The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not mean "universal"; it means "whole, complete, lacking nothing." ... Thus, to confess the Church to be catholic is to say that She possesses the fullness of the Christian faith. To say, however, that Orthodox and Rome constitute "two lungs" of the same Church is to deny that either Church separately is catholic in any meaningful sense of the term. This is not only contrary to the teaching of Orthodoxy, it is flatly contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which considered itself truly catholic.[2]
The church is in the image of the Trinity[3] and reflects the reality of the incarnation.
The body of Christ must always be equal with itself … The local church which manifests the body of Christ cannot be subsumed into any larger organisation or collectivity which makes it more catholic and more in unity, for the simple reason that the principle of total catholicity and total unity is already intrinsic to it.[4]
Any changes to the understanding of the church would reflect a change in the understanding of the Trinity.
Eastern Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments
It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that Roman Catholic arguments in support of the teaching have relied on proofs from Fathers that have either been misinterpreted or so taken out of context as to misrepresent their true intent. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that a closer examination of those supposed supports would have the effect of either not supporting the argument or have the opposite effect of supporting the counter-argument.
Apostolic Throne
Athanasius is used as a witness for papal primacy on numerous Catholic apologist sites.
Whelton however says that Athanasius does not use the definite article (the) in the text.[7]
Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne ...[8]
Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne.
And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church" (Ep. xliii., n. 7)[9]
Augustine
...because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.[10]
Whelton goes on to say that for Augustine there is not one Apostolic See, but many:
You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion ...[11]
Ignatius of Antioch
For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[12] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop – each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishop's authority is localised to a particular church.[13] C. Carlton sums up Ignatius's view of the bishop's role in the Church this way:
Just as the Father is the principal of unity within the Holy Trinity, so the bishop is the center of the visible unity of the Church on earth.[14]
Ignatius sets out what he believes consists of the church in an epistle to the Trallians:
In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.[15]
There is no reference to another tier above bishop. For Ignatius, the bishop is supreme, not the bishop because he is in communion with the bishop in Rome.[16][17][18][19][20]
Thus when he writes to Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, he states that God is Polycarp’s bishop, implying that there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God.[21]
John Chrysostom referred to Ignatius of Antioch as a "teacher equivalent to Peter".[22]
Letter to the Romans
Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans is used by Catholic apologists to suggest Roman primacy.[23] In particular his opening remarks:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.[24]
J.H. Srawley concedes that the Roman church presides but argues that it is unclear as to what area the act of presiding ("presides in the place of the region of the Romans" and "presides over love") refers to. He argues that the act of presiding may be simply of those churches in the region of the Romans, that is, those in Italy.[25]
Tome of Leo
Often cited as a proof of Papal Supremacy[26][27][28][29] is the Tome of Leo which is a letter sent by Pope Leo to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451. It in part seems to suggest that Leo speaks with the authority of Peter. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that the approval of the Tome is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the pope but other churchmen as well.
Before the Tome of Leo was presented to the Council, it was submitted to a committee headed by Patriarch St. Anatolius of Constantinople for study. The committee compared the Tome of Leo to the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius and declared the Tome orthodox. It was then presented to the council for approval.
After reading of the foregoing epistle (Pope Leo's), the most reverend bishops cried out: "This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe".[30]
However it is not just Leo's teaching that is the teaching of the Apostle, but Cyril's teaching as well. Both teach as Peter. The same language was used following the reading of Cyril's letter at the council.[31] The language of the council is simply to reinforce that all believe.[32] At the Third Ecumenical Council Pope Celestine and Cyril were compared to Paul.[33]
John Chrysostom
Another apparent witness for supremacy claims is John Chrysostom. This evidence is supposed to be based on an incident when he faced exile and he appealed to the pope for help. When he was to be exiled he appealed to the pope for help, as well as two other western prelates; Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia. He appealed to all three in the same terms rather than viewing the pope as leader.[34]
How well known and highly esteemed Chromatius was in the Church of his time we can deduce from an episode in the life of St John Chrysostom. When the Bishop of Constantinople was exiled from his See, he wrote three letters to those he considered the most important Bishops of the West seeking to obtain their support with the Emperors: he wrote one letter to the Bishop of Rome, the second to the Bishop of Milan and the third to the Bishop of Aquileia, precisely, Chromatius (Ep. CLV: PG LII, 702).[35]
While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost ... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia ... His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church ... Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs.[36]
The pope took up the cause of John Chrysostom, convoking a western synod to investigate the matter.[37] They found in favor of John Chrysostom and sent delegates to Constantinople but these were ignored and sent back after only three months.[38] The pope's findings in support of John Chrysostom were not viewed as serious enough to annul John Chrysostom's exile.
