The Ecumenical Patriarch Dispute

In the 590s a conflict broke out between Gregory and the patriarchs of Constantinople — first John IV “the Faster,” then Cyriacus — over the patriarchal title “Ecumenical Patriarch” (oikoumenikos patriarchēs). Gregory regarded the title, taken in what he understood as a claim to universal pre-eminence over the whole Church, as proud, profane, and a mark of the spirit of Antichrist; he protested to the patriarch, to the emperor, and to other bishops, declaring that no bishop — not even the bishop of Rome — should be called “universal,” and signing himself instead “servant of the servants of God.” The episode is among the most cited in all discussions of Roman primacy, and is read in opposite directions by Orthodox and Roman Catholic writers. It is set out here both ways — the historical question of what the letters show weighed evidentially, without verdict; the dogmatic question behind it is not an open one for the Orthodox Church, which has never received the later doctrine of papal supremacy.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (pre-Schism; Pope of Rome; Great Hierarch)

The Title and the Quarrel

The patriarchs of Constantinople had, by Gregory’s day, come to use the honorific style “Ecumenical Patriarch” (oikoumenikos patriarchēs) — “patriarch of the inhabited world / of the empire.” The adjective oikoumenikos in Byzantine usage often meant simply “imperial” or “of the empire” (the oikoumenē being the Christian Roman world), and the title was, in the East’s own understanding, an honorific marking the patriarch of the imperial capital, not a claim of jurisdiction over other patriarchates (Meyendorff 1989, 296–301; Markus 1997, 91–96). It came to a head when the patriarch John IV the Faster (Ioannes Nesteutes, patriarch 582–595) used the title in the acts of a synod at Constantinople around 588, in a case touching the priest John of Chalcedon, and the documents reached Rome.

Gregory reacted with alarm and persistence. He understood oikoumenikos in its strong sense — “universal” — and read the title as a claim by the bishop of Constantinople to be the universal bishop, the one bishop over the whole Church, which Gregory believed no bishop could rightly be. He wrote repeatedly: to John the Faster himself, to the Emperor Maurice and Empress Constantina, to the patriarchs Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, and (after John’s death) to his successor Cyriacus (Gregory, Register 5.37, 5.39, 5.41, 5.44, 7.24, 7.28, 7.30, 8.29, 9.156; trans. Martyn 2004; Markus 1997, 91–96).

Gregory’s Argument

Gregory’s case against the title was emphatic. He held that for any one bishop to call himself “universal” was to arrogate to himself the whole Church and to diminish all his brother bishops: “if one is called universal, the universal Church falls when that ‘universal one’ falls.” He branded the title a “proud and profane” word, a “perverse and pompous” appellation, and went so far as to associate the assumption of such a title with the pride of Lucifer and the coming of Antichrist: whoever calls himself, or desires to be called, “universal priest,” Gregory wrote, “is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because in his swelling he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory, Register 5.44, 7.30; trans. Martyn 2004; NPNF II/12–13).

Crucially for the later use of the episode, Gregory applied the principle to himself and to Rome as well. He insisted that none of his predecessors had ever used the title “universal,” that he would not have it, and that the honour of the Roman see did not consist in such a name. When others, in deference, addressed him as “universal pope,” he rejected it: “I have said that neither to me nor to anyone else ought you to write anything of the kind… away with these words which inflate vanity and wound charity” (Gregory, Register 8.29, to Eulogius of Alexandria; trans. Martyn 2004). Against every title of universal mastery he set the title of universal service — servus servorum Dei, “servant of the servants of God” (see Servus Servorum Dei).

