Nicholas Cabasilas on the Heart of Christ

EXCERPTS FROM THE LIFE IN CHRIST by NICHOLAS CABASILAS

Yet we are such wretched material that the seal cannot remain unaffected, “for we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7). We therefore partake of the remedy not once for all, but constantly. The potter must constantly sit by the clay and repeatedly restore the shape which is being blurred. We must continually experience the Physician’s hand as He heals the decaying matter and raises up the failing will, lest death creep in unawares. For it says, “even when we were dead through trespasses He made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5), and “the blood of Christ shall purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14). The power of the holy table draws to us the true life from that blessed Heart, and there we become able to worship God purely.

                If, then, the pure worship of God consists in being subject to Him, obeying Him, doing all things as He moves us , I know not how we are capable of being subject to God more than by becoming His members. Who, more than the head, can command the members of the body? While every other sacred rite makes its recipients into members of Christ, the Bread of Life effects this most perfectly. For, as the members live because of the head and the heart, so, He says, “he who eats Me will live because of Me” (Jn. 6:57).

So also man lives because of food, but not the same way in this sacred rite. Since natural food is not itself living it does not of itself infuse life into us, but by aiding the life which is in the body it appears to those who to eat the cause of life. But the Bread of Life is Himself living, and through Him those to whom He imparts Himself truly life. While natural food is changed into him who feeds on it, and fish and bread and any other kind of food become human blood, here it is entirely opposite. The Bread of Life Himself changes him who feeds on Him and transforms and assimilates him into Himself. As He is the Head and the Heart, we depend on Him for loving and living since He possesses life.

This the Savior Himself reveals. He does not sustain our life in the same way as food; but since He Himself has by nature He breathes it into us, just as the heart or the head imparts life to the members. So He calls Himself “the living Bread” (Jn. 6:51) and says, “he who eats Me will live because of me” (Jn. 6:57). [The Life in Christ 4:8]

It follows, therefore, that he who has chosen to live in Christ should cling to that Heart and that Head, for we obtain life from no other source. But this is impossible for those who do not will what He wills. It is necessary to train one’s purpose, as far as it is humanly possible, to conform to Christ’s will and to prepare oneself to desire what He desires and to enjoy it, for it is impossible for contrary desires to continue in one and the same heart. As he says, “the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart knows how to produce nothing but evil” (cf. Lk. 6:45), and the good man that which is good.

The faithful in Palestine, since they desired the same things, “were,” as it says, “of one heart and soul” (Acts: 4:32). In the same way, if one does not share in Christ’s purpose but goes against that which He commands, he does not order his life according to Christ’s heart but is clearly dependant on a different heart. In contrast, God found David to be according to His heart, for he said, “I have not forgotten Thy commandments” (Ps. 119:16, 61, etc.). Since it is impossible, then, to live [in Christ] unless we depend on His heart, and one cannot depend on Him without willing what He wills, let us examine how we may love the same things as Christ and rejoice at the same things as He, in order that we may be able to live. 

[The Life in Christ 6:2]

Latin Influence on the Byzantine Liturgy

When I was attending an Orthodox Church, having walked away from the Roman Church for about a year, there were a few prayers in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that stood out to be on account of their beauty and profundity. One of them in particular had always really moved me, as I found it resonated with my Catholic background. 

After the Institution Narrative, but before the Epiklesis, the priest lifts up the elements and prays thus:

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all.

There exists somewhat of a disagreement between the two Churches pertaining to exactly when and how the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Catholic Church has settled this question dogmatically: it is by the utterance of the Christ's own words "This is my body... this is my blood," by the priest, who stands in the person of Christ, that the bread and wine become that which they signify. For the Orthodox, this answer has never been universally settled, but the common "high point" of the Eucharistic liturgy is usually said to be the epiclesis, where the Holy Spirit is invoked to descend upon the gifts offered. Generally speaking, the words of institution, as well as the priestly blessing, are deemed necessary and important as well, though some have restricted the essential aspect to the epiclesis alone.

Well, as it turns out, that prayer was actually influenced by Catholicism! Reading up on the debate concerning the Words of Institution, I found and read a great article by Michael Zheltov, entitled "The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought." In addressing this subject and ones related to it, he mentions how the Latin dogma of consecration actually found its way into the Orthodox liturgies for a time.

Another influence, this time unquestionable, resulted in the appearance in the Byzantine rite of a ritual of elevating the discos (paten) and the chalice during the ekphonesis “offering You your own” after the words of institution and before the epiclesis. This ritual is an imitation of the latin elevation of the host and the chalice, performed after the priest has pronounced the words of institution. It was instituted in the West in order to give the catholic believers a chance to participate in the sacrament with their eyes.

In the Orthodox milieu this ritual emerged in early seventeenth-century Ukraine. The rubrics of the printed ukrainian Leitourgika of this time have undergone some reworking. In particular, the revised rubrics instructed the priest to point at the bread and the wine during the words of institution, holding his fingers in a blessing gesture (or just to bless the gifts at this moment), and to elevate the discos and the chalice thereafter (i.e., precisely during the ekphonesis “offering You your own”). This was a clear sign of a strong influence of catholic theology, including the belief in the consecration through the words of institution.

In 1655 these “cryptocatholic” Ukrainian rubrics found their place in the revised Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon. The editions of 1656, 1657 (the first), 1657 (the second), 1658 (the first), 1658 (the second), 1667, 1668, 1676, and 1684, as well as the 1677 edition of the Archieratikon, also contain them. The obvious contradiction between the views held by the Ukrainian editions and the late- and post-Byzantine Greek theological thinking concerning the moment of consecration resulted in a controversy, which emerged in Moscow in the last third of the seventeenth century and which ended only in 1690, when an official refutation of the belief in the consecratory power of the words of institution was promulgated. In the 1699 Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon the appropriate rubrics were reworked, and the prescription to bless the bread and the wine during the words of institution was omitted. Still, the ritual of pointing at the bread and the wine during the words of institution (without holding the fingers in a specific gesture) remained—as did the ritual elevation after their recitation, which is now performed by orthodox everywhere, including Greece, Georgia, etc., although its original meaning is totally forgotten.

It really makes sense. What is the Church offering to God? His own... of His own? This is of course a reference to Jesus, His only begotten Son. But had the Spirit not yet descended upon the gifts, how could the Church be offering to the Father the precious body and blood of the Son? The inclusion of this prayer implies there is a consecratory value in the part which preceded it, namely, the Institution Narrative.

This doesn't serve as an apologia for the orthodoxy of the West's position -- i just thought this was interesting.

A Closer Look: Did Jesus Have Siblings?

The one who first states a case seems right, 

until the other comes and cross-examines. 

Proverbs 18:17

One's mind cannot step forward into the doorway of truth when the door itself remains locked and unopened. The truth of Mary's perpetual virginity is a door which cannot be stepped through while the notion of Christ Our Lord having uterine siblings serves to lock it shut. If it can be adequately demonstrated that these figures, so named to be the Lord's brethren, are not actually Mary's children, then the lock is no longer fastened, and the door is there for those to open it and pass through it.

The Word "Brothers"

Let it first be said: from the Scriptures themselves, it is shown that the word "brother", even when used in reference to family, does not always denote the relationship of sharing the same parent(s). In its ancient Hebraic sense, the word does not exclusively designate those with shared parents, but is also used to refer to more generic, extended kinsman.  We can fashion multiple examples, but let this suffice: In Genesis 13:8, when peacefully dividing land for livestock between the two of them, Abram addresses his nephew Lot by saying "Let there be no strife between you and me... for we are brothers"  (as rendered in: KJV, NAS, ERV, DRA.)

