
Finding the truth is a difficult and time-consuming endeavor. As I'm slowly reading Keith Mathison's
The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001) I decided to research his claim that Pope Gregory I (r. 590-604) believed that he and five other bishops (of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were on "equal footing as regional heads of the Church, with none exercising universal jurisdiction" (54). Mathison purposes to show his audience that papal authority in its present form slowly developed over time through political turmoil and religious upheaval, and that as early as the 6th century, the Pope's authority and power were not as strong as later periods in history.
I found these words from Gregory I:
"I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" (Book VII.33).
I learned that these words are Protestant proof-texts against strong papal authority as a historical reality. But Catholics claim that Protestants are misunderstanding Gregory's intent, that when Gregory uses the term "Universal Priest" he is referring to the claim of SOLE authority that some patriarchs desired.
I also learned that Gregory I said other interesting things. Like the following:
"I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church" (Book V.44)
"As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" (Book IX.26).
As you can tell, these words operate as Catholic proof texts.
Did Gregory believe that he was on "equal footing" with the other bishops? Is Mathison right to say that Pope Gregory believed that he did not hold "universal jurisdiction"? In order to find the truth in this matter, one must be willing to read texts for hours. One would have to spend time reading through hundreds of Pope Gregory's epistles and attempt to understand the context of each. The average guy does not have time to do this. The average guy is probably going to trust the scholar from whichever tradition he aligns himself with.
But for an average guy, I've already spent WAY too much time thinking about this issue -- an issue that holds zero relevance to my life. For even if papal authority COULD be traced back to the 1st century, I would STILL ignore it. Researching this claim has merely validated my belief that truth is in the depths and tradition and bias are probably the bedrock of most people's beliefs, regardless of the scholarship backing their argument. We can all choose a scholar to meet the demands of our argument, can't we?
Source Consulted: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm