Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Hesychios]

I am claiming no such thing and what I said isn’t close to Montanism. To be so, I’d have to be saying the pope is the Holy Spirit and I’m not saying that.

How do you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church to the truth? What’s the mechanism there?

The Truth is the Received Teaching, from the revelation of Christ handed down to us through the Apostles.

 

[Formosus]

It is certain you’re missing a context here, John. You’ve skated right past what was said about Peter re: the Apostolic band and focused on what you think makes your point. It doesn’t. The quote says (if I remember it. I wish we could see the quotes in previous messages), Peter was sent to the citadel of the Roman Empire. The ‘head’ spoken of is the head of the Roman Empire, not the Catholic Church. Peter was sent there precisely to lead the Church, as ITS head, in battle against the pagan Empire, which was defeated by the Resurrection of Christ in an astonishingly few centuries. I’m afraid your citation doesn’t say anything near what you suppose it says.

/QUOTE]

Do you define a few centuries as roughly fourteen centuries?

 

[josie_L]

I have already potsed earlier a quotation where he refers to his episcopal predecessor in Antioch as a successor of St. Peter, who possessed both the chair of St. Peter and St. Peter’s faith (and therefore possessed St. Peter). Conclusion: not every Patristic citation referring to St. Peter is a reference to the office of the papacy or the Bishop of Rome. In the case cited earlier, the St. Peter references were to the bishop of Antioch. And in the second Chrysostom you cited, it is clear to me that he referring to the office of the bishop and his pastoral ministry as an"alter Petrus". “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”

I never said that every patristic citation referring to St. Peter is in reference to the office of the papacy or the bishop of Rome, however, any references to Peter mentioned outside of Rome so to speak are not infering that those bishops that have been likened to him or called his successor meant they were holding his office, i.e., are his direct heirs. To stress how important it is to differentiate between his actual throne in Rome and the ideal one based on his confession of faith (which is truth itself derived from God), let me cite an article I came across of which incorporated the sayings of Pope Clement I (30 A.D. - 101 A.D.), fourth bishop of Rome, here it is:

Concerning “apostolic succession,” St. Clement writes: “Our Apostles too, were given to understand by our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as they were with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before, **and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry” ** (“Letter” 44.1-2). The Catechism, No. 861, footnotes St. Clement to stress the succession of bishops from the Apostles.

Emphasizing the “Roman primacy,” the “Letter” asserts: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger… For you will give us great joy and gladness, if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and root out the unlawful anger of your jealousy, in accordance with the appeal for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter” (“Letter” 59.1; 63.2). This primacy of the bishop of Rome, found in the Catechism, No. 882, is explicit.

Pope St. Clement of Rome gives us crucial data regarding the early Catholic Church. The “Letter to the Corinthians” testifies that the ecclesiology of the first century, in all essentials, is the ecclesiology of today. For this reason, Catholic theologians cite St. Clement’s document as an excellent witness for the episcopate and the papacy.

catholicexchange.com/2005/04/05/82481/

Now, read the part in bold, and ask yourself “where did St. Peter die?” In Rome, of course, where his successor Linus would carry on his sacred ministry, i.e., his office, which the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch had no share in because when Peter “left” Antioch to be Bishop of Rome he did not give his office/primacy to his successors there because he was still alive (tradition has it that St. Peter was bishop of Rome from 42 A.D. to the year he died around 66 A.D., i.e., about 25 years). Therefore, only the bishop of Rome was conferred his office/sacred ministry before Peter’s death as this is where he was bishop, i.e., exercised his ministry/office, and died.

My next point is that Pope St. Clement I seemed quite adamant about the Church in Corinth heeding the Church in Rome, stating in quite unambigious terms that they would put themselves in no small amount of danger if they should refuse to listen and obey them.

Edit: You never answered my question in an earlier post which asked why the Church of Corinth did not seek out Antioch and/or Alexandria which was closer to them than Rome was? You also never gave me a reason why Ignatius of Antioch (the third see) said that the Church of Rome “presided in love” over the other churches?

 

[josie_L]

The Truth is the Received Teaching, from the revelation of Christ handed down to us through the Apostles.

If Truth is the received teaching from the revelation of Christ handed down to us through the apostles, what then was the apostles stance towards artificial contraception and remarriage vis a vis the truth revealed by Christ?

 

[John_Larocque]

Edit: You never answered my question in an earlier post which asked why the Church of Corinth did not seek out Antioch and/or Alexandria which was closer to them than Rome was? You also never gave me a reason why Ignatius of Antioch (the third see) said that the Church of Rome “presided in love” over the other churches?

We don’t know if these other churches were asked to intervene. We don’t have any evidence St. John the Evangelist was asked to intervene either. We do know that they asked Rome for help. In any case, we have what we have, a document on behalf of the “Church of Rome” regarding their situation.

It could be the earliest case of Rome “presiding in love.” It’s interesting that that is the See that is invoked, and not the personal authority of the bishop of Rome. So the question is, was Rome consulted because Pope Clement (whose episcopal line traced back to St. Peter) presided there. Or was Rome consulted because of its status as the See of SS. Peter and Paul? It’s a subtle difference.

As for presiding in love, it was enough that it did. Some things should just be taken as a fact for granted.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The Truth is the Received Teaching, from the revelation of Christ handed down to us through the Apostles.

Is that it? The Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church to the truth upon the death of the last Apostle?

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s what you’re saying.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

We don’t know if these other churches were asked to intervene. We don’t have any evidence St. John the Evangelist was asked to intervene either. We do know that they asked Rome for help. In any case, we have what we have, a document on behalf of the “Church of Rome” regarding their situation.

Yes. Is that not significant to you?

It could be the earliest case of Rome “presiding in love.” It’s interesting that that is the See that is invoked, and not the personal authority of the bishop of Rome.

Isn’t that just a little disingenuous, John? How do you separate the See of Rome from the Bishop and his authority? Was the appeal made to the bricks on the street?

So the question is, was Rome consulted because Pope Clement (whose episcopal line traced back to St. Peter) presided there.

And the answer is ‘yes.’

 

[John_Larocque]

A former CAF poster forwarded this to me from another site, which I don’t mind passing on

The historical context between Rome and Corinth at this period is very interesting.

Corinth had been recently re-built as a Roman colony. It was re-founded by Rome by Julius Caesar in 44 BC. It was more Roman than Greek.

It had a special judicial and civil dependence directly on Rome and it enjoyed easy and unhindered communication with Rome.

There was strong church link between Rome and Corinth because both shared the same founder, Saint Paul.

It is also highly likely that Clement had worked in Corinth with Saint Paul and was known and respected by the Corinthians. See Phillipians 4:2.

Corinth was also full of Jewish refugees from ROME expelled from Rome in 49 AD. Some of them were Christians. This is another obvious reason which made the Christians of Corinth look to Rome.

See Acts 18:
“After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius [Roman the Emperor]had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome.”

So all in all there were a number of strong connections and sensible reasons why the Corinthians asked the Church of Rome to help them with their problem.

“Corinth at the Time of Paul’s Arrival”
gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/city.stm

 

[Madaglan]

A former CAF poster forwarded this to me from another site, which I don’t mind passing on

Thanks for posting it John.

I was aware of the St. Paul connection between Rome and Corinth, but I did not know about Jews being expelled from Rome and going to Corinth.

 

[josie_L]

A former CAF poster forwarded this to me from another site, which I don’t mind passing on

This might be a reasonable hypothesis if one does not take into consideration the contents of the letter written by Pope St. Clement I to the Corinthian Church, so let me reiterate his words:

Emphasizing the “Roman primacy,” the “Letter” asserts: “**But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger… For you will give us great joy and gladness, if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit **and root out the unlawful anger of your jealousy, in accordance with the appeal for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter” (“Letter” 59.1; 63.2). This primacy of the bishop of Rome, found in the Catechism, No. 882, is explicit.