Now, let's turn to the main passage in contention, the one which explicitly mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters:

He [Jesus] came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.”
Matthew 13:54-57

"Are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" This is a good passage to utilize, insofar as the Scriptures actually tells us more about some of these men, besides them merely being mentioned the Lord's brothers. Let's delve into some of their identities, as recorded in the Bible. James and Jude are particularly notable; not only are they counted among the Lord's brothers, they are also numbered among the Twelve. James, for example, is mentioned by St. Paul in Galatians 1:19 as being the Lord's brother, as Paul reports: But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Fast-forward fourteen chapters in Matthew's Gospel to the crucifixion and death of the Lord, certain women are counted as those who were present as witnesses, who cared for Him.

There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee.
Matthew 27:55-56

Is Jesus' mother Mary one of the women listed in the passage? It is of reasonable certainty that the Mary being here referred to is not Jesus' mother, given that everywhere else she is mentioned in the Bible, she is explicitly mentioned as "the mother of Jesus" (eg: Jn 19:25.) Being His mother is a pretty noteworthy fact, and, being the most biologically relevant, would therefore be the simplest indication as to who she is. Given that there are quite a few Mary's in the life of Jesus, wouldn't it just be more straightforward to single her out as his mother specifically? Yet this other Mary is identified as "the mother of James and Joseph", not as Jesus' mother.

In Luke's account of Jesus calling the Twelve, it lists that two apostles were named James: James, son of Zebedee (whose mother was also mentioned in Matthew's account,) and...

and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,
Luke 6:15

Here we have it --- James, the brother of Jesus, is NOT the son of Joseph, but the son of Alphaeus! 

This Mary in Matthew 27 is said to be mother to James and Joseph, and James is said to be the Lord's brother, right? Jude was also mentioned as having been the Lord's brother, though this verse did not say that this mother of James and Joseph was also his mother. Yet in the introduction to Jude's epistle, he himself states that he is "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. But who’s related to whom, and in which way? Looking at a different account of the crucifixion narrative, in the Gospel according to John, the list of women is recorded as follows:

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.
John 19:25

This Mary, this time explicitely distinguished from Christ's mother, is reported to be her sister. (This very fact that Mary is recorded as having a sister also named Mary actually further vouches for use of word "brother/sister" as applying wider than simply the immediate family. It would be highly unlikely that Mary's parents had two daughters whom were both named Mary.) This means that James and Joseph, her children, were at the most, cousins of Jesus Christ, for their mother was Mary's sister.

You might be wondering: if James the Apostles is this Mary's son, is his father Alphaeus, or Clopas? On the one hand, the exact identity isn't quite relevant, because this has sufficiently demonstrated that this Mary is not Christ's mother, and thus James is not his uterine brother. On the other hand, it is hard not to wonder.

Fortunately, the early Christians had enough pious concern for Christ and his legacy that they actually detailed this for us. An important witness comes from a quintessential work, the Ecclesastical History by Eusebius of Caesarea. We are indebted to Eusebius for taking it upon himself to record the history of the Christian church, from Christ and his apostles up to his own time. In several different places throughout the work, he makes several references to St. James, one of the twelve and the first pastor (bishop) of Jerusalem. In Book IV, chp. 22, par 4, he records

after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was another cousin of the Lord.

This passage even identifies Simon, listed among Christ's brethren in Mt. 13, as being the son of Clopas, and being Jesus' cousin.

Now we turn to a work very late and apocryphal, but only for the sake of clarifying exactly who's mentioned in the Gospels. This text is assigned to an apostolic father, St. Papias. It is from this reference that we are really able to break down the who's-who when referring to the many Mary's in the Bible:

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and (Judas)Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason
(Papias, Fragment #10) emphasis mine)

St. Phillip & St. James (the brother of the Lord)

Some may object by arguing that identifying these brethren of the Lord Christ's brothers as not being his immediate brothers, it somehow betrays the plain sense of the Inspired texts. But it has been shown that this criticism is really unsustainable, because the Bible itself refers to the apostles James and Jude as "the Lord's brothers" and even sets them within familial contexts that include His mother. Yet it is proved, from the Scriptures themselves, that Jesus' mother is not their mother, and, furthermore, that Joseph is not their father. The historic witness of Church tradition actually does furnish us with their exact identity, but even were the testimony of tradition to not be accepted, the Biblical data alone suffices to vouch for us that they are not the offspring of Mary.


. . . And thus, off falls the lock.

Nicholas Cabasilas on the Words of Consecration

I won't pretend that Cabasilas was a Latinist in his theology of the Eucharist. However, he certainly has more similarities with the Roman Church than many contemporary Orthodox do on this matter.

Commentary on the Divine Liturgy 32:

The priest recites the story of that august Last Supper, telling how, before He suffered, He gave to the disciples this sacrament, and took the bread and the chalice, and having given thanks said those words which expressed the mystery; repeating those words, the celebrant prostrates himself and prays, while applying to the offerings these words of the Only-Begotten, our Savior, that they may, after having received his most Holy and All-Powerful Spirit, be transformed-- the Bread into his holy Body, the wine into his most precious and Sacred blood. 

When these words have been said, the whole sacred rite is accomplished, the offerings are consecrated, the sacrifice is complete; the splendid Victim, the Divine oblation, slain for the salvation of the world, lies upon the altar. For it is no longer the bread, which until now has represented the Lord's Body, nor is it a simple offering, bearing the likeness of the true offering, carrying as if engraved on it the symbols of the Saviour's Passion; it is the true Victim, the most holy Body of the Lord, which really suffered the outrages, insults and blows; which was crucified and slain, which under Pontius Pilate bore such splendid witness; that Body which was mocked, scourged, spat upon, and which tasted gall. In like manner the wine has become the blood which flowed from that Body. It is that Body and Blood formed by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, which was buried, which rose again on the third day, which ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father.

Age of Accountability in the Book of Deuteronomy

For those who say that the Catholic concept of the "age of accountability" isn't a Biblical concept,..

Israel was given chance after chance to stay faithful to God, but the first generation of Israelites which Moses led out of Egypt were finally told by God that, because of their disobedience, they would not enter into the promised land.

However, there were certain exceptions which were mentioned:

Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land which I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephun′neh; he shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land upon which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the Lord!’ The Lord was angry with me also on your account, and said, ‘You also shall not go in there; Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter; encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. Moreover your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall go in there, and to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.’
(Deuteronomy 1:35-40, emphasis on verse 29 mine)

The Bible itself says that children can be too young to understand good and evil, and this passage illustrates that they do not share in the condemnation which fall upon evil doers.

A Closer Look: St. Gregory the Great's Contention with “Universal Bishop”

It was towards the tail end of the sixth century. John IX, or John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, given that he was Patriarch of the Byzantine empire's capital, attributed to himself the title of "Universal Patriarch," "Universal Bishop" and "Universal Priest." His contemporary, Gregory I, Pope of Rome, did not react with much joy at the situation... but not for the reasons which those unfamiliar with Church history might assume. For those unfamiliar with this episode of history, especially if they are faithful Catholics, his reaction may come across as deeply confusing and even shocking.

[W]hat will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?
(Letter 5:18)

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.
(Letter 7:33 emphasis mine)

,

These are some strong words. Pope Gregory imputes to the one who would appropriate the title "universal" for themselves a fatal pride, one which even precursors the Antichrist. What does the Catholic, who believes in, according to the definition of the First Vatican Council “the universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole church,” make of them? Do they undermine the veracity of Catholic dogma? Do they, coming from one of the papacy’s most famous occupants, constitute a historical witness against its current claims to power?

Protestants and Orthodox have often seized upon these words from Pope St. Gregory and answered an affirmative “yes” to this question. In their mind, it presents a swift "checkmate" against the claims of Roman Catholicism. Yet I would argue that to simply take them at face value, without historical context, quite obscures the picture. There are some very intriguing nuances which should be held in mind when assessing the situation.

In response to their criticism, it is commonly argued by papal apologists (and I am increasingly inclined to think correctly) that he perceived the phrase of “universal bishop” as more or less equating to an unique, only, singular, exclusive, all-encompassing bishop. Calling someone a “universal bishop” would be, in Gregory’s mind, be the same as calling them the only bishop, with the whole universal Church on earth as their diocese. This would reduce the other bishops to simply being the pope’s subsidiaries, his vicars, his agents, and not true bishops at all. Their authority to govern would be purely and unqualifiedly derivative.