The Orthodox Reading

For Orthodox writers this episode is among the strongest patristic witnesses against the later doctrine of papal supremacy. The argument runs: here is a Roman pope, a saint venerated by the whole Church, who explicitly and repeatedly denies that any bishop — Rome included — may be called the universal bishop or claim a pre-eminence over the whole Church; who treats the very idea as proud and even as the mark of Antichrist; and who reduces the honour of his own see to service. If the bishop of Rome of the year 595 held that no bishop is the universal head of the Church, then the later papal claim to a universal, ordinary, immediate jurisdiction over all Christians — defined as dogma at the First Vatican Council (1870) — is, on this reading, a departure from the very Roman tradition Gregory embodied (Meyendorff 1989, 296–301; Ware 1993, 27–28, 49–50; on the primacy question, see Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism). Gregory is thus, in Orthodox eyes, a Roman pope who witnesses against the later Roman papacy.

The Roman Catholic Reading

Roman Catholic apologists read the same letters differently. They argue: (1) that Gregory misunderstood the Greek title, which in Eastern usage meant “imperial” or “of the capital,” not “sole universal bishop,” so that he was objecting to a claim Constantinople was not in fact making; (2) that Gregory’s objection was precisely to the title being claimed by Constantinople, an upstart see, and that in the same letters Gregory vigorously asserts the primacy of the Roman see as the see of Peter — writing that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter and his successors, and intervening across the Church as one with authority to do so; and (3) that Gregory’s refusal of the word “universal” was a refusal of a particular proud title, not a renunciation of the Petrine primacy of jurisdiction, which his actions (hearing appeals, correcting bishops, claiming Rome’s headship) presuppose. On this reading Gregory upholds Roman primacy even as he rejects the inflated title, and the episode tells against Constantinople, not against Rome (standard Roman Catholic treatments; cf. the discussion in Markus 1997, 91–96).

Both Sides Held Together

[Disputed: the "Ecumenical Patriarch" episode is read in opposite directions. The Orthodox reading takes Gregory's repeated, principled rejection of any "universal bishop" title — applied by him to Rome as well as Constantinople — as a witness against the later doctrine of papal supremacy (Meyendorff 1989, 296–301; Ware 1993). The Roman Catholic reading holds that Gregory misconstrued an honorific Eastern title, that he objected to Constantinople's pretension rather than to primacy as such, and that he simultaneously asserted the Petrine primacy of the Roman see, so that the episode supports Rome's headship (standard Catholic apologetics; Markus 1997, 91–96). Per METHODOLOGY §4 both readings are set out; the letters themselves — Gregory's denunciation of the universal title and his parallel language about Peter and Rome — are the shared evidence each side weighs differently, and no verdict is imposed here].

What is not in dispute is the historical core: Gregory denounced the title “universal bishop” as proud and unfitting for any bishop, declined it for himself, and met the pretension of his own age with the title of service. The Orthodox Church, which venerates Gregory as a Great Hierarch (see Veneration as a Great Hierarch), reads this as wholly its own — a pre-Schism Roman pope speaking the mind of the undivided Church on the nature of episcopal authority, before the later parting of East and West gave the word “primacy” its contested edge. One clarification of scope belongs here: the both-ways treatment above concerns the historical reading of Gregory’s letters — a question of evidence, weighed by named scholars on each side. The dogmatic question standing behind it is answered for the Church herself: the universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction defined at the First Vatican Council (1870) is a doctrine the Orthodox Church has examined and not received, and Gregory’s refusal of the “universal” title belongs to the patristic witness she brings to that judgment.

References

Gregory the Great. The Letters of Gregory the Great (Register) 5.37, 5.39, 5.41, 5.44; 7.24, 7.28, 7.30; 8.29; 9.156. Trans. John R. C. Martyn. 3 vols. Toronto: PIMS, 2004. Also NPNF II/12–13. (The denunciation of the “universal bishop” title; the precursor-of-Antichrist passage; the refusal of the title for Rome.)
Markus, R. A. Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 91–96. (The dispute, the meaning of oikoumenikos, and its assessment.)
Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989, 296–301. (The Eastern reading of the title and the dispute.)
Ware, Timothy (Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 1993, 27–28, 49–50. (The Orthodox view of Roman primacy in the pre-Schism period.)