWN EULOGIUS CALLS ST. GREGORY "UNIVERSAL POPE"

Elogius himself (the one who is called equal by St. Gregory) calls St. Gregory the “universal pope”:

you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more,[5]

Elogius was just using a title that was given to the Bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon, and St. Gregory himself knows this:

And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors.[5]

But St. Gregory magnus did not like that title because it was a temptation to pride. Later St. Gregory the Great adopted the title of "servus servorum dei", servants of the servants of God. Which comes from the passage of the holy supper, and which also refers to Peter, as I explained in an article on the Petrine primacy. [6]


THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH RECOGNIZED

Elogius did not do anything unusual, the universal authority of the Roman Church was already widely known:

Then, I remember how I was nourished in the lap and in the bosom of your most holy Roman Church, and therein by the aid of God advanced. And how should I be so daring as to presume to oppose that most holy see, which transmits its laws to the universal Church[7]

 Rome is the most holy see that transmits its laws to the Universal Church.


ROME HAS AUTHORITY OF PEDRO; THE TITLE OF "UNIVERSAL BISHOP" IS ROMAN; THE CHURCH OF ROME IS THE HOLY SEE APOSTOLIC

Upon learning that John of Constantinople had held a synod calling himself “universal bishop” the Roman pontiff had all the acts of the council annulled, and he did so by Peter's authority:

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 knew, he dispatched 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.[8]

 St. Gregory Magnus says that the title of “universal bishop” was given by the council of chalcedony to the pontiff of the apostolic see, the see of the Roman Church:

For, as your venerable Holiness knows, 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.[8]

 St. Gregory says that the title of “universal bishop” was given by the council of chalcedony to the Roman pontiff in honor of Peter, prince of the apostles:

Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff.[9] 

 Note that St. Gregory makes it clear that the Church of Rome is the Apostolic See.


WHO CAN DOUBT THAT CONSTANTINOPLA IS SUBJECT TO APOSTOLIC SEE?

St. Gregory Magnus describes the ordinances he performed as “divine services”:

One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage? And, when I said to him, What usages of hers do we follow?[10]

And in that same letter he asks:

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?[10]

Note that even the Bishop of Constantinople recognizes the authority of Rome. And the Saint adds that he will continue to correct what any Church does wrong:

Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.[10]

 We must all lament, because, contrary to what the Holy Father believes, there are people who dare to say that Constantinople is not subjugated to the Roman Church.


BY GOD'S ORDER SET OVER ALL CHURCHES

And St. Gregory the Great also instructs:

Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop.[11]

 

 THOUGHT PETER DIDN'T COMMAND THE CHURCH

To end the quotations I would like to end with the words of St. Gregory Magnus on the Petrine primacy, since the "orthodox", or at least some, insist that Peter does not have an authority over the other apostles, and that he is only first in a representative way, "first among equals" (sic). Let's see:

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep John 21:17. [9]

 he 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[9]

 

 SOME QUESTIONS

Fearing that i, in defending the Holy Father against the heretics' ignorance, will also be a victim of their inability to interpret, i will ask some questions so that the falsifiers know that they are obliged, logically, to agree with me:

If Antioch was Peter's successor as well as Rome, then why was the title of universal bishop, which was given honor to the apostle Peter, only given to Rome by the council of Chalcedon?

If Antioch had an authority similar to that of Rome, then why does Eulogious, who called himself Peter, call St. Gregory Magnus the Universal Bishop?

If Antioch does not have Peter in the sense that I expressed it (they have Peter because they keep the apostle's faith not to be separated from the Universal Church, that is why he has the faith of Peter, and thus Saint Peter), then why St. Gregory Magnus says that Saint Ignatius is the bishop of Rome as well as Peter is the bishop of Antioch?

If the Church of Rome does not have Peter in the other sense that I have expressed (since it is the Church that obtained the succession of the universal pastor's power from the chief of the apostles, which is Peter), then why does the council of Chalcedon give the title of universal bishop ONLY to the Bishop of Rome, the title being given by honor to the apostle Peter?

If the Church of Rome is not the one that inherited the authority of Peter, then why did the Church of Rome, by its sole will, annul an entire council by the authority of the apostle Peter?

If the Apostolic See is not commanded by the Bishop of Rome, then why did St. Gregory the Great say that the Council of Chalcedon gave the title of Universal Bishop to the Pontiff of the Apostolic See? Keeping in mind that the council gives this title to the Roman pontiff.

If the Church of Rome has no authority over the Church of Constantinople, then why does St. Gregory the Great mockery saying, "As for what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See"?

If the Church of Constantinople is not subject to the Church of Rome, then why did the Bishop of Constantinople himself share this view?

If the Church of Rome was not the head of all the churches, then why, when referring to it, is said: "And how daring should I be to dare to oppose that most holy see, which transmits its laws to the universal Church"?

If the Church of Rome does not have authority over all the Churches, then why did St. Gregory the Great say: "As it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by order of God, established over all the Churches"?


TRUTH ABOUT THE CASE

We see here the lowliness of our enemies, who, animated by the spirit of the Antichrist, try to transform the most pious humility into a motivation to leave the wings of the Church of Christ.

Therefore, it has been demonstrated that the Roman pontiff is the Universal Bishop [5], a title granted to the Roman pontiff by the council of Chalcedon [5], and that he transmits his laws to the Universal Church [7]. That the Roman pontiff is the pontiff of the Apostolic See [8], who received his title of Universal Bishop in honor of the apostle Peter [9], and that he is above all all the Churches [11].


[1] Link do artigo "All Bishops Are Successors of Peter (Florilegium)"

[2] Livro 7, letra 40 do Registro Epistolarum de São Gregório