Pope St. Clement speaks (writes rather) in a way that exhibits a level of authority (based on Christ’s words to Saint Peter) that expects the Church in Corinth to obey otherwise suffer transgression or no small danger. The Church in Rome is therefore instructing the Corinthian Church in a way that is stern, yet loving, like one presiding in love (over the churches) as St. Ignatius of Antioch said. Moreover, the Church in Corinth long after the dispute was settled (having heeded St. Clement’s words) was still displaying the letter by St. Clement I many years later in the pulpit alongside scripture. Thus, the Corinthian Church held in reverence the letter written by the fourth bishop of Rome because as the successor to Peter and thus, head of the Church, St. Clement I had provided a singular honour towards Corinth in instructing it in the faith (recall my saying that the pope was the supreme guardian of Christian tradition).

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote c. 170 to the Romans in Pope Soter’s time: “Today we kept the holy day, the Lord’s day, and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement” (Eusebius, Church History IV.30).

Also, St. Ignatius of Antioch had this to say about the Church in Rome:

“Letter to the Romans,” 3.1:

"It was never your way to grudge anyone his success. You have been a SOURCE OF INSTRUCTION to others; all I want is for the principles which you expound by your teaching to hold good now

or

“From IGNATIUS, whose other name is Theophorus: To her who has found mercy in the greatness of the All Highest Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son, to the church beloved and enlightened in her love to our God Jesus Christ by the will of Him who wills all things; to the church holding chief place in the territories of the district of ROME–worthy of God, worthy of honour, blessing, praise, and success; worthy too in holiness, foremost in love, observing the law of Christ, and bearing the Father’s name.”

The “foremost in love” I believe is referencing the primacy (presiding in love) and John 21: 15 “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?” “Yes, Lord,” he answered, “you know that I love you”.

 

[josie_L]

All of Orthodoxy teaches against ABC except for extreme situations (where sometimes permission for condom use is granted) as discerned by a spiritual father–that is what I have been saying.

What is viewed as an extreme case (the one I mentioned in my post suffers from anemia which can become severe thus the only thing available to her to stop the hemorrhaging was birth control; NFP could do nothing for her in this instance) because I have heard it mentioned by an Orthodox convert at CAF (Parascheva) no less stating that a family was given permission by her Orthodox spiritual father to use contraceptions because she could not handle the five kids she already had? This to mean does not sound extreme in the least. Moreover, the Catholic Church would not countenance the permission of condom use no matter what the reason (a person with HIV for example is expected if he/she is married to abstain because he/she could risk infecting the beloved).

Hello? That is what I have been saying.

Well, that is not the reality of the situation, here’s an excerpt taken from an Orthodox Christian in dialogue with Mark Bonocore:

Part of an ongoing discussion between Mark Bonocore and an Orthodox Christian included contraception. Our Orthodox friend writes:

On contraception: “For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics: General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points: since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances; contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery. **Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. …Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual **love."

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/orthodox_contraception.htm

I will clarify. Are you telling me that ABC is permitted in extreme situations for the RCC? Are you saying that non-artificial birth control (such as NFP) is allowed by the RC? If this is all true, then I believe our Churches teach the same thing.

I would assume only in the case that it was absolutely necessary (like the case mentioned above), if NFP can be used however, then this would be the option required. Here is an excerpt taken from EWTN, I hope it helps:

WHAT METHODS OF BIRTH REGULATION ARE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive
from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from
external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to
take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have
coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception
without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier"(Humanae Vitae, 16).

Thus, the same teaching of the Church which condemns the use of the
unnatural methods of birth control explicitly approves of the use of
Natural Family Planning when there is a sufficient reason to avoid or
postpone pregnancy. With its emphasis on the necessity of a serious reason
to use even the natural methods, the Church is warning against selfishness
in family planning.

SINCE BOTH THE NATURAL AND THE UNNATURAL METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL HAVE THE PURPOSE OF LIMITING FAMILY SIZE, AREN’T THEY MORALLY THE SAME?

Not at all. The end does not justify the means; a common purpose does not
make morally equal all the possible means of achieving that purpose. “It
is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may
follow therefrom” (Humanae Vitae, 14). A prime purpose of the Ten
Commandments is to teach us that we may not act against our created human
nature in pursuing some purpose or pleasure. Thus, we may not kill or
steal or commit adultery to advance ourselves. **The Church affirms that
efforts at birth regulation “must be done with respect for the order
established by God” **(Humanae Vitae, 16).

Now, here is an excerpt taken from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

3.The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

 

[Madaglan]

This might be a reasonable hypothesis if one does not take into consideration the contents of the letter written by Pope St. Clement I to the Corinthian Church, so let me reiterate his words:

Pope St. Clement speaks (writes rather) in a way that exhibits a level of authority (based on Christ’s words to Saint Peter) that expects the Church in Corinth to obey otherwise suffer transgression or no small danger. The Church in Rome is therefore instructing the Corinthian Church in a way that is stern, yet loving, like one presiding in love (over the churches) as St. Ignatius of Antioch said. Moreover, the Church in Corinth long after the dispute was settled (having heeded St. Clement’s words) was still displaying the letter by St. Clement I many years later in the pulpit alongside scripture. Thus, the Corinthian Church held in reverence the letter written by the fourth bishop of Rome because as the successor to Peter and thus, head of the Church, St. Clement I had provided a singular honour towards Corinth in instructing it in the faith (recall my saying that the pope was the supreme guardian of Christian tradition). .

1 Clement is written from “the church of God at Rome” and not from “[Pope] Clement.” This is important because when we look at the canonical epistles (and even those of other Apostolic Fathers), we notice “Paul,” “James,” “Peter,” “John” mentioned as the writer in very first lines. 1 Clement is later attributed to the pen of Clement, but the name Clement nowhere appears in the actual text. Early writers noted that Clement writes in the name of the Church of Rome. Today, there are some scholars who believe that Clement was not yet bishop of Rome when the epistle was written, even as he may have penned the letter as a secretary presbyter.

Concerning the letter itself: within the text, the Roman Church is written of as in the same "arena’ as the Corinthians. The Corinthians are called brethren. There is sternness, but it is not a sternness of a father for a child. Where you may see paternal correction, I see *fraternal correction. *.

While it is true that 1 Clement was regarded universally and read during the liturgy, the close relationship between St. Clement and St. Paul had certain importance in addition to the prestige of Rome. According to one tradition, mentioned by Eusebius, St. Clement translated the Book of Hebrews into Greek from the original written by St. Paul. Eusebius further points out that 1 Clement draws much from the Book of Hebrews. In light of this, it was the relative degree of Apostolicity of the letter, in addition to the excellence of the epistle, and its provenance from the city where Saints Peter and Paul were martyred, that gave it later universal renown.

 

[Luvs2Learn]

Josi_L
3.The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

I read that excerpt from the Greek Orthodox website aswell. But the way I understood this portion:*** "permits the use of certain contraceptive practices "*** is that by certain practices they mean Natural Family planning. Just as the Catholic church teaches. Catholics do not allow ABC but NFP is permitted if done for morally just reasons it may be used as a natural form of contraception. It does not actually say “Artifical forms of bc” in that statement. only that contraceptive practices are no longer considered the same thing as abortion.

 

[Luvs2Learn]

Also , I found this from the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate :
Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

 

[josie_L]

I read that excerpt from the Greek Orthodox website aswell. But the way I understood this portion:*** "permits the use of certain contraceptive practices "*** is that by certain practices they mean Natural Family planning. Just as the Catholic church teaches. Catholics do not allow ABC but NFP is permitted if done for morally just reasons it may be used as a natural form of contraception. It does not actually say “Artifical forms of bc” in that statement. only that contraceptive practices are no longer considered the same thing as abortion.

