The Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius, certainly recognized Roman Primacy being by Divine Right.
Pope St. Leo, of course, in his fourth homily, explains that the power of the keys and of binding and loosing was given to all of the apostles and to all the pastors of the Church (not just the ‘supreme pastor’) by virtue of the type of Peter being given to all pastors of the Church. In this he echoes Cyprian’s understanding that in the person of Peter is found the unity of the Church.
But in what sense here is the bishop of Rome said by Patriarch Ignatius to be a successor of Peter? For if Patriarch Ignatius means to say that the bishop of Rome is recognized to have a primacy because of his spiritual succession from St. Peter (and actually from both Ss. Peter and Paul), then there is no disagreement between us and St. Ignatius, for the bishop of Rome possessed such a preeminence, according to St. Irenaeus of Lyons.
But if seems in fact rather impossible that he means to say much more than this, for if he wished to say that the bishop of Rome is inerrant in his decisions, or that the bishop of Rome shall never apostatize, then he would be in disagreement with the Ecumenical Councils, for the Sixth Ecumenical Council, as well as the very Council (numbered by the Latins as the Eighth Ecumenical Council) which reinstated St. Ignatius to the episcopacy in Constantinople condemned that apostate from the saving faith, Honorius, who by his heresy made his name and memory is foreign to all Christians. And if perhaps one should think that he meant that there is a true sacramental passing on of the Petrine Primacy from Peter to his spiritual successors in the Roman See, it must be remarked that this is impossible, for while Peter ordained his successor Linus, Linus did not ordain his successor, and it in fact has not been the custom of the Roman see for the bishop of Rome to ordain his own successor, which makes a sacramental Petrine Primacy impossible according to the praxis of the Church.
Also, fwiw, Bulgaria certainly wasn’t originally part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to my understanding; hence the conflict.
Indeed, the Roman See has a long history of fighting over whether it should have jurisdiction over certain areas. Illyricum, for example, was originally placed under the Roman See, until it was transferred to being under the jurisdiction of Constantinople in the early fifth century. And Rome spent centuries sparring with Constantinople over who should have jurisdiction over Illyricum back. It is in fact telling that Roman bishops themselves appealed both to the external authorities of Ecumenical Councils (as Pope Hadrian did), and emperors (as Pope Boniface I did) in attempts to retrieve their lost jurisdiction over Illyricum and parts of the Southern Italian Penninsula (namely Calabria and Sicily) instead of just pronouncing by fiat that they had jurisdiction in those places.
The issue with Bulgaria is actually rather interesting, because jurisdiction over the Bulgarians was returned to Rome by the Council of 879, as part of a package to sweeten the deal (so to speak) of Photius’ reinstatement. The gesture, however, turned out to be meaningless, because the Bulgarians had already become accustomed to the usages of Constantinople, and because the Bulgarians had been given the canonical right to elect their own primate (i.e., autocephaly).
Also, I am not aware of any objections to Pope St. Leo the Great’s “interference” in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (edit).
That is actually Pope St. Gregory, who is being referenced. But then I am also not aware of any document which shows that St. John the Faster gave heed Pope St. Gregory’s declaration that the presbyter John should be recognized as Orthodox. The Popes in fact had quite a history of attempting to interfere with the internal affairs of other churches in a similar manner as Pope St. Gregory did in this letter, only to be sternly rebuked for attempting to do so, as with Pope Innocent and the Church of Carthage.
One can also clearly see in Pope Hadrian’s letter to the 7th Ecumenical Council, his view:
Of course, at the 7th Ecumenical Council, an edited version of his letter was read at the Council, which specifically removed the claim at the end which reads, “For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.” This segment was replaced with this text instead, “For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.”