It must also be remembered that he took his vows from Meletius (whom we noted earlier was not in communion with Rome). He accepted as an authority men not in communion with Rome. After Meletius died John Chrysostom accepted Flavian as his bishop[39] - another person not in communion with Rome.[40] John Chrysostom spent much of his life not in communion with Rome.
Other texts are used to allege he supported Roman primacy. John Chrysostom sometimes ascribes to Peter greatness.
For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren.[41]
This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler over the "brethren". He goes on to ascribe Peter as the "teacher of the world".[42]
However, according to Abbé Guettée on other occasions John Chrysostom ascribes the same titles to others:[43]
"The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere."[44]
Denny also notes that John Chrysostom goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter.[45][46] Further, the Catholic encyclopedia offers this frank admission of his writings:
... that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.[47]
Basil the Great
Basil the Great also supported Meletius against Rome's candidate.[48] Writing to Count Terentius Basil said
But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by "us" I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius. I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this ... But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men.[49]
From his letters it appears that Basil did not hold the popes in high esteem. When Basil wrote to the west for help (in combating Arianism) he addressed his letters to the whole western church.[50] He didn't especially write to Rome for help and did not even list it first.
To his brethren truly God-beloved and very dear, and fellow ministers of like mind, the bishops of Gaul and Italy, Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia.[51]
Damasus was the leader of a group supporting the heretic Marcellus
If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy.[52]
Of the pope, St Basil wrote
... but what possible good could accrue to the cause by communication between a man proud and exalted, and therefore quite unable to hear those who preach the truth to him from a lower standpoint, and a man like my brother, to whom anything like mean servility is unknown?[53]
Coryphæus
Coryphæus means the head of the choir. Catholic apologists note that John Chrysostom uses the term to describe Peter.[54] However he also uses this term in relation to others:
He took the coryphaei (plural) and led them up into a high mountain apart ... Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer ... "We are able to drink the chalice."[55]
The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election.[56]
It is argued by Catholics that John Chrysostom only uses the singular Coryphæus in relation to Peter. This is true, but others do not restrict the use of the singular to Peter.
Basil also uses the term Coryphæus. He refers to Athanasius as "Coryphæus of all."[57]
He refers to Pope Damasus as Coryphæus, but as the leader of the westerners, not of the whole church.
Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphæus.[58]
Pope Leo XIII has already been shown to have misquoted Athanasius. Whelton states that (in his encyclical Satis cognitum) he misquotes Maximus the Confessor.[60] In Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem Maximus (also rendered Maximos) is alleged to have said:
Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.[61]
Edward Denny giving his own translation and using that of Vincenzi[62] shows that the words of Maximus give Rome a power conferred upon it by Holy Synods. This is in contrast with Catholic teaching and also would suggest that if a synod can confer power, it can also take it away. Denny states that Vincenzi is "compelled by the facts to admit that these very authorities to which St Maximus refers, as they have been handed down to us, are witness against the Papal Monarchy."[63]
Formula of Pope Hormisdas
Under the emperor Anastasius I, the churches of Constantinople and Rome were in schism. However with the ascendency of the orthodox emperor Justin I, the two churches could be reconciled again. Justin ordered negotiations begin.
Pope Hormisdas issued a formula of orthodox catholic faith which the Patriarch John II could sign if he wished reunion of the two churches. It can namely be read in the formula:
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome."[64]
Catholic apologists emphasize part of the text bolded above.
Those in agreement with orthodox faith would naturally be in agreement with the church in Rome on this matter – which was stating orthodox faith. For Catholic apologists agreement to this text means an agreement to Rome, because Rome is the leader. For Orthodox agreement to Rome is because it stated the truth.
For the Greeks, the text of the libellus meant a factual recognition that the apostolic Roman church had been consistent in orthodoxy for the past seventy years and, therefore deserved to become a rallying point for the Chalcedonians (those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon) of the East.[65]
Further evidence seems to point to this. Patriarch John expressed his opinion that Rome (Old Rome) and Constantinople (New Rome) were on the same level.[66] The Patriarch showed this when he added to the document:
I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one.[67]
Furthermore despite it being one of the demands in the formula the east continued to disregard papal demands by not condemning Acacius.[68]
The politics of this is demonstrated by the fact that the Emperor Justin ignored the pope's candidate for the vacated see of Alexandria and instead "authorised the consecration of Timothy III, an intransigent Monophysite".[69]
Theoderic, king in Italy, and an Arian grew suspicious of the new alliance between Rome and Constantinople. John who succeeded as pope was sent to Constantinople to restore Arian churches there. Thus the orthodox Catholic pope was sent to urge the restoration of churches to heretics. This the pope did with limited success.[70][71]
The Church at Rome was founded (or more formally organised) by both Peter and Paul. As no particular charism or primacy attaches to Paul, then it is not from his co-foundation of the church of Rome that the Roman Pontiff claims primacy.