For, having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you have at length been brought to such a pass as, despising your brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop.
(Letter 5:18, to John IX, emphasis mine)

[T]his thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the contemning of all of you. For if one, as he [John the Faster] supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.
(Letter 6:98, to bishop Eusebius of Thessaloniki, emphasis mine)

Contrary to this understanding is the doctrine held by the Roman Church. The very council which formally promulgated the papacy as a dogma of the Catholic faith, Vatican I, itself affirmed that the office of bishop is a divine institution, that is, an office immediately appointed by God by having Christ as its founder, with its own integrity and carrying its own dignity. The council fathers cited the The Book of Acts (of the Apostles) , in which St. Paul says said “the Holy Ghost hath made thee overseers (bishops).” (Acts 20:20).

Further, it should be noted that the papal office should not be understood as above the episcopate, but as within the episcopate, as part of it, and as the episcopate's own principle of unity and integrity. As St. Cyprian of Carthage and other fathers would convey, the episcopal charism is a Petrine charism; Peter was the first to be made bishop, to be given the authority to bind and loose, and the apostles would later also be made to share in what Peter was given. In a like manner, the Pope is entrusted with the care of all Christians, and all the bishops proportionately share in this same responsibility. The papacy shares an identity as Church, as Teacher, as Vicar of Christ, with the episcopate, so that the Pope functions as the episcopate’s figurehead, its governmental and moral summation, its unifying force and its charismatic foundation.

So, the connotations of the term “universal bishop” held by Pope Gregory and by later popes would thus in fact appear to differ from one another; they present to us two different concepts. One usage communicates the responsibility due to the whole Church which is uniquely held by the Bishop of Rome; the other as a restrictive and singular government to the exclusion of those others with a valid, innate right to perform their proper duties. Therefore, seeing that they meant two different things when using it, it presents no contradiction to see Pope Gregory I denounce the title and later popes apply it. 

However, let’s set aside this interpretation of the event, and cede for the sake of argument that the title did in fact mean “universal” as the Popes would later intend. Seeing a Pope of Rome describe the operations as diabolical and a prelude to Antichrist constitute a devastating blow to the claims of the papacy — or does it?

The pontificate of Gregory I is a very historically noteworthy one — he is not known as Gregory “the Great” for nothing, after all. It is a marked by a concerted display of power and influence. The Encyclopedia Britannica [link: here] notes him as "'founder' of the medieval papacy, which exercised both secular and spiritual power" and as "the first exponent of a truly medieval, sacramental spirituality." 

He not only denied the title when it was applied to John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, but also rejected the title when others applied to himself.

"... 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..."
(Letter 8:30)

In this letter, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Eulogios, referred to him as “Universal Pope.” This is truly significant because as Patriarch of Alexandra, Eulogius was, via St. Mark's commission from Peter to found and rule over the Church of Alexandria, also a successor of St. Peter. (The Pope had even acknowledged this in the letter which solicited Eulogius' initial compliments of him being "Universal Pope!") This demonstrates other bishops, even Eastern bishops such as Eulogios, evidently saw the papal office as functioning at a universal level. He even returned the Pope's letter with a spirit of subordination, replying that he had done “as you [Pope Gregory] had commended.”

Further, Gregory himself admitted that the title “univeral” was offered to Rome at the council of Chalcedon over one hundred years prior, demonstrating an antiquity of the attestation to this recognition by Eastern bishops. In his written chastisements of John IV of C'nple,

Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren
(Letter 5:18)

Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity, lest, by something being given peculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them. How is it then that we do not seek the glory of this title even when offered, and another presumes to seize it for himself though not offered?
(Letter 5:20)

And Pope St. Gregory, though not appropriating the term "universal" to himself, certainly did ascribe to himself and to his see an incontestable headship over the whole Church.

