“it is clearly pointless to read out the proceedings there...the proceedings there (Ephesus 449) have been made null by the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome"
Yes, I could have pointed out to that. Sometimes, there's just so much evidence, one does not know where to start
the former no Orthodox person denies that there is some connection
Ok, but the Fathers do not just say "there is some connection". Right from the Apostolic age, as appears under Pope St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch itself (who calls the Church of Rome the "Church which presides over the brotherhood in love"), St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Patriarch St. Athanasius at the Council of Sardica - the Fathers point to the juridical primacy of the Roman Church to definitively determine disputed questions, and also as the necessary centre of Catholic Unity. No Father or Doctor ever told us, "you can separate indefinitely from the Chair of Peter in Rome". Schismatic sects like the Donatists did that. How did St. Augustine and St. Optatus answer that? "Is the Church among the Catholics or the Donatists" they asked and this is the answer: "You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68"
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2 The Fathers use strong language, but the doctrine they teach is clear.
This [St. Peter Chrysologus' statement to Eutyches'] is not a reference to a Vatican I style Ecclesiology but rather to Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons
Is it really? We can accept Canon 34, and in fact Catholic Bishops do decide things together with the Pope. Will the Orthodox Bishops follow "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent" with respect to the Pope? St. Peter Chrysologus' statement is more along the lines of Fr. Philip's, Papal legate at Ephesus I, "It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm Eutyches totally erred, and St. Flavian was right - yet there were many beside them who were not sure who was correct. Pope St. Leo's dogmatic Tome helped settle the issue and saved the day for Catholic orthodoxy.
Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria could not excommunicate Nestorius, his equal, just like that. That's why both sides appealed to Pope St. Celestine, as is mentioned in the New Advent link on the Council of Ephesus. "we being necessarily impelled thereto both by the canons [for his contumacy] and by the letter [to Cyril] of our most holy father and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears have arrived at the following grievous sentence against him: Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops."
Nobody doubts that Peter was the first one to receive the Apostolic Faith, and through Peter the rest of the Faith would flow to the rest of the Apostles.
But that's not all that Pope Leo is saying - he is saying Bishops who separate from the Pope lose their share of episcopal authority. If you want to confirm that, you can read the context of the letter here -
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604010.htm "II. Hilary is disturbing the peace of the Church by his insubordination ...not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth.not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth." The Gospel evidence itself is plain, and the consistent patristic exegesis of the Petrine passages shows the universal primacy has descended in a special way to the Successors of St. Peter in Rome.
all the Bishops of Rome suddenly have the role of the Apostle Peter
If "all the Bishops" have the role of St. Peter, then St. Optatus is guilty of a false argument (!) since the Donatists had Bishops. No, it is the Bishop in the Chair of Peter who holds the fullness of the Petrine Authority. Other Catholic Bishops, in communion with him, receive the fullness of episcopal authority through him by remaining in that communion. Separated Bishops must present themselves to him.
What makes Rome more special than Antioch and Alexandria
Pope St. Damasus explained it in antiquity, and Dom Gueranger more recently: ""the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." - Council of Rome, 382 A.D. The two Catholic Patriarchs of these sees depended on the Pope and decided matters jointly in union with him - not against him or apart from him.
For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years.
Fr. Gueranger explains, "How sacred, how divine, is this authority of the keys, which is first given by heaven itself to the Roman Pontiff’; then is delegated by him to the prelates of the Church; and thus guides and blesses the whole Christian world! The apostolic see has varied its mode of transmitting such an authority according to the circumstances of the several ages; but the one source of the whole power was always the same, the chair of Peter. We have already seen how, at the commencement, there were three chairs: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; and all three were sources of the canonical institution of the bishops of their respective provinces; but they were all three chairs of Peter ... But of these three chairs, the Pontiff of Rome had his authority and his institution from heaven; whereas, the two other patriarchs could not exercise their rights, until they were recognized and confirmed by him who was Peter’s successor, as vicar of Christ. Later on, two other sees were added to these first three: but it was only by the consent of the Roman Pontiff that Constantinople and Jerusalem obtained such an honour."
https://catholic4lifeblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/the-chair-of-st-peter-at-antioch-mass-propers/As for Pope St. Gregory the Great, you know, I'm sure, that (like Pope St. Leo who expresses a similar sentiment above - authority is only needed if there is contumacy on some side, otherwise all Bishops can happily remain in peace and unity without need of sentences) Pope St. Gregory takes for granted that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Apostolic See - "Thus he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12)." - New Advent How does this square with the idea that the Bishop of Constantinople has the same jurisdiction as the Successor of St. Peter in Rome?
This Apostolic right of the Church of Rome was universally recognized by the Church for several centuries and the Saints and Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves are among the best witnesses, "Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30])." - Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople.
"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - St. Theodore of Constantinople.
https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.htmlWe have seen before in Orthodox Priest's Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck,
https://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611 these and many other statements from leaders of Constantinople and other Churches attesting to Roman Primacy. You can find excerpts on Google Books. It would be wonderful if the Churches resolve to work together for Unity. God bless.