As many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of "Apostle".
While the See of Rome had primacy, it was a position of honour rather than power or magisterial authority.
Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne.
Each bishop has the right to manage affairs within his local diocese. In the event of a dispute with another bishop, only a general council may rule on the matter.
Church Fathers do not refer to another tier or clerical office above the ordinary episcopate.
Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to bishops in other metropolitan areas.
Cases which had been decided by Rome were appealed to synods of bishops in other metropolitan areas.
Peter founded many episcopal sees; all such sees have equal standing.
The Apostles were equal; no authority was withheld from any of them.
The post-Constantinian church conferred upon the sees of Old Rome and later New Rome (Constantinople) the same degree of honor.
Eastern Patriarchs have regarded the Bishop of Rome, occupying the only apostolic see in Western Christendom, as the Patriarch of the West (not of the entire church).
Faced with exile, John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople, wrote an appeal for help to three Western churchmen. While one of these was the bishop of Rome, had Rome exercised primacy at that time, he would not have written to the other two bishops.
The New Testament records (Acts 15) the convening of a council to decide whethergentiles who converted should be required to be circumcised, which according to some interpretations was prescribed by the Mosaic law. (Rabbinic Judaism only prescribes Noahide Laws for gentiles.) Catholic historians note that when Peter spoke, all were silent. However Whelton notes that when Paul and James spoke, all were silent as well.[80]
Eusebius said that it was James who stated the decision of the Council, not Peter.[81] John Chrysostom noted James made the decision.[82][83]
The ruling of the Council was expressed as being the decision of all the council, not just Peter. Continuing with this the opening statements of official formulations normally begins with the phrase "Following the Holy Fathers", not "Following the ruling of the Pope."[84]
Easter controversy
There existed a difference in how some local churches celebrated Easter: in the Roman province of Asia it was celebrated on the 14th of the moon[85] (Quartodecimanism), not necessarily on Sunday. "Bishop Victor of Rome ordered synods to be held to settle the matter – an interesting early instance of synodality and indeed of popes encouraging synods – and excommunicated Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when their synod refused to adopt the Roman line. Victor was rebuked by Irenaeus for this severity and it seems that he revoked his sentence and that communion was preserved."[86]
Eusebius wrote:
Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.[87]
The matter will be eventually resolved at the First Ecumenical Council in line with Sunday observance.
Arius and his teachings were condemned by a synod of bishops which the pope summoned in 320. Alexander of Alexandria summoned a local synod in Alexandria in 321 which also condemned Arianism.[88] Five years after the pope had condemned Arianism, Emperor Constantine I called an ecumenical council to settle the matter. Whelton argues that the pope's decision was not considered an end to the matter because a council in Africa met to examine the issue for itself. Constantine then ordered a larger council to decide on the matter.[89]
The Fourth Canon of this council confirmed that bishops were to be appointed only locally.[90]
Second Ecumenical Council
The Second Ecumenical Council was presided over by Meletius of Antioch, who was not in communion with Rome.[91][92]
The Pope had pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute.[95]
And that blessed council holding their doctrine, following their counsel, believing their witness, submitting to their judgment without haste, without foregone conclusion, without partiality, gave their determination concerning the Rules of Faith.[96]
In its condemnation of Nestorius, the language given is of the council ruling, not because the pope said so. Cyril writes that he, and his fellow bishop - the pope - had both condemned Nestorius.[97]
Catholic apologists Fathers Rumble and Carty stated
The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, "No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment."[98]
It is true that the statement was made at the council. It is however not a "decree". It was a statement by a priest during the deliberations of the council. This priest, Philip, was at the council to represent the pope. It was not a decree or finding made by the council and remains his opinion.[99]
A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[101]
Bossuet wrote
These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decress of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.[102]
German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called "without the assent of the Pope".[103]
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul[105]
The council anathematized them,[106] declared them tools of the devil,[107] and cast them out of the church.[108][109]
The popes (from Pope Leo II) themselves adhered to the Council's ruling and added Honorius to their list of heretics, before quietly dropping his name in the eleventh century.[110] The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
... also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).[111]
So too the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith. Thus an Ecumenical Council could rule on the faith of a pope and expel him from the church.[112]
At this council it was confirmed (in canon 39) that the local church could regulate itself, have its own special laws and regulations.[115]
Council of Sardica
It is claimed by Catholic apologists[116] that this council offers proof of papal primacy. In particular this reference is used
The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle.
— Council of Sardica, to Pope Julius (AD 342).[117][118]
It is further stated that Athanasius referred to this council as "the Great Council".[119]
However, this council was not an ecumenical one and not all of it was initially accepted by the east, who in fact refused to attend because of their Arian-leanings and their opposition to Athanasius.[120] Apart from the fact that the council at Sardica was not accepted by the whole church until at least the Council at Trullo hundreds of years later, Sardica had only given to the bishop of Rome jurisdiction as a court of final appeal.[121] Pope Zosimus would later misrepresent the Council of Sardica in order to bolster his claims for power over the churches in Africa.[122]
... the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424. But, most important of all, the Byzantine Church never submitted itself to papal scrutiny in the manner prescribed by Sardica.[123]
Additionally some believe the clause "their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle" to be an interpolation, because of the bad grammar of the Latin.[124]
In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formulary ... So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St. Peter’s at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on the other in Greek, without the addition.[127]
The claim that Pope John VIII also condemned the addition of the Filioque[128] is disputed.[129]Philip Schaff says there are different opinions about when the addition was accepted in Rome, whether by Pope Nicholas I (858-867), Pope Sergius III (904-911) or, as is most commonly believed, by Pope Benedict VIII (1014–1015).[129] When arguing "that so far from the insertion being made by the Pope, it was made in direct opposition to his wishes and command", he says:
It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St. Peter's.[127]
Council of Frankfurt
The Council of Frankfurt was held in 794. "Two papal legates were present, Theophylact and Stephen."[130] Despite the presence of papal representatives it still repudiated the terms of the Seventh Ecumenical Council – despite the fact that the Seventh was accepted by the pope.[131]
Rome's supposed primacy
First pope
The Catholic church states that Rome's supremacy rests on the pope being given power handed down from the first pope – Peter.[132]
However there is evidence that Peter was not the first bishop, and that the church in Rome was founded (or organized)[133] by Peter and Paul together.[134]
"The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.[135]
That is Linus is entrusted by the Apostles (plural). It is suggested that this evidence means that Linus was pope whilst Peter was still alive.[136][137] Rome's church could be said to be founded (or organised) on both Peter and Paul.
Primacy based on Peter and Paul
Rome had primacy, but it was one of honor, rather than power. The reasons for this are varied. One being that it was a see founded by both Peter and Paul. This honor was given not because of the 'primacy' of Peter (which is Catholic teaching), but on the position of both Peter and Paul. This was the accepted position, even in the West.
Augustine[138] and Theodoret[139] also wrote on the greatness of Rome – but for being the largest city, and its foundation on Peter and Paul. Rome's degree of 'primacy' was affirmed by one hundred and fifty bishops meeting at the Council of Chalcedon.[140] For this council Rome's primacy rested on the fact it was once the imperial capital.
Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon
This canon above comes up in numerous discussions on Papal Supremacy. For Orthodox it demonstrates a fluidity to the placing of honors – it shows Constantinople's place of honor moving up higher than older Sees such as Jerusalem, Alexandria and, Antioch.
Pope Leo I protested against the inclusion of this canon and refused to sign agreement to it. The Catholic encyclopaedia says
"In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith."[141]
The pope protested on behalf of two other Sees' privileges, not on a matter of his own power. However despite his energetic protests the canon remained adhered to by the eastern churches. It was confirmed in the east at the Council of Trullo in 692, where the four major eastern patriarchs attended; Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch. Thus despite the wishes of the pope the eastern churches ignored his protests.
Eventually it was accepted in the West. In 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran the Roman church accepted Constantinople's position – albeit when Constantinople was in western hands following the Fourth Crusade. Subsequently at the Council of Florence this was confirmed to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople.
"... and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be "inspired by the Holy Ghost" and "valid to the end of time"[142]
Rome as an archetype church
The church in Rome is occasionally singled out.
Cyprian
"And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."[143]
Equality of the Apostles
Peter and Paul taught the same as each other. All the Apostles were the foundation (rock) of the church. Nothing was withheld from any of the Apostles. When they preached they did so with equal knowledge. Peter preached to the Jews as Paul preached to the Gentiles.[144]
Tertullian
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?" Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead?"[145]
John Chrysostomon
"As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ investeth them with the same power.[146]
"One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples."[147]
"Rock"
Orthodox Christians believe all people can share in God. In a process calledTheosis. We are all called to be rock. That is to share in the same nature. Thus from the earliest times the foundation of the church can be said to be; the faith; Jesus; the Apostles, not just Peter.
"First of all, sir," I said, "explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?" "This rock", he answered, "and this gate are the Son of God."[148]
For the strengthening of your holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which you founded on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.[149]
The Orthodox Christian position is that all members of the church are called to be 'rock'; just as the church is built on the foundation of all the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20), all are called to be stones (1Peter 2:4–9). Protestant Matthew Henry's bible commentary notes this too when he states
"The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundationsof the new Jerusalem."[162]
Peter described himself as a fellow elder1Peter 5:1, placing himself on equal footing with the other disciples.[163]
For these early writers, Peter's leading position does not carry a special status that places him in a class different from all the other disciples of Jesus, nor do they imply that Peter's personal privileges and authority are transmitted to his successors in any particular church."[164]
Peter as "Prince of the Apostles"
Peter is often called the Prince of the Apostles. If such a special title meant that he held a special charism it was not exclusively Rome's. Other Sees had been founded by Peter. Pope Gregory the Great recognised these Sees were all equally as Sees of Peter. There is no difference between the Sees of Peter.[165]
Pope Gregory
"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors ...
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one ...
He himself established (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "[166]
Theodoret also refers to other Sees being thrones of Peter.[167]
Peter as the Archetype
As all are called to be rock, and as many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of Apostle. When he receives the keys he represents all of the Apostles.[168][169] This is found in the writings of Augustine[170] and Cyprian.[171]
Gregory the Great
The pope now holds the title of universal bishop. However such titles once raised the ire of popes.[172]
The pope wrote to the emperor to protest that any one bishop should be accorded the title universal bishop.
Gregory first accords Peter the title prince of the Apostles.
"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.[174]
Gregory notes that honor was bestowed upon Peter and the church in Rome – given it by an ecumenical council, but that no one person used the title.[175] It was an honor for all priests.[176] Gregory emphatically says no one person should have such a title.[177]
Pelagianism
During the controversies surrounding Pelagius' heresies a council in Mileve (in Numidia) found against Pelagianism. They then wrote to the pope seeking his help. They gave him much praise
"We write this from the council of Numidia, imitating our colleagues of the church and province of Carthage, who we understand have written on this matter to the apostolic see, which your blessedness adorns."[178]
Catholic apologists may make the most of such praise. However in the context of history one must also note that this praise was conditional. The next pope Zosimus did not out-rightly condemn the heresy Pelagianism and was himself condemned by the rest of the church for back-pedalling.[179]
Thus the same church (in Africa) could lavish praise upon the church in Rome but could equally condemn them, depending on the teachings Rome upheld.
Zosimus eventually reconfirmed the decision of Innocent, Pelagius went to the churches in Palestine where a synod was called to hear his case.[180] Augustine says that the churches in Palestine were deceived by Pelagius. What is important though is that even after two popes had condemned him Pelagius could still seek judgment by another region's synod. Evidently the Palestinian churches did not see the condemnation of the church in Rome and the church in Africa as binding.
It would take an ecumenical council to bring the churches to agreement on this matter.
Cyprian
In the encyclical Satis cognitum Pope Leo XIII misquotes Cyprian.
"To be in communion with (pope) Cornelius is to be in communion with the Catholic Church"[181]
The quotation is taken from Cyrpian's letter to Antonianus who was questioning whether he should be loyal to Cornelius or another claimant to the pontificate Novation. Cornelius selection as bishop of Rome was backed by sixteen bishops. Cyprian stated that Novation
"... strives by bribery to be made an adulterous and extraneous bishop by the hands of deserters; and although there is one Church, divided by Christ throughout the whole world into many members, and also one episcopate diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops[182]
Therefore to adhere to a heretic (Novation) is to separate oneself from the Catholic Church. Furthermore Cyprian confirms here that the one church is divided into many bishoprics throughout the world. He goes on to say in the same letter
" While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord[183]
Cyprian is used several times in Catholic apologetics.[184]
"And although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church's] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"[185]
The Jesuit scholar Bévnot notes...