No, it does not actually say “artificial forms of bc” but neither does it say “contraceptive practices that are MORAL” (like NFP, which is the only manner of birth control the CC allows) in order to delineate what kind of contraceptive practices (notice how it’s in the plural) would be acceptable. Anyone, reading this would surmise that the Orthodox allow contracepting in general (there are no other clues to indicate otherwise). Moreover, it does imply that other forms of contraceptives, apart from NFP, are allowed (just look at the reasons why Orthodox couples can use contraceptives):

3.The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

What exactly does **enhancing the expression of marital love ** mean (using NFP involves abstaining from sex)? Moreover, these reasons cited do not sound like they are delineating extreme cases (as Mickey stated)?

 

[sidbrown]

No, it does not actually say “artificial forms of bc” but neither does it say “contraceptive practices that are MORAL” (like NFP, which is the only manner of birth control the CC allows) in order to delineate what kind of contraceptive practices (notice how it’s in the plural) would be acceptable. Anyone, reading this would surmise that the Orthodox allow contracepting in general (there are no other clues to indicate otherwise). Moreover, it does imply that other forms of contraceptives, apart from NFP, are allowed (just look at the reasons why Orthodox couples can use contraceptives):

What exactly does **enhancing the expression of marital love ** mean (using NFP involves abstaining from sex)? Moreover, these reasons cited do not sound like they are delineating extreme cases (as Mickey stated)?

I am not sure that I see that NFP is completely natural. You are employing man made deivices such as calendars, calculations, thermometers, charts, pencil and paper, etc., in NFP. Are not these devices all man made and not appearing in nature?

 

[malphono]

Seems to me that this thread has gone way off course. The one hot-button issue that has taken over is not going to make or break any re-unification.

 

[Ignatios]

Josie L
Most, if not all of your quotes are either tampered with, out of context, do not exist and/or irrelevant, the only blame on you would be that you should make sure that your references are valid before you go ahead and use them to backup your assertions example:
You quoted the following

“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 12);

and again, “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)

And here’s the Original:

(Lib. IX., Ep 12.) For the See of Constantinople, though now patriarchal, was not even an ancient sedes apostolica:…

As for this letter(Lib. IX, Ep. 59) it says something to the same line as the one above.

Now Pope St. Leo states that Rome is the head of the Church so ipso facto the bishop of Rome is head of the Church, moreover…

The attempt of Pope Leo to usurp the headship of the Church as jurisdiction was well noted and recorded during the Council of Chalcedon allow me to post it again:

The Imperial Commissioners made it quite clear that to the Roman Church might be conceded precedence and chief honors, as befitted so ancient and distinguished a Church, but no more. Leo regarded this as opposing his claim and** tried **to get the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch to object, but in vain. The Canon was afterwards further ratified by the Council in Trullo (A.D. 692). (Denny, 450, 754, pp. 210, 382.)

… this headship was not shared with Antioch and/or Alexandria as that honor or appellation was never applied to them…

Nor did the headship of Jurisdiction of Antioch or any other Holy See was shared with Rome.
As for the Honor, Rome was the first among equals in honor, Pre-eminency was applied to all the Patriarchate:

CANON VI. Of the First E.Council
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood…

…In fact, let me reiterate the words of the bishops at Chalcedon (almost 600 of them):

In the same letter, the Bishops of Chalcedon (Almost 600 of them) said the following:

the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo, Letter XCVIII.]

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.

It sounds like an authoritative statement from the fathers of the Council (520 Bishops) to the Pope, with much flattery words.
They also said the following at one point of the Council (actually up until the fifth session Pope Leo was on the edge for they were about to censor him as heretic or siding with heretics, if it was not of the Emperor who convinced them otherwise):

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 555.)
… Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.