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See (i.e. Rome), as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? 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.(Letters 9:12, emphasis mine)

If, however it is stated in opposition to this, that he has neither metropolitan nor patriarch, it must also be said that the case must then be heard and settled by the Apostolic See, which is the head of all the churches.
(Letters 13:50)

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.  . . . you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others.
(Letters 3:30)

To John the Faster, Gregory writes the following:

For, having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you have at length been brought to such a pass as, despising your brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And indeed with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod, which had been assembled among you in the case of our once brother and fellow bishop Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom he had sent according to custom to the threshold of our lord, to celebrate the solemnities of mass with you. But after his death, when I, unworthy, succeeded to the government of the Church, both through my other representatives and also through our common son the deacon Sabinianus, I have taken care to address your Fraternity, not indeed in writing, but by word of mouth, desiring you to restrain yourself from such presumption. And, in case of your refusing to amend, I forbade his celebrating the solemnities of mass with you; that so I might first appeal to your Holiness through a certain sense of shame, to the end that, if the execrable and profane assumption could not be corrected through shame, strict canonical measures might be then resorted to.
(Letters 5:18, emphasis mine)

And, he connected this primacy with the Apostle Peter, from whom he believed that he, as bishop of Rome, inherited. 

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... Lo, 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, and yet he is not called the universal apostle... Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity...
(Letters 5:20)

Finally, and perhaps more significantly, we should address how Gregory has been assessed and understood in our own day.  This very same Pope, who we are supposed to believe denounced any inclination, is reported by historians and theologians, even those Protestant in creed, to be the first modern Pope, the first to exercise his office in a form recognizable to the perceptions of later generations. The same man who could not stomach the patriarch of Constantinople being referred to as “universal bishop” had no scruples in the Pope of Rome (himself) being called “the servant of the servants of God.” He was in fact the first to do so.

In the words of Reformed scholar Phillip Schaff,

Gregory, while he protested in the strongest terms against the assumption by the Eastern patriarchs of the antichristian and blasphemous title of universal bishop, claimed and exercised, as far as he had the opportunity and power, the authority and oversight over the whole church of Christ, even in the East... he was clearly inconsistent in disclaiming the name, and yet claiming the thing itself. The real objection is to the pretension of a universal episcopate, not to the title. If we concede the former, the latter is perfectly legitimate.
(History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073, 51. Gregory and the Universal Episcopate)

And Jaroslav Pelikan, Lutheran at the time when he authored this, writes:

The bishop of Rome had the right of his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that ‘without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See, none of the matters transacted have any binding force’. …he was already beginning to formulate a doctrine of the dogmatic authority of Rome, based on the primacy of Peter and corroborated by a record and reputation for doctrinal orthodoxy.
(The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1- page 354)

Finally, reputable Oxford scholar and Church historian J.N.D. Kelly asseses that, as far as Gregory the Great was conscerned, "St. Peter’s commission made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome" (Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 67)

So, on the one hand, when it came to the title of “Universal Bishop”, Gregory himself likely didn’t mean what later popes would understand by it, meaning what he rejected and they accepted are two different things. He rejected it on grounds that it should exclude the other bishops; later popes accepted it and did not see it as excluding other bishops. On the other hand, even though he rejected the title, it seems odd that he should have. He himself recognized an authoritative primacy held by himself and the Roman Church, the term "universal" was in fact applied to himself within his own lifetime by another Petrine patrirarch, and his overall papacy operated in a way which (consistent with its usage by later popes) was very consistent with the meaning intended by the title.

In closing, with all due respect not only to our dear Pope St. Gregory, but also to our dear Orthodox and Protestant dissenters who wish to use his words to undermine the papal office , I think, in light of the evidence, but this may not be a checkmate after all.Actions speak louder than words, so perhaps his actions show forth a more informed, truer attitude and understanding in regards to his office as Pope of Rome. The impression he left upon his contemporary brother bishops and patriarchs, and upon later historians of our own day, show us this: whatever be his understanding of and attitude towards the title itself, Pope Gregory’s  administration of the papal office is certainly reflective of the description of “universal bishop,” in the sense which is consistent with the utterances of later popes.