"A primacy is give to Peter primatus Petro datur ... To translate primatus by 'the primacy' is to contradict the context which speaks of the Apostles as being equal in power, equally shepherds."[186]
The seventh council of Carthage under Cyprian stated the position that each local church to decide upon matters.[187]
Cyprian was adamant that the popes had no power over him.[188] Cyprian in his dispute believed he was following the teachings of the Apostles. He appealed to what he believed was always taught and this was the faith as maintained by all the Apostles. He addressed Pope Stephen not as his master, but as his equal.[189]
"For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is maintained by the apostles, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in divers tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, mindful of the divine precept and the Gospel, commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel"[190]
Augustine supports Cyprian
Thus Cyprian's stance does not evidence Papal Supremacy. The pope had condemned this position but one local church continued on with its own matters in the manner it decided. Importantly Augustine, who disagrees with Cyprian's stance on dogma does not condemn Cyprian's manner.[191]
Augustine agreed with Cyprian's right to decide within his local church ... As Michael Whelton observed "He does not condemn Cyprian for refusing to submit to the Bishop of Rome"[192]
Despite the fact that the pope had condemned Cyprian’s position, a general council had not yet ruled on the matter. Augustine recognises this fact.[193]
Augustine is of the belief that Cyprian might have changed his mind if a general (ecumenical) council had been called.[194] He states that a council would have the ultimate say in removing all doubt.[195]
Augustine had elsewhere argued that a council could over-rule a local church - even the church in Rome.[196]
Adherence to the Bishop of Rome was not "necessary" for unity.[197]
St Vincent of Lérins
As Augustine argues that Cyprian would have rejoined orthodox belief following a general council, Vincent of Lérins wrote on what he considered constituted the teachings of the Catholic Church. His opening "General Rule" mentions no adhesion to the Bishop of Rome, rather what is taught by all the church. Hasler sums this up as
"... a teaching can only be defined if it has been held to be revealed at all times, everywhere, and by all believers. "[198]
For Eastern Orthodox, the acceptance of a council relies on two points, it must not only state the faith as always taught, but also be accepted by the whole church. A council can rule and still be rejected by the faithful. Some Catholic historians maintain that the Second Council of Lyon of 1272 shows the churches of the east submitting to Roman authority. It was at this council that the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor Michael endeavored to re-unite the churches (split apart at the Great Schism in 1054).
The delegation who attended from the east however did not represent the churches in the east, but the Emperor himself. They were his personal emissaries.[199]
"But on the whole it was only amongst the laymen of the Court that any supporters of a union could be found; and they were moved by political rather than religious considerations."[200]
Michael had genuinely wished re-union. His primary fear was not an attack from the Turks, but the fear of a renewed effort by the Latin west against the Empire – one must remember that this is not long after Michael had recaptured Constantinople from the Latin west – which had held it since the Fourth Crusade in 1204. With the failure of this attempt at union through a political solution, Michaels fears were realised when the pope concluded an alliance with Charles of Anjou in 1281. The empire and the dynasty were saved from military intervention only by the Sicilian Vespers, (a rebellion that broke out in Palermo).[201]
^Satis cognitum - Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On the Unity of the Church
Abridged from sections 10 through 15.
^Letter XLIII. To Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, Grammaticus, and All Others to Whom This May Be Acceptable, My Lords Most Beloved and Worthy of Praise, Augustin Sends Greeting
^Letter CCXXXII To the People of Madaura, My Lords Worthy of Praise, and Brethren Most Beloved, Augustin Sends Greeting, in Reply to the Letter Received by the Hands of Brother Florentinus.
^Empie, P. C., & Murphy, T. A., (1974) Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V (Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis, MN) p47.
^Srawley, J. H., (1910) The epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Volume 1, (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; London), p. 34
^Carlton, C., (1997) The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p. 169.
^Epistle to the Trallians. Chapter III.—Honour the deacons, etc.
^"It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself." Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians - Chapter VI - Have respect to the bishop as to Christ Himself.
^"He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrneans - Chapter IX.—Honour the bishop.
^"As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop" Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians - Chapter VII —Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters.
^"For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp." IgnatiusEpistle to the Ephesians – Chapter IV – the same continued.
^"And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God?" Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians. Chapter VII.— The same continued.
^Epistle to Polycarp.
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness"
^Homilies on S. Ignatius and S. Babylas – Eulogy "... when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter ..." Eulogy quoted in Abbé Guettée (1866).The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), p165.
^Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), p. 72
^"And when these letters had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written. Extracts from the Acts. Session II. (Continued). (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)
^Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA). pp. 85ff
^"And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Cœlestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Cœlestine the guardian of the faith! To Cœlestine of one mind with the synod! To Cœlestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Cœlestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!"Extracts from the Acts. Session II.(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 617.)Archived 22 November 2011 at the Wayback Machine
^Stephens, W. R. W., (2005)Saint Chrysostom: His Life and Times, (Elibron Classics), pp. 349-50
^"And if any should say 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world ... And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together." John Chrysostom Ibid.
^Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), pp. 156ff.
^Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), pp. 84ff
^"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love ... I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it ... Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! ... what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38 )."- John Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24 quoted in Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co.; NY), p157.
^Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early Church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), pp. 219-220
^Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2
^Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928 ), p. 76
^Letter LXIX in Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p. 335
^Meyendorff, J., (1989) Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD450-680 (St Valdimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY) p220.
^[1] Webster, W. (1995), The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, (The Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh), pp43ff
^"What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and) your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet." On Modesty. Book VII. Chapter XXI
^"This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature."On the Trinity. Book VI.37
^"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now"Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.1
^"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance."On Christian Doctrine Book I. Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.
^"... Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."On the Gospel of John. Tractate CXXIV.7 Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing; NY), p.175
^"... the keys that were given to the Church ..." A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists. Chapter 10.45
^"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily X.10 cited in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p. 28
^Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.36
^Eusebius. The History of the Church – Book II Chapter I. This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: "Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem. quoted in Whelton, M (1998). Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. pp. 38–39.
