Pope Gregory and the Universal Bishop

It is a common anti Catholic argument to point out that Pope St. Gregory (540-604 AD) denied the title of "Universal Bishop." If the Pope himself denied the title, then how can the Pope claim to have universal jurisdiction over the entire church? This argument has been around since at least the reformation, as we see it in John Calvin's Institutes, and it still made today by people like James White, Geisler and MacKenzie. So what exactly did Pope St. Gregory say? In a few different places, he says things like, 

None of my predecessors has consented to bear this profane title, for when a Patriarch adopts for himself the title of 'universal' the title of Patriarch suffers discredit. No Christian, then, has the desire to adopt a title that would cause discredit to his brethren.

And 

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 honour 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 pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.

And more forcefully 

I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist.

So what gives? The answer is hinted at in the quotations already given, but if one knows enough about the pontificate of Pope St. Gregory, the claim that he denied the power of the Roman Papacy should immediately raise some flags as he, along with Pope St. Leo, is one of the common names for establishing the authority and jurisdiction of the Apostolic See. 

Let us take note in the first quotation that Pope St. Gregory thought that the title of "Universal Bishop" would discredit his brethren. Who does brethren refer to here? The other bishops (patriarchs). In the second quotation, Pope St. Gregory is worried that something would be singularly ascribed to him that his brethren Bishops would have a right to. What would this be? It seems like just from these two quotations alone, he is worried that he would be considered the only bishop if he were to take the title "Universal Bishop" which is obviously incorrect. The Bishop of Rome, though he has universal jurisdiction, would still be one of many bishops and one of many apostles that Christ has called. So the issue here isn't about universal jurisdiction, it's about whether he is the only bishop in existence. 

Thankfully, Pope St. Gregory tells us as much when he writes, 

But, with what daring or with what swelling of pride I know not, you have attempted to seize upon a new name, whereby the hearts of all your brethren might have come to take offense. I wonder exceedingly at this, since I remember how you would fain have fled from the episcopal office rather than attain it. And yet, now that you have got it, you desire so to exercise it as if you had run to it with ambitious intent. 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.

 So even if Pope St. Gregory rejected the title, he still understood his position as being unique or distinct from the rest of the bishops. He says, 

To all who know the Gospel [presumably, the account of Sts. John & Matthew] it is obvious that by the voice of the Lord [divine institution] the care of the universal church was committed to the holy apostle and prince of all the apostles, Peter…Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire Church was committed to him, and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop.

He acted upon that authority as well. We see it here 

Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.

That quotation is of some significance because it demonstrates a Western Bishop exercising power, the power of annulment, over synods that happen in the East, and in Constantinople no less, which many Orthodox prop up as a kind of superseding power over Rome. That is to say, Rome exercised jurisdiction over Constantinople, which shouldn't be seen happening if Rome doesn't have universal jurisdiction. And he justifies that power by appealing to the authority of Peter. When you add to this the fact that Pope St. Gregory is venerated as a saint in the East, we see that this case against the Papacy is weak, whether it comes from Protestants or Orthodox.

In sum, Pope St. Gregory denied the title of "Universal Bishop" because he thought it would deny the legitimacy of other bishops. Though he denied the title, he doesn't deny the power Catholics claim he has. This is in line with what first Vatican Council teaches and its subsequent findings.