SCRIPTURE: Rejection of Natural Law Leads to Depravity

It is Catholic teaching that God is able to be known through reason alone, without the assistance of Divine Revelation. The doctrine, officially promulgated as dogma by the First Vatican Council, is sometimes misunderstood, but what it means is that man has been given sufficient intellect to perceive through the created world that there is indeed a Creator, without need of recourse to some divine oracle, such as that of Mt. Sinai (not that intellect alone, without grace, can put someone into a relationship with God.)

St. Paul the Apostle expounds on Natural Law in
his epistle to the Romans

Man can know by his own faculties (principled upon that he is made in the Image of God, and that God's very Logos is "the light which enlightens every man" as St. John puts it) that there is indeed a God and that there a true moral standard imposed on mankind, to which mankind must submit. This, in a word, (the word of the Catholic tradition to be precise,) is Natural Law. It is the apparent principle within creation which makes man able of perceiving philosophical and moral truths concerning God and the expectations He has enjoined upon his creatures.

Were there no Natural Law, no law of God which shows "that what the [Mosaic] law requires is written on their hearts" (Romans 2:15), what basis could God have for judging Christian and non Christian alike by the same standards of justice? Were they not manifest in some natural way to the natural man, who lacks the supernatural initiation into God's covenant. Thus, the Natural Law is binding upon all mankind, Jew and non-Jew, Christian and non-Christian.

The result of rejecting the Natural Law, however, is a plunge into intellectual, emotional, and spiritual darkness. Intellectual darkness, in that their sin eclipses their reason and they can no longer perceive these truths knowable to them by the principle of the imago Dei. Emotional darkness, that they become automated by their passions (anger, lust, etc) and are plagued by an assault from them. Spiritual darkness, that they become in bondage to and subjugated to dark spiritual forces of hell, giving themselves over to Satan.

And this is exactly what has happened throughout human history. Through the inheritance of original sin, mankind has regularly rejected the natural law and given himself over to evil. Two passages in particular will suffice to demonstrate this, though others could be cited. One is from the Old Testament, and the other from the New.

Wisdom 13:1-9

For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists,nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works;but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.If through delight in the beauty of these things people assumed them to be gods,let them know how much better than these is their Lord,for the author of beauty created them.And if people[a] were amazed at their power and working,let them perceive from themhow much more powerful is the one who formed them.
For from the greatness and beauty of created things
comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.
Yet these people are little to be blamed,for perhaps they go astraywhile seeking God and desiring to find him.For while they live among his works, they keep searching,and they trust in what they see, because the things that are seen are beautiful.Yet again, not even they are to be excused;for if they had the power to know so muchthat they could investigate the world,how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things?

Romans 1:18-25

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

As can be extracted from these Texts, mankind has been given through creation a window into which they can see some general truths of the Creator. The sin of idolatry arose when mankind forfeited those truths for truths of his own making, which are not truths at all. Man "exchanged the truth about God for a lie."

This darkness obscures man's ability to perceive this basic truths of God, and in this darkness, he becomes a slave to lies, to falsehood, and to evil. This is one of the factors that the Blessed God of Heaven sent Son into the world, to be a "light of the world." The very Logos of God became Incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ, and He came as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." (Jn. 14:1) This truth, the truth of God, is the truth that sets us free.

_______

(Side tangent: this biblical principle of Natural Law is actually why the Church has looked favorably upon the works of pagan philosophers. It is not that Greek philosophy is on the same moral and spiritual authority as Sacred Scripture or Divine Revelation, but that it vouches for the Biblical assertion that man can know certain truths pertaining to God without direct Revelation. Men such as Socrates and Aristotle rightly rejected the local Athenian cult and its polytheism, perceiving it as intellectually crude and insufficient to explain the origins of the universe. Through their studies, discipline and contemplation, they recognized the need for but One universal principle: an unmoved Mover, a first cause, etc.)