^"This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last ... There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part." John ChrysostomHomilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy -Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.38.
^"But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously." John Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles Homily III on Acts 1:12 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p.33
^Chrestou, P. K., (2005) Greek Orthodox Patrology - An introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers, (Orthodox Research Institute), p14.
^Protopresbyter George Dion. Dragas, (2005), Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: Original Research and New Perspectives, (Orthodox Research Institute; Rollinsford, NH), p. 195
^Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), pp83ff
^"It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan."Canon IV. of the First Ecumenical CouncilArchived 30 August 2012 at the Wayback Machine at CCEL
^Empie, P. C., & Murphy, T. A., (1974) Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V(Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis, MN), p82.
^Davis, L. D. (1990). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology. Minnesota: Liturgical Press. pp. 128–129. ISBN9780814656167. Because of the schism at Antioch its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Its second president, Gregory of Nazianzus, was not in western eyes the legitimate bishop of Constantinople.
^Even kings could sit in judgment of popes, such as recorded in the chronicles Annales Romani record the events thus: "Henry, most victorious king by the grace of God ... When he arrived at the city of Sutri, he called the Roman clergy along with Pope Gregory to meet with him. He ordered a special synod to be held in the holy church of Sutri and there, lawfully and canonically, he sat in judgment upon Bishop John of Sabina, called Silvester; the archpriest John, called Gregory; and the aforementioned Pope Benedict." See Annales Romani–Description of the Synod of Sutri - in Miller, M. C., (2005) Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict, Bedord/StMartins (New York), p64.
^"When at last they were convened at Sardica, the Eastern prelates refused either to meet or to enter into any conference with those of the West."Socrates ScholasticusEcclesiastical History Book II. Chapter XX.—Of the Council at Sardica
^Puller, F. W., (1893) The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, pp152ff
^Pennington, A. R. (1881) Epochs of the Papacy, from Its Rise to the Death of Pope Pius IX. in 1878 (G. Bell and sons; London) p7.
^[3] M. Anastos, (2001),Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome, Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series.
^Catholic Catechism - 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
^There were already Christians in Rome when Peter and Paul arrived therefore it is suggested that they organized the existing community of believers, rather thanfounding the community – See Neill, S., (1984) A History of Christian Missions, (Penguin History; London), p.22
^
"Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter." Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book 7, Chapter XLVI – Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?
^
Eusebius The History of the Church - Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.
^"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."Irenaus, Against Heresies, Book III.1.1 See also Ibid., Book III.3.2-3
^"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church Book II Chapter XXV:8
^"For Rome, in a specially honorable and solemn manner, commends the merits of Peter and of Paul, for this reason among others, namely, that they suffered [martyrdom] on the same day." Augustine "The Harmony of the Gospels". Book I. Chapter X.—Of Some Who are Mad Enough to Suppose that the Books Were Inscribed with the Names of Peter and Paul
^"But on your city the great Provider has bestowed an abundance of good gifts. She is the largest, the most splendid, the most illustrious of the world, and overflows with the multitude of her inhabitants. Besides all this, she has achieved her present sovereignty, and has given her name to her subjects. She is moreover specially adorned by her faith, in due testimony whereof the divine Apostle exclaims "your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. And if even after receiving the seeds of the message of salvation her boughs were straightway heavy with these admirable fruits, what words can fitly praise the piety now practised in her? In her keeping too are the tombs that give light to the souls of the faithful, those of our common fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul
This thrice blessed and divine pair arose in the region of sunrise, and spread their rays in all directions. Now from the region of sunset, where they willingly welcomed the setting of this life, they illuminate the world. They have rendered your see most glorious; this is the crown and completionof your good things; but in these days their God has adorned their throne." TheodoretLetter CXIII. To Leo, Bishop of Rome
^"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, - Canon XXVIII The Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Council of Chalcedon.
^The Prescription Against Heretics
Chapter XXII.-Attempt to Invalidate This Rule of Faith Rebutted. The Apostles Safe Transmitters of the Truth. Sufficiently Taught at First, and Faithful in the Transmission.
^Homily LXXXVI On the Gospel of John John xx. 10, 11
^Third epistle to Nestorius, including the twelve anathemas Written by Cyril of Alexandria Approved by the Council of Ephesus, AD 431.
^Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew Book XII.11 -The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him - cited by Denny, E., (1912)Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), ppp. 60–61
^On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius Book III. Chapter XIV "How the confession of the blessed Peter is the faith of the whole Church."
^Schaeffer, F., (1994)Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (Holy Cross Orthodox Press; Brookline, MA), p179.
