JOHN
494
JOHN
that John was described as "archbishop and oecumen-
ical patriarch". It may be tliat tliis was the first
time that the use of the title was noticed at Rome; it
appears, in any case, to be the first time it was used
officially as a title claimed — not merely a vague com-
pliment. Pelagius protested against the novelty and
forbade his legate at Constantinople to communicate
with John. His letter is not extant. We know of
it from Gregory's letters later (Epp., V, xliii, in P. L.,
LXXVII, 771).
St. Gregory I (.590-604), who succeeded Pelagius II, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been leg- ate (apocrisiarius) there (.578-584), and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp., I, iv, in P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his "Reg- ula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards C'onstan- tinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests ac- cused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of oecumenical patriarch "in almo.st every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii, in P. L., LXXVII, 7.38). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspond- ence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Constantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others " (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon), to assume such a title as this. It further argues inilependence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apos- tolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.).
The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal " for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (Hefele- Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles", II, Paris, 190S, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. " He under- stood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alios] so that he who calls himself cecu- menic, that is universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth" (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenrother, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arro- gance" (Epp., V, XX, in P. L., LXXVII, 74(). xxi, 750, etc.); he who .so calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the litle borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself 'servant of the .ser- vants of God ' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness" (Johannes Dia- conus, "Vita S. Grcgorii", II, i, in P. L., LXXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "(ecumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch suljscribes him-
self still: ".Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome,
and CEcumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable
that even I^hotius (d. 891) never dared use the word
when writing to Rome. The Catholic Church has
never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine
arrogance and the Byzantine schism. In 1024 the
Emperor Basil 11 (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope
John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope
seems to have been ready to do so, l,)ut an outburst of
indignation throughout the West and a stern letter
from Abljot William of Dijon matle him think better
of it (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church ", p. 167).
Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo
IX writes to Michael Caerularius of Constantinople (in
1053): "How lamentable and detestable is the
sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere
boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch " (op.
cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever
dared assume this title.
With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universalis, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bisliops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See. It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars ApostoHc. All bishops are not .\postolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "uni- versal bishop ", though occasionally they have been so calletl in complimentary addresses from other per- sons. The accusation, then, that Gregory's succes- sors have usurped the title that he so resented is false.
Whether John IV or other patriarchs of Constanti- nople really meant to advance so arrogant a claim is another question. OlKovfieviKlis -n-aTpiipxn^ in Greek is susceptible of a milder interpretation. 'H OiKovfi^vr] Xiipa was long a name for the civilized, cultivated land of the Greeks, as oppose( I to the wild country of the bar- barians. It was then often used for the Roman Empire. It is at least probable that the clause virep ttjs oUovixiv-qi in the Greek Intercession of the Byzantine Liturgy means the "empire" (Fortescue, "Liturgy of St. Chrysostom ", London, 1908, p. 106). It may be, then, that olKov)i.evLKbi TraTpidpxv^ meant no more than "im- perial patriarch ", as the Greeks of Constantinople told Anastasius Bibliothecarius at the time of Photius (see his statement in Gelzer, op. cit., p. 572). Katten- busch (Konfessionskunde, I, 116) thinks it should be translated lieiclispatriarch. Even so it is still false. The Patriarch of Constantinople had no sort of claim over the whole empire. The most that can be al- lowed is that if "oecumenical " means only "imperial", and if "imperial " means only "of the imperial court ", the title (in this case equal to "court patriarch ") is no worse tlian a foolish example of vanity. But even in Greek this interpretation is by no means obvious. In Greek, too, an "oecumenical synod" is one that has authority for the whole Church; the "cecumenic doc- tors" (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom) are those whose teaching must be fol- lowed by all. Pichler's comparison with the form "catholic bi.shop" ("Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung", II, Munich, 1865, pp. 647 sq.) is absurd. The humblest member of the Church is (in any lan- guage) a Catholic; in no language could he be called cecumenical.
Another dispute between John an<l Gregory was about .some relics, especially the head of St. Paul, that the Court of Constant ino|)le wauled the pope to send to them. Gregory woukl not part with them; event- ually he sent part of St. Paul's chains. The works in
