Papal Supremacy

[Jacob50]

Well what id say is what separates Catholics and Orthodox most (even though id say we believe in 99% of the same things) is precisely Papal Primacy/Supremacy. Because the other issues are more or less involved with this fact. Orthodox believe the successor of Peter (The Pope) has a primacy, but of mere honor and not authority.

I would like our Orthodox brothers to read the following patristic quotes (before the 1054 A.D. schism):

“Reminding Justinian of God’s judgment for the exile of Pope Silverius, ‘In this world there are many kings, not one, like that Pope who is over the church of the whole world.’” (c. A.D. 525)

-Bishop of Patara writing to Emperor Justinian.

Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy Priests of God…" (Emperor Justinian I, AD 520-533).

-Emperor Justinian

Writing to the Pope:
Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1, AD 520-533)

• Emperor Justinian

“Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all.” (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

-Emperor Justinian

“The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler.” (Valentinian III A.D. 445)

-Valentinian III

“We know who is in charge in the Church of Christ to the extent that we reverently, humbly and devoutly profess more especially to give due obedience in all things to the Roman Pontiff as God’s Vicar. Whoever proudly resists this principle, we decree, is altogether outside the fellowship of the faithful, as a heretic.” St. Isidore of Seville (620 A.D.)

• St. Isidore of Seville

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” (ante A.D. 636),in PL:84

-St. Isidore of Seville

“(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 St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)).

-St. John Chrysostom

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))

-St John Chrysostom

 

[Jacob50]

“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.” (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197 AD 450).

• Theodoret of Cyrus

“The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicaea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship” Boniface[regn A.D. 418-422],To the bishops of Thessaly,in GILES,230

• Pope Boniface

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10 (AD 650))

• St. Maximus the Confessor

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692, AD 650).

• St. Maximus the Confessor

“This Apostolic Church never turned away from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. This is the rule of faith. All who wish to please God must study to conform the Apostolic rule of the primitive faith founded on the rock Peter, and kept by him from error.” (St. Pope Agatho, AD 680).

• St. Pope Agatho

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God" (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276 (c. A.D. 430)).

• John Cassian, Monk

“The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren.” (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq. (A.D. 715)).

• John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople

Do these quotes not imply infallibility? If they don’t why not. I would also like Orthodox to give quotes that suggest that the Pope does not have supremacy.

I like collecting quotes into my computer to understand more our Church history.

 

[Nine_Two]

When I was new here I engaged in a few cherry-picked quote wars.

They accomplish nothing. I didn’t bother to read those quotes - I stopped after the umpteenth quote-war. Not only are they worthless without context, not only are they unverified, but we also, neither Catholic or Orthodox, believe any of these men to be infallible.

 

[Jacob50]

When I was new here I engaged in a few cherry-picked quote wars.

They accomplish nothing. I didn’t bother to read those quotes - I stopped after the umpteenth quote-war. Not only are they worthless without context, not only are they unverified, but we also, neither Catholic or Orthodox, believe any of these men to be infallible.

Well look, I don’t think of them as infallible either. Just as I dont think as Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome etc etc as infallible. But we do look at their writings and compare them and see if they are sound in faith. Catholics and Orthodox both have traditions. So we look at what our Fathers wrote and see their views because its important to keep track at them.

St Vincent of Lerins once wrote:

"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple."

-Vincent of Lerins (Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, A.D. 434)

So If we follow your logic that all these men were not infallible, then we should ignore all the Fathers which we (Catholics and Orthodox) have made Saints shouldnt we?

I personally don’t think they are out of context. If you read sentences/paragraphs before and after these quotes you wouldn’t see them out of context. And if you didn’t bother in reading the quotes then how do you know they are unverified?

Also how would you verify them?

I don’t believe they are worthless either. Clearly some quotes are of easterners, how are they worthless? How do you choose which quotes are worthless and which are not?

 

[dcointin]

I would be willing to consider these, but I need a reference where I can read the full citations and any relevent scholarly textual commentary. Do you have a source for these?

 

[Nine_Two]

Well look, I don’t think of them as infallible either. Just as I dont think as Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome etc etc as infallible. But we do look at their writings and compare them and see if they are sound in faith. Catholics and Orthodox both have traditions. So we look at what our Fathers wrote and see their views because its important to keep track at them.

And as I said, the quotes are cherry picked, you can get a ton of quotes the support each side. I’m not arguing that what the fathers said isn’t important, I’m arguing that stray quotes don’t mean a whole lot.

So If we follow your logic that all these men were not infallible, then we should ignore all the Fathers which we (Catholics and Orthodox) have made Saints shouldnt we?

Yes thats what I said. When I said that cherry picked quotes are useless I actually meant that we should ignore everything they said. Ever. (That’s sarcasm by the way)

I personally don’t think they are out of context. If you read sentences/paragraphs before and after these quotes you wouldn’t see them out of context. And if you didn’t bother in reading the quotes then how do you know they are unverified?

The line before and after don’t provide much context.
Where were they when they wrote this, what was going on, why did they feel the need to write it, etc.

Also how would you verify them?

By checking the given source. Of course since most of them are quoted from a generally obscure anthology compiled by the Latin Fathers you might need to go further back. to find the source. The very fact that they are cut and pasted off the internet automatically puts their veracity into question.

I don’t believe they are worthless either. Clearly some quotes are of easterners, how are they worthless? How do you choose which quotes are worthless and which are not?

I said worthless without context.

 

[Jacob50]

I would be willing to consider these, but I need a reference where I can read the full citations and any relevent scholarly textual commentary. Do you have a source for these?

Firstly I must say that the quotes are taken from various sites, so many that I wouldnt be able to link them all (forgot links). Some are taken from some books like “Upon this Rock” Stephen K. Ray and others.
Some are taken from apologetic sites like:

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html
catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/primacy.htm

Probably the biggest source I have regarding papacy is:
philvaz.com/apologetics/apolog.htm

Where there are scholar debates/commentaries like these:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

For instance, if you go to St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter, which is found here:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
Right there u will find Johns 90 passages on Peter from St. John Chrysostom, and their examination From Dom John Chapman’s Studies on the Early Papacy

If you go to The Primitive Church and the see of Peter, you will end up looking at the book The Primitive Church and the See of Peter
by the Rev. Luke Rivington (1894) and his work of it.
philvaz.com/apologetics/a122.htm

All those contain quotes from scholars/theologians/priests/apologists like Dom Chapman, Stephen K. Ray, Porvaznik, Mark Bonocore, Fr. James F. Loughlin, and others.

 

[Jacob50]

You will notice that some are actual debates from anti Catholic scholars/historians like James White, William Webster, Norman Geisler and others. When debating, these scholars use quotes backing up their views.

 

[Jacob50]

And as I said, the quotes are cherry picked, you can get a ton of quotes the support each side. I’m not arguing that what the fathers said isn’t important, I’m arguing that stray quotes don’t mean a whole lot.

Well, one of the things I asked opening this topic, is for quotes that support your side. Can you provide them? I would like to look at them and in fact compile them too. You can “cherry pick” them if you want. It doesn’t matter to me.

The line before and after don’t provide much context.
Where were they when they wrote this, what was going on, why did they feel the need to write it, etc.

By checking the given source. Of course since most of them are quoted from a generally obscure anthology compiled by the Latin Fathers you might need to go further back. to find the source. The very fact that they are cut and pasted off the internet automatically puts their veracity into question.

Of course it does. But I have to copy and paste right? I don’t have you beside me and with the originals on my hand.

I know there are quotes backing up your side, I am in fact interested in those. You can provide them to me (if you have them), and go ahead and copy and paste. Ill investigate the veracity of your quotes myself, instead of ignoring them and not reading them at all like you did.

I said worthless without context.

Yes I know.

 

[dcointin]

Thank you for the response! I’ll take an honest look at these and let you know what I think. It will probably be at least a few days though since there’s quite a bit to go over.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Wonderful compilation.

I especially find this article about Transubstantiation of moment- not so much in the debates between East and West re the Petrine Primacy, but for the correct understanding of the Eucharist.

That article stresses that the Eucharist is verily the Body and Blood of Christ, that very Body which is now in Heaven. Few people today are familiar with this most sublime of doctrines that carefully distinguishes between the Real Presence of Christ and Christ’s Mystical Body or Presence. But my words are not so succinct as the commentators:

He maintains that the body of Christ is not in the Sacrament naturally but after the manner of a Sacrament, and therefore is not in it as in a place, and is not under the dimensions of a real body but under the dimensions of the bread only. He says that each fragment is the whole body of Christ, and that the body of Christ in heaven and on every altar on earth is one and the same, ***being that body which was born of the Virgin, was once on the cross, and is now in heaven ***(the full text of the Sermon of Gennadius is found in Migne PG 160:351-374).

This I think stresses the important distinction between Christ’s Mystical Body and His Glorified Body that is in Heaven, and is that same Body that suffered, died and was raised up again glorified, still bearing the Holy Marks of His Passion. It is that same Body which we do eat and that same Blood which we do drink in the Holy Sacrament. It was and is so important to stress this against the Protestant democratization, so to speak, of Christ’s Presense and the blurring of important distinctions.

I like this too:

"This bread and wine receives and possesses three degrees of honor. The first it has by nature, the second it receives by participation, it enters on the third through the Holy Ghost by TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The natural honor it has in that it is a creature and work of God…Wherefore, it is not for this venerated, or worshipped, or carried in procession, but is commended as the fair creation of God. The second degree of honor and regard it receives by participation when it is brought to the holy table, and blessed by the priest, and dedicated.

This emphasizes the proper distinctions to be made in degrees of veneration. It’s a good bulwark against Pantheism and reminds me of the Moderate Realism of the Scholastics, though in this case it is an Orthodox clergyman commenting on the progress and stages of their/his Rite.

