St. Gregory the Great–Orthodox Bishop of Rome

May 16, 2006

On the title “Universal Pope”:

“For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, 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 your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.” – St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Book VIII, Ep. XXX, NPNF II, 12, p. 241b

On the title “Universal Bishop or Priest” as applicable to one man other than Christ:

“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. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.” –St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Book VII, Ep. XXXIII, NPNF II, 12, p. 226b

The succession of Peter is in common among the bishops:

“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.” –St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Book V, Ep. XXXIX, NPNF II, 12, p. 179b

Peter was not a universal apostle despite him being first among the 12:

“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 [Patriarch of Constantinople], attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!” –St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Book V, Ep. XX, NPNF II, 12, p.170b

7 Comments | Papacy | Permalink
Posted by photios

Reductio of the hardened Augustinian position: St. John Cassian

May 15, 2006

From God, History, and Dialectic:

The Limitations of Augustine’s Dialectic vis-a-vis Christology—St. John Cassian:

“For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?… The grace of Christ then is at hand every day, which, while it ‘willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,’ calleth all without any exception, saying: ‘Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.’ But if He calls not all generally but only some, it follows that not all are heavy laden with original or actual sin, and that this saying is not a true one: ‘For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;’ nor can we believe that ‘death passed on all men.’” (Conferences XIII, C.VII, NPNF II, v.11, p. 425)

+Photios Farrell Commentary:
This is the crux of the christological difficulty of the developed Augustinian position, and in order to understand what St. John is implying, one must unpack his statement. Again, I will cite from previous remarks in my Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor:
“Christ, being truly consubstantial (in His humanity) with all men, truly died for all men, and thus His atoning Passion, Death, and Resurrection are in no way limited (but affect all men irresistibly).
In turn, the doctrine of the limited atonement may be reversed to show its hidden and heretical implications: If not all men rise with the second Adam then not all die with the first Adam. There would consequently be some men who, not being affected by the consubstantiality of Christ’s human nature, would not be consubstantial with Him. Therefore, they would not be in Adam either. Not being in Adam, they would have no need of Christ. This is a denial of the inheritance of ancestral sin [mortality], and is therefore Pelagianism.

Furthermore, if Christ’s human nature is efficacious in salvation only for a limited number of elected individuals, then it would appear that Christ’s humanity, insofar as it is efficacious for those individuals, is united with them not naturally but only by the object of their wills (i.e., salvation), since His human nature itself is not united with them. This union in the ‘object of will’ between God and man in Christ is Nestorianism. (One might also notice again the effect of Augustine’s theory of illumination on his Christology and predestinarian doctrine).

It would also appear that, on this view, the human nature of the elected individuals gives nothing to election, and Christ’s human nature certainly does not, as it effects only the elected individuals. Human nature therefore either has no will, which is a kind of ‘anthropological’ apollinarianism, or it is merely ineffectual in salvation (‘soteriological’ Apollinarianism). Christ’s human decision of salvation at Gethsemane is therefore illusory, and this is Doketism.” (Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor, pp. 224-225)

Throughout Augustine’s predestinarian doctrine and its christological consequences, St. John is really saying that there are other factors at work than the exposition of Christian doctrine.

God, History, and Dialectic by +Photios Farrell
Note: This text is not to be copied without written consent of Bishop Farrell himself.

2 Comments | Augustine, Biblical Exegesis, Dialectic and Theological Method, Maximus, Predestination | Permalink
Posted by photios

Is there such a thing as a ‘God in General’ ?

May 9, 2006

“When God was conversing with Moses, He did not say, “I am the essence”, but “I am the One Who is.” Thus it is not the One Who is who derives from the essence, but essence which derives from Him, for it is He who contains all being in Himself.”

Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts III.ii.12

46 Comments | Absolute Divine Simplicity, Church Fathers, Essence/Energies, Palamas | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

Confusing the Philosophers

May 2, 2006

Saint Gregory Palamas

“God also has what is not essence. Yet it is not the case that because it is not an essence that it is an accident. For that which not only does not pass away but also admits or effects no increase or diminution whatever could not possibly be numbered among accidents. But it is not true that, because this is neither an accident or essence, it belongs among totally non-existent things: rather, it exists and exists truly. Since the hypostatic properties and the hypostases are neither an essence or an accident in God, are they each on this account ranked among non-existent things. Certainly not. Thus, in the same way, the divine energy of God is neither an essence nor an accident nor is it classed among non-existent things.”

Capita 135

10 Comments | Church Fathers, Dialectic and Theological Method, Essence/Energies, Palamas | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson