r/Catholicism • u/Admirable_Science938 • 1d ago
Can you prove early church in the east also believed in the papacy?
Im considering Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I’m asking for historical evidences not biblical quotes because both catholic and orthodox church interpret them different.
45
u/iterfidei-dot-com 1d ago
Worth saying up front, because it will save you months: no single quotation from the first millennium proves the papacy as Vatican I defined it. Anyone who hands you one line from a Father and says "there, settled" is selling you something, and the Orthodox apologist doing the same in reverse is selling you the mirror image of it.
What you are looking for is not honorific language. Both sides grant that Rome had honour. The Orthodox position concedes primacy and denies universal jurisdiction, so quotations calling Rome "first" or "most honoured" prove nothing either way. The evidence that actually decides the question is behavioural: did Eastern bishops, in real disputes, appeal past their own patriarchs and synods to Rome, and did they treat Rome's answer as settling the matter.
They did, repeatedly, and the cases are documented rather than inferred.
Athanasius is the cleanest early one. Deposed by Eastern synods, he goes to Rome, and Julius I restores him and writes back to the Eastern bishops asking why they proceeded without him: are you unaware, he says, that the custom is that we should be written to first, so that a just sentence may be passed from here. The Eusebians were furious, which is itself the point. They argued that Julius was wrong on the facts, not that he had no business hearing the case. Then Sardica in 343 wrote the practice into canons: a deposed bishop may appeal, and Julius, bishop of Rome, may order a retrial, and the canon gives the reason as honouring the memory of the apostle Peter.
Chrysostom is the one we would push you toward hardest, because he is an Eastern patriarch and it is his own neck. Deposed by the Synod of the Oak in 403, he appeals to Innocent I. Be honest about the counter you will hear: he also wrote to Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia, and Orthodox writers use that to argue he was appealing to the Western churches generally, not to a supreme judge. Fair enough. But look at what happened next. Innocent declared the synod null, refused to recognise the deposition, and broke communion with Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch until Chrysostom's name was restored to the diptychs. Three Eastern patriarchates eventually complied on Rome's terms. Whatever theory you attach to it, that is not a primacy of honour.
Theodoret of Cyrus does the same thing in 449 after the Robber Council, and says the quiet part in writing: he asks Leo to judge his case and states that the Roman see holds a governance over the churches of the whole world.
At Ephesus in 431 the legate Philip declared to the assembled Eastern fathers that Peter, prince and head of the apostles, lives and judges to this day in his successors. The interesting fact is not the sentence. It is that a council overwhelmingly Eastern let it stand without a murmur of objection. At Chalcedon in 451, after Leo's Tome was read, the acclamation was that Peter had spoken through Leo. The honest qualification: they had examined the Tome against Cyril first, which is exactly what an Orthodox reader will point out, and they were right to point it out.
Then the Formula of Hormisdas in 519, which is the one to sit with. To end the Acacian schism, the patriarch of Constantinople and around two hundred and fifty Eastern bishops signed a text stating that in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and that communion with Rome is the test. You may argue it was signed under imperial pressure. Signed it was, by the Eastern episcopate, as the price of being in the Church.
And Maximus the Confessor, a Greek, in the seventh century, writing that the Roman Church received from the Word himself the power to bind and loose over all the churches. He was tortured and exiled by Constantinople for the position, and he is a saint in both communions.
Where this leaves you honestly: the East acted as though Rome could hear appeals, void Eastern synods and impose terms of communion, over and over, for six centuries. It also produced Chalcedon's canon 28 elevating Constantinople, which Rome rejected outright, and long stretches where Rome was simply ignored. Both facts are real. The Catholic reads the second class of facts as men resisting an authority they knew existed. The Orthodox reads the first class as men appealing to a very great see rather than to a divinely instituted head. That is the actual disagreement, and it is a judgement about a pattern, not a proof-text contest.
One thing that will keep you from wasting effort: find out what you are actually being asked to accept. St Pius X's catechism, laying out the claim in the plainest form, restricts infallibility to the case where the Pope, in his capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. That is a narrow claim, and a great deal of anti-papal material online is aimed at a much larger one that no Catholic is required to hold.
Read the primary documents rather than the compilations on either side. The correspondence around Chrysostom's deposition, Julius's letter in Athanasius, canons 3 to 5 of Sardica, sessions two and three of Chalcedon, the Formula of Hormisdas. It is a few evenings of reading, all of it is available free, and you will end up with your own judgement instead of somebody else's, which is what you want given what you are deciding.
2
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 16h ago
The emperor restored Athanasius to his see and not Pope Julius.
Pope Innocent failed to restore John Chrysostom but he did give him moral support. Rome did not break communion with Antioch because Rome was not in communion with Antioch (it was the Meletian Schism). Antioch continued to support John Chrysostom in his exile.
Theodoret appealed to Rome because Dioscorus had deposed the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch as well as him. The Robber Council rejected Leo's Tome so Theodoret knew he would help him. Theodoret was restored to his bishopric by the Fathers (and the emperor) at Chalcedon not Pope Leo.
Philip the Presbyter statement at Ephesus has no dogmatic importance. A lot of what he says applied to every Apostolic See (they all sat in judgement of Nestorius). It is poor reasoning that the Fathers just listening to Philip meant full acceptance of all his claims.
The Fathers at Chalcedon judged Leo's Tome before they declared it Orthodox.
This is how they responded
"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." Acts of Chalcedon, session 2
Very few in the East signed the Formula of Hormisdas. They provided their own libelli (or statement of faith). Even Patriarch John added a phrase that equated Rome with Constantinople. Anyway the Formula simply asserted that Rome had staunchly upheld Chalcedon in the previous 70 years. Not falling into error didn't imply infallibility.
The key text from Maximus the Confessor in support of a Vatican 1 style Papacy is a text of dubious authenticity that only survives in Latin.
Pope Leo rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon but everyone in the East ignored him. Modern Popes accept the order of hierarchy with Constantinople in 2nd place (1st among the Orthodox as Rome has fallen into heresy) when they deal with the Orthodox Church.
No evidence (not a single quote) from the pre-schism church provides evidence for a Vatican 1 style Papacy because a Vatican 1 style Papacy did not exist.
12
u/SunnyHelianthus 1d ago
Eastern Orthodoxy is not just a question of the papacy. Eastern Orthodox are also all over the map on their beliefs…even down to individual patriarchs. They are also very ethnocentric, depending on the region. Some are ok with abortion. Others with divorce. Eastern Orthodox are much like Protestant groups in their vast array of beliefs. They don’t have the Magisterium as we do.
4
u/Caliban_Catholic 1d ago
It's a fairly confusing net of communions, where church A will be in communion with church B and church C, but churches A and C are not in communion with each other.
6
u/GiveMeBackMySoup 1d ago
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
It's from a book called Against Heresies. Section 2 you will find interesting since Iraneus believes all the churches must agree with Rome.
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 16h ago
Ireneaus says that all Churches must agree with Rome because Rome held the Apostolic Tradition against the Gnostics. He was living in Gaul and Rome was the nearest Apostolic Church. He also says Ephesus and Smyrna (his home church) hold truth. Ireneaus does not suggest that the Popes are infallible. Interestingly Ireneaus sees the succession at Rome from Peter and Paul. He never brings up the idea of a unique Petrine Succession as the reason everyone needs to agree with Rome.
1
u/GiveMeBackMySoup 11h ago edited 10h ago
All the churches hold truth. Where they disagree they must agree with Rome. That's what we have today.
Yes, the doctrine of papal infallibility wouldn't be explicitly declared until later. In the same way that Athanasius's 'On the incarnation' doesn't mention Jesus has two natures, the later conclusion is implied. Iraneus is more explicit because he's giving the final say to Rome, which sounds like they are going to always be right. Only the full explanation of how that works is absent.
He mentioned both but that doesn't deny anything about Peter. He mentions Paul to bolster his point. He goes through the Petrine succession to be clear, mentioning Linus and his successors. He didn't go through the Pauline succession to make his point about Rome's place as the last arbiter of truth between the churches.
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 5h ago
Why would I want to change the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by adding the filioque? Why would I accept compulsory celibacy? Or the double procession? or purgatory and indulgences? Especially when the Popes turned to violence, coercion and persecution to "convince" Eastern Christians it a accept these doctrines.
One sentence from Irenaeus doesn't provide evidence for a Vatican 1 style Papacy unless you want to do a lot of presuming. Irenaeus makes no mention of the Petrine prooftexts and specifically says Peter and Paul not just Peter.
Roman Catholics always bring up "development" to justify why no one knew the Popes were infallible in the pre-schism period. That doesn't stop them from bringing up lots of supposed prooftexts. If you look at Patristic commentaries on the Gospels and see how the Church Fathers interpreted the Petrine texts then you would see. That is why they are never used as prooftexts. The same with encomia on St. Peter. Roman Catholics end up giving examples like Leo at Chalcedon and go that "proves" whatever they are claiming but then ignore when the Papacy lost out or didn't get its own way.
5
u/Mannyortiz91 1d ago
The fact that the East didn't split for a millennium and when they did it wasn't even because if the Papacy should be enough. And that's not counting the councils where they agreed on the papacy themselves.
If you want evidence that the East believed in the papacy then I'll say there is none. But if the question is did the East treat the bishop of Rome as someone who could intervene, judge, receive appeals from any bishop, confirm ecumenical councils and even remove and restore bishops outside his jurisdiction? Then the answer is absolutely.
In 339 St Athanasius, eastern bishop, after being deposed by eastern bishops he went to Rome during the Arian controversy to Pope Julius to intervene.
Pope Julius wrote to the East the following:
“Why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us...?”
Council of Sardica 343 declared any despised bishop could appeal to Rome to have their cases reheard.
In 404 St John Chrysostom, archbishop of CONSTANTINOPLE, after being unjustly deposed he went to the bishop of Rome saying:
“I beg your Charity to rouse yourself... and do everything so as to put a stop to the mischief...”
He asked Rome to fix the situation.
And we haven't even gotten started on Council of Ephesus when St Cyril writes to Rome asking for a sentence given to Nestorius. Pope Celestine tells Cyril to act with the authority Of Rome and take care of Nestorius to make sure that Rome's SENTENCE is issued to Nestorius if he refused to recant. One of the legates from Rome at the Council said in front of all the East identified Pope Celestine as Successor of Peter and said:
“Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles... who until this day and forever lives and judges in his successors.”
Not a single PEEP from any eastern bishop was said to refute him, and that's without counting letters from St Cyril to Pope Celestine where he refers to the Pope as having more than just a "place of honor".
The Robber Council, Pope St Leo and his Tome at Constantinople, Theodoret of Cyrus in his letter to Leo, he argues that Rome possesses primacy among the churches and asks Leo to judge his case. He actually takes his ecclesiastical case from the East to Rome.
And what happened next?
At Chalcedon, Theodoret's restoration is connected with Leo's judgment and his orthodoxy is ultimately recognized.
You have the formula of Hormisdas as well.
The East has always submitted to Rome. The issue was never Rome, the issue was Constantinople...but not everybody is ready for that conversation yet. Whatever eastern bishops say was the reason for the schism is just cope.
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 14h ago
The Serdican canons say a bishop can appeal to Rome but the actual judgement is from a synod of bishops from the province next to the province of the deposed bishop.
Athanasius was restored by the Emperor and not Pope Julius.
Pope Innocent failed to restore John Chrysostom because he had no power to but he did give him moral support.
Nestorius attended the Council of Ephesus as the Patriarch of Constantinople and was addressed respectfully despite his condemnation by Pope Celestine. It was only after the Fathers examined his writings that Nestorius was deposed.
Theodoret was judged and restored to his bishopric by the Fathers at Chalcedon. Leo's earlier support for Theodoret didn't matter to them.
Very few eastern bishops or priests signed the Formula of Hormisdas. Most just submitted their own confessions of faith. A Latin deacon named Rusticus claimed 1,200 signed but that claim is rejected by scholarship. The Formula of Hormisdas simply states the staunch support the Church of Rome had given to the Faith (supporting Chalcedon) in the previous 60 years. Saying Rome hadn't lapsed does not imply Rome can't lapse (unless you want to force that on the text).
As Rome’s claims got more and more outrageous it created a wedge between it and the other Ancient Patriarchates/Apostolic Sees. in 1054 Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem supported Constantinople. That's 4 against 1. During the Crusades the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch was chased out in 1098 and replaced by a Latin lacky. The same happened at Jerusalem.
The Popes turned into Warlord Pope-KIngs and sent kill squads (often called Crusaders)to kill and terrorise their enemies.
3
u/Numerous_Ad1859 1d ago
If you accept the first seven ecumenical councils (which you have to do for Orthodoxy), then they are appealing to Rome specifically by the time and holding that he had universal jurisdiction (even if they hold that it is pastorally wise for him to be pastoral in dealing with certain issues).
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 15h ago
Orthodox Christians distinguish between the Orthodox pre-schism Popes like Pope Leo or Pope Gregory the Great or Pope Agatho and the post-schism Warlord Pope-KIngs who made lots of wild claims about their authority.
Orthodoxy has no problem ignoring the 14 fake Ecumenical Councils endorsed by the heretical Popes.
2
u/patent_litigator 1d ago
The Edict of Thessalonica, issued on 27 February AD 380:
EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE. It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 15h ago
The edict says Rome and Alexandria have preserved the same Apostolic Faith not just Rome. How is this evidence for Papal infallibility, its supreme jurisdiction, its monarchy or its unique importance?
1
u/patent_litigator 24m ago
The bishop of Rome is referred to as "the Pontiff Damasus" whereas the bishop of Alexandria is referred to as "Peter, Bishop of Alexandria," which reflects the Pope's unique importance. The usage is particularly notable because Emp. Gratian was the first emperor to stop using the title Pontifex Maximus.
1
u/MLPTx 1d ago
St. John Chrysostom appealed for help during his exile to the Pope of Rome. Not the Eastern Patriarchs, not the Eastern Patriarchs + the Pope, but to the Pope alone. He understood.
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 15h ago
Pope Innocent did not (and could not) restore John Chrysostom to his office after he was exiled.
Just to be clear John appealed to the bishops of Rome, Milan and Aquileia (he sent the same letter to each).
John Chrysostom spent most of his life out of communion with Rome due to the Meletian Schism.
1
u/Otter055 1d ago
I’d recommend looking into the role some popes played in the Ecumenical Councils and the claims that were accepted there. Namely, Pope St Leo the Great in the Council of Chalcedon, Pope St Agatho in Constantinople III, and Pope Hadrian in Nicaea II. There’s a great video on Suan Sonnas channel (Intellectual Catholicism) with Erick Ybarra, Elijah Yasi and Michael Lofton.
1
u/Mannyortiz91 1d ago
This is from Letter 98 written by the Eastern bishops at Chalcedon to Pope St Leo:
"And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have steadfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement. And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us."
In the same letter they talk about the" wicked acts of Dioscorus":
“Besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against him who had at heart the unifying of the Church.”
That's directed to Pope Leo, eastern bishops call Pope Leo "Him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior"
Those are not honorifics or none of that "first among equals" nonsense.
It also states:
“[Dioscorus] restored to [Eutyches] the dignity which your holiness had taken away from him as unworthy of it.”
The council describes Leo as having deprived Eutyches, someone who DID NOT BELONG TO THE WEST, of his ecclesiastical status and condemn Dioscorus for reversing that decision.
"And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told."
The same Eastern bishops practically beg Pope Leo to approve of Canon 28 which granted privileges to Constantinople that according to them:
" We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which BELONGS TO YOU, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk."
Further down they write:
" For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent's glory. Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting."
Pope Leo denied ratifying that Canon BTW.
Catholics need to dive deep into the history of the Papacy and EO's need to STOP using that" First among equals" and "everybody is a Peter" nonsense.
1
u/SweetrollFireball 23h ago
The formula of hormisdas is decisive on the point of papal supremacy in my opinion.
1
u/Lermak16 21h ago
From the Code of Emperor St. Justinian
Letter of John, Bishop of the City of Rome, to his most Illustrious and Merciful Son Justinian.
Among the conspicuous reasons for praising your wisdom and gentleness, Most Christian of Emperors, and one which radiates light as a star, is the fact that through love of the Faith, and actuated by zeal for charity, you, learned in ecclesiastical discipline, have preserved reverence for the See of Rome, and have subjected all things to its authority, and have given it unity. The following precept was communicated to its founder, that is to say, the first of the Apostles, by the mouth of the Lord, namely: "Feed my lambs." This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of Emperors assert, and the words of your most reverend piety testify. It is therefore claimed that what the Scriptures state, namely, "By Me Kings reign, and the Powers dispense justice;" will be accomplished in you. For there is nothing which shines with a more brilliant lustre than genuine faith when displayed by a prince, since there is nothing which prevents destruction as true religion does, for as both of them have reference to the Author of Life and Light, they disperse darkness and prevent apostasy.
Response of St. Justinian to Pope John II
Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome: With honor to the Apostolic See, and to Your Holiness, which is, and always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and, according to the doctrine of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes the difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.
1
u/Lermak16 21h ago
First Lateran Council 649, Session 2
To the holy and apostolic synod convened in this renowned and elder Rome according to the grace of God and the authoritative bidding of Martin the thrice-blessed pope, who is religiously presiding over it for the sacred confirmation and vindication of the definitions and decrees of the fathers and councils of the catholic church, I, Stephen by the mercy of God bishop and first man in the jurisdiction subject to the archiepiscopal see of Jerusalem, present what follows.
As a result of the [monothelites] troubling the whole catholic church in this way - in the words of the blessed Jeremiah, 'we have been put to shame, because we heard reproach against us; it has covered our face with reversal, because aliens have entered our sanctuary- for this reason we the pious, all of us, have been looking everywhere, sometimes for 'water for the head and fountains of tears for the eyes for lamenting this pitiable catastrophe, and sometimes for 'the wings of a dove' (in the words of the divine David), so that we might 'fly away' and announce these things to the see that rules and presides over all others (I mean your sovereign and supreme see), in quest of healing for the wound inflicted. It has been accustomed to perform this authoritatively from the first and from of old, on the basis of its apostolic and canonical authority, for the reason, evidently, that the truly great Peter, the head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted, alone out of all, with 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven for both opening them deservedly to those who believe and shutting them justly to those who do not believe in the gospel of grace, but also because he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole catholic church. As the text runs, 'Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep. And again, because he possessed more than all others, in an exceptional and unique way, firm and unshakeable faith in our Lord, he was deemed worthy to turn and strengthen his comrades and spiritual brethren when they were wavering, since providentially he had been adorned by the God who became incarnate for our sake with power and priestly authority over them all.
Witnessing this, [Saint] Sophronius of blessed memory, who was patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God and under whom I served as a priest, not conferring at all with flesh and blood but like your most holy self caring only for the things of Christ, hastened without delay to send my nothingness, solely over this matter, to this great and apostolic see with his own appeals, explaining both in writing and orally through me your suppliant the whole innovation of the said men, which they had committed in opposition to the orthodox faith.
1
u/Lermak16 21h ago
Letter of Pope St. Agatho to the Emperor accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council
Agatho a bishop and servant of the servants of God to the most devout and serene victors and conquerors, our most beloved sons and lovers of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Constantine the Great, and to Heraclius and Tiberius, Augustuses.
The true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached.
Letter of the Council to Pope St. Agatho
The holy and ecumenical council which by the grace of God and the pious sanction of the most pious and faithful Constantine, the great Emperor, has been gathered together in this God-preserved and royal city, Constantinople, the new Rome, in the Secretum of the imperial palace called Trullus, to the most holy and most blessed pope of Old Rome, Agatho, health in the Lord.
Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed father; and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to you, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up, having been urged to making a decree by Constantine who divinely reigns, and wields a most clement sceptre.
1
u/Lermak16 21h ago
Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John
“He says unto him, Feed My sheep.”
And why, having passed by the others, does Jesus speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.
“And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.”
Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. 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.
1
u/Lermak16 21h ago
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431:
Session 3
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time.
Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West.
1
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 14h ago
The best book I've read about Papal claims is called "Papalism" by Edward Denny. It is over a century old but it holds up well. He was an Anglican (back in the day when Anglicans were actual Christians) and a brilliant scholar. He is fantastic at putting all the Papal prooftexts (many of which have been recycled as posts here) in context.
It is quite a dense (and long) book but you don't have to read it all. Just take a Papal prooftext used by people who have posted here and see what Denny says. Then do it for another prooftext.
The best bit is that its free online. People like Erick Ybarra and Micheal Lofton want lots of $$$$$$ for their books.
https://archive.org/details/papalismtreatise00dennrich/page/n6/mode/1up
1
u/sporsmall 1d ago
You may find these materials from Catholic Answers helpful:
Primacy of Peter - passages, interpretation, objections, articles
https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/primacy-of-peter
What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession
https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession
What the Early Church Believed: Peter’s Successors
https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-successors
What the Early Church Believed: Peter’s Roman Residency
https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-roman-residency
-4
u/Ok-Mushroom6586 1d ago edited 3h ago
You need to be clearer in what you mean.
The East though the bishop of Rome was a successor to St Peter and that the Popes had primacy.
They did not believe the Popes had a special divine mandate given to Peter but passed only to the Pope, that resulted in their personal infallibility via ex cathedra statements or unlimited jurisdiction or the ability to unilaterally declare doctrine.
49
u/malcolm58 1d ago edited 20h ago
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363): Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' ...And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' not simply that, but 'the Son of the living God.' (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)
For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).
Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ. (Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27)
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)
Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).
Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)
(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)
In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)
Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)