Also:

… It took several days of commission work,** under the presidency of Anatolius of Constantinople**,** to convince them that Leo was not opposing Cyril. The episode clearly shows that it was Cyril, not Leo, who was considered at Chalcedon as the ultimate criterion of christological orthodoxy**.** Leo’s views were under suspicion of Nestorianism as late as the fifth session, **when the same bishops, still rejecting those who departed from Cyrillic terminology, shouted: ‘The opponents are Nestorians, let them go to Rome!’ The final formula pressed by the Imperial overseer was anything but an adoption of Leo’s text. It was a compromise, which could be imposed on the congregating bishops when they were persuaded that Leo and Cyril expressed the same truth, only using different expressions (J. Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division, p.155, 6)

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

Now, note how they refer to Pope Leo as the head, again there is no mention of either Antioch and/or Alexandria …

Now, note what the letter was about:

(CANON XXVIII of the Fourth E.Council)… 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 (isa presbeia) 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, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople,…

Now, it is not the flowery words that makes the Jurisdictions be real, but the Canons does, as it is above.

… (albeit the bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus, was ex- communicated by the Pope through the council at Chalcedon)…

…And here is what the Recorded facts shows:

THE CONDEMNATION SENT BY THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD TO DIOSCORUS.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)
The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God **according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors **assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.
We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (qesmou) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.

…Leo held the primacy and/or headship of the Church because Peter had a primacy and therefore was head of the Church, i.e, it is the bishops of Rome who are the direct heirs of Peter (who hold his office) …

So the Bishops of Antioch and the other Sees are half ordained?
Could someone help me to refute things that it doesn’t exist?

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

… Let me quote St. Chrysostom (although many more fathers have attested to Peter’s headship):

And here “some” of the things St Chrysostom, said, and what we find again either flowery words ( typical to the Orientals) or is it all those Saints are contradicting themselves:

“The whole world was looking to Paul, the care of the Churches throughout the world was hung upon his soul, every day he transacted a thousand matters, all surrounded was he with business, presidency, corrections, counsels, warnings, instructions, the management of a thousand things; and setting all this aside, he went to Jerusalem, and there was no other pretext for his journey but to see Peter, as he himself says: ‘I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter,’ so greatly did he honor him and set him before all. And then? When he had seen him, did he return at once? By no means; but he abode with him fifteen days. Tell me, then, if you should see some general, noble and famous, who when war was begun, when the armies were in array, when the fight was at its hottest, when a thousand matters called him, should leave the ranks to go off and find some friend – would you seek for a greater proof, tell me, of his goodwill to that man? I think not. Think the same, then, with regard to Paul and Peter.” (emphasis mine)

Again here we see Chrysostom saying that St Paul did not need for St Peter nor his voice neither his correction:

“‘Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.’ What could be more humble than this soul? After such great deeds, having no need of Peter, nor of his voice, and being equal in honor to him [Greek] – for I will say no more at present – yet he goes up as to the greater and elder, and the only cause of his journey is to visit Peter. Do you see how he gives him the proper honor [Greek] and not only thinks himself not their superior, but not even their equal. Thus, as many of our brethren journey to holy men, so Paul went then to Peter; or, rather, with far greater humility. For they do it for the sake of advantage to themselves, but this saint went not to learn anything from him, nor to receive any correction, but for this alone, that he might see him, and honor him by his presence.”

Now here we see St Chrysostom making St James greater and more honorable:

“And this is further evident from his actions. When he came to Jerusalem, after converting many of the Jews, and after doing greater works than any of the others, having brought Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all that part of the world into the right path, and having converted them to Christ, he first goes up to James, as to a greater and more honorable, with much humility. Then he bears with him when he gives counsel, and counsel contrary to the doctrine of this epistle.” (Commentary on Galatians, I, 11, vol X, 631[677])

Again here he makes S.S. Peter and Paul equal:

“Christ [like a wise king who has one general for the cavalry and another for the infantry] divided His army, the Jews to Peter, the Gentiles to Paul.”

…And here he assign the keys to Heaven to St John also:

the ‘keys to the kingdom’ have been given to Peter AND John. Here it is again…
”For 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”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

Who apart from Rome had a primacy and was referred to as head of the Church (like Peter),

All did over their own Churches.