^Meyendorff, J., (1992), The Primacy of Peter: essays in ecclesiology and the early church (St Vladimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p66.
^Braaten, C. E.(2001) Church unity and the papal office: an ecumenical dialogue on John Paul II's Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co; Grand Rapids, MI) p48.
^To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL
^"Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles." Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
^Abbé Guettée (1866).The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing; NY), p. 176
^
Morrison, J. H., (1872) Disquisitions and notes on the Gospels, (American Unitarian Association; Boston), p291.
^Augustine Homilies on the Gospels Sermon XXVI. [LXXVI. Ben.] Again on Matt. xiv. 25: Of the Lord walking on the waves of the sea, and of Peter tottering.
^M'Gavin, Wm., (1823) The Protestant: Volume II. No. II. A series of essays on the principal points of controversy between the Church of Rome and the Reformed, (6th ed.) (Waugh & Innes; Edinburgh), pp426-7.
^Epistle XX. To Mauricius Augustus. - Gregory to Mauricius, &c.
^"Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontif. 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? Ibid.
^"But far from Christian hearts be that name of blasphemy, in which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated to himself by one. Ibid.
^"He, then, is rather to be bent by the mandate of our most pious Lords, who scorns to render obedience to canonical injunctions. He is to be coerced, who does wrong to the holy Universal Church, who swells in heart, who covets rejoicing in a name of singularity, who also puts himself above the dignity of your Empire through a title peculiar to himself.
Behold, we all suffer offence for this thing. Let then the author of the offence be brought back to a right way of life; and all quarrels of priests will cease. For I for my part am the servant of all priests, so long as they live as becomes priests. For whosoever, through the swelling of vain glory, lifts up his neck against Almighty God and against the statutes of the Fathers, I trust in Almighty God that he will not bend my neck to himself, not even with swords.Ibid.
^Cyprian - Epistle LI (Oxford ed.: Ep. lv. a.d. 252.) - To Antonianus About Cornelius and Novatian - Argument.—When Antonianus, Having Received Letters from Novatian, Had Begun to Be Disposed in His Mind Towards His Party, Cyprian Confirms Him in His Former Opinion, Namely, that of Continuing to Hold Communion with His Bishop and So with the Catholic Church. He Excuses Himself for His Own Change of Opinion in Respect of the Lapsed, and at the End He Explains Wherein Consists the Novatian Heresy.
^Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), pp296-7
^St. Cyprian "On the Unity of the Catholic Church - 4", quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church", (Regina Orthodox Press), pp123-4
^St Cyprian, (1956), The Lapsed. The Unity of the Catholic Church (The Newman Press; New York), translated by Bévnot, M - translator’s note 28, p. 103
^"It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian
^"For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed to novices and those lately come." Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics - quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.34
^Denny, E., (1912) Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum, (Rivingtons; London), p. 281
^Epistle LXXI.1 To Stephen, Concerning a Council - quoted in Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy -Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MD), p.34
^"Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was therefore possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, so as to compel the Gentiles to judaize, as Paul writes in that epistle in which he calls God to witness that he does not lie; for he says, "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;" Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book II.2
^Whelton, M., (1998) Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p. 30
^"There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,-to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew." Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book I.18.28
^"I do not doubt that if he had had the opportunity of discussing this question, which has been so long and so much disputed in the Church, with the pious and learned men to whom we owe it that subsequently that ancient custom was confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council, he would have shown, without hesitation, not only how learned he was in those things which he had grasped with all the security of truth, but also how ready he was to receive instruction in what he had failed to perceive." Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book IV.5.8
^"For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on mere human arguments,—since there is so much obscurity in this question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole world." Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists. Book I.7
^"Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed." Augustine Letter 43 - To Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, Grammaticus, and All Others to Whom This May Be Acceptable, My Lords Most Beloved and Worthy of Praise, Augustine Sends Greeting. Chapter. VII.19
^Benson, E. W., (1897), Cyprian– His Life – Hist Times – His Work, (Macmillan & Co; NY), p. 196
^Hasler, A. B., (1981) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion (Doubleday; Garden City, NY), p153.
^Papadakis, A., (1994) The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p. 222
^
Runciman, S., (1977), The Byzantine Theocracy, (Cambridge University Press), p,147
See also Herrin, J., (2007), Byzantium: The surprising life of a Medieval Empire, (Princeton University Press), p299ff.
^Papadakis, A., (1997) Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy and the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p26.
Further reading
Demacopoulos, George E. (2013). The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN978-0-8122-4517-2. JSTORj.ctt3fj4j1.
Vgenopoulos, Maximos (2013). Primacy in the Church from Vatican I to Vatican II: An Orthodox Perspective. Cornell University Press. ISBN978-0-87580-473-6. JSTOR10.7591/j.ctvw1d4nh.
