anthony022071,
Specifically the bishop of Rome, or are all bishops here viewed as his successors in the same way?
Specifically the bishop of Rome. Only the bishops of Rome are successors to Peter’s authority over the whole Church,although all bishops and priests have the power to bind and loosen sins.
Indeed, but does this indicate Leo was seen as superior and in authority over all other bishops? Or is this simply a response to an orthodox tome by Leo which he deserved praise for?
They say “Peter has spoken through Leo.” Peter was known as the head of the apostles,and the one who received the keys to the kingdom of God. So it does indicate that Leo had authority over the other bishops. The other quotes show the authority of Leo over the Church as well.
Note the equality; it is through them too. They also state:
They say Leo has excommunicated Nestorius through them. That isn’t equality,more like Leo using the council to carry out his will.
“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” (1).
As such it is clear Constantinople was recognised as equal to Rome, Rome had no primacy of authority over her according to the council.
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/ThePapacy/Articles/CouncilOfChalcedonAndThePapacy.aspx
< However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of “line item veto”, ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying…
“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.” (Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132, on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto”. This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon. >
Indeed, the councils mind was made, it has already established the equality of Constantinople and others with Rome, but as Rome is viewed as the only apostolic see in the west, they ask her to agree, in order to maintain unity. This is discussed in more detail here;
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf - page 38 specifically.
The canon was based on the false idea that the church of Rome had its authority from the government of Rome. (Do you think that it is right to base ecclesiastical authority upon secular power rather than apostolic tradition?) And since Constantinople was the new capital of the empire,the bishops of Constantinople thought that it should be made equal to the church of Rome and thus superior to the church of Alexandria,which was the most prestigious church in the East, because it was founded by St. Mark,who was sent there from Rome by Peter.
I do not have access as yet to the other sources so can’t examine them in context right now, but it’s safe to say and clear from the sources, the primacy of Rome is viewed very differently to how it is now.
Rome was viewed more exaltedly than it is today by Catholics.