 

[Jacob50]

Thank you for the response! I’ll take an honest look at these and let you know what I think. It will probably be at least a few days though since there’s quite a bit to go over.

Np. Its quite unfortunate that I didnt find one link, where James White (an anti-catholic) debates like 3 Catholics (not at the same time, different dates) and 2 of these Catholic Apologists have some really impressive quotes really. I lost the link though…As I saw it a long time ago.

But ill try to look for it. If I find it ill post it here.

Also yes all this stuff takes a while to look at…

 

[Jacob50]

Wonderful compilation.

I especially find this article about Transubstantiation of moment- not so much in the debates between East and West re the Petrine Primacy, but for the correct understanding of the Eucharist.

That article stresses that the Eucharist is verily the Body and Blood of Christ, that very Body which is now in Heaven. Few people today are familiar with this most sublime of doctrines that carefully distinguishes between the Real Presence of Christ and Christ’s Mystical Body or Presence. But my words are not so succinct as the commentators:

He maintains that the body of Christ is not in the Sacrament naturally but after the manner of a Sacrament, and therefore is not in it as in a place, and is not under the dimensions of a real body but under the dimensions of the bread only. He says that each fragment is the whole body of Christ, and that the body of Christ in heaven and on every altar on earth is one and the same, ***being that body which was born of the Virgin, was once on the cross, and is now in heaven ***(the full text of the Sermon of Gennadius is found in Migne PG 160:351-374).

This I think stresses the important distinction between Christ’s Mystical Body and His Glorified Body that is in Heaven, and is that same Body that suffered, died and was raised up again glorified, still bearing the Holy Marks of His Passion. It is that same Body which we do eat and that same Blood which we do drink in the Holy Sacrament. It was and is so important to stress this against the Protestant democratization, so to speak, of Christ’s Presense and the blurring of important distinctions.

I like this too:

"This bread and wine receives and possesses three degrees of honor. The first it has by nature, the second it receives by participation, it enters on the third through the Holy Ghost by TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The natural honor it has in that it is a creature and work of God…Wherefore, it is not for this venerated, or worshipped, or carried in procession, but is commended as the fair creation of God. The second degree of honor and regard it receives by participation when it is brought to the holy table, and blessed by the priest, and dedicated.

This emphasizes the proper distinctions to be made in degrees of veneration. It’s a good bulwark against Pantheism and reminds me of the Moderate Realism of the Scholastics, though in this case it is an Orthodox clergyman commenting on the progress and stages of their/his Rite.

The Patristic quotes related to the Eucharist are simply so numerous, that are impossible to count. The year I saw all the patristic evidence surrounding the Eucharist, it simply fortified my faith strongly. Quotes that go from Christ’s time to ours. I see no reason for a protestant to continue being such after looking into these as I did. Since most protestants don’t believe in the Real presence, I think spreading these is a very powerful tool when trying to convert a non-catholic christian (that doesn’t believe in the real presence).

 

[kalel76]

As I was reading this I thought - Don’t the Orthodox have a source of their own like Catholic Answers that can give patristic evidence of why Bishops must be autonomous and separated along nationalistic lines? I would love a link to read up.

Even if the quotes are cherry picked, that’s okay…I’m from Michigan…we love cherries.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

As I was reading this I thought - Don’t the Orthodox have a source of their own like Catholic Answers that can give patristic evidence of why Bishops must be autonomous and separated along nationalistic lines? I would love a link to read up.

Even if the quotes are cherry picked, that’s okay…I’m from Michigan…we love cherries.

Careful what you wish for. The Orthodox do in fact have their “sources”- those sources being the 7 Ecumenical Councils. It all comes down to how one interprets the canons; though, to be quite honest, many of them are clear and to the point regarding such things as bishops and the like.

 

[Nine_Two]

As I was reading this I thought - Don’t the Orthodox have a source of their own like Catholic Answers that can give patristic evidence of why Bishops must be autonomous and separated along nationalistic lines? I would love a link to read up.

Even if the quotes are cherry picked, that’s okay…I’m from Michigan…we love cherries.

www.orthodoxinfo.com might be what you’re looking for. It has a lot of patristics, but beware before hand that it is an extremely anti-ecumenical site, to the point that most Orthodox (myself included) distance themselves from it and don’t use it when trying to make a point.

I’m not aware of anything more moderate.

I’ve always preferred to read the patristics myself directly. I’m always curious when I find a reference in a book to some point being made in some old document, I always want to know what else it says. I always want to know the complete context (which was my complaint above).

 

[Nine_Two]

Careful what you wish for. The Orthodox do in fact have their “sources”- those sources being the 7 Ecumenical Councils. It all comes down to how one interprets the canons; though, to be quite honest, many of them are clear and to the point regarding such things as bishops and the like.

We use all the writings of the fathers, including the canons of the councils.

But you’re right, how you read a quote can make a big difference. In past quote-wars I’ve seen quotes that the poster interpreted to strengthen their own position, yet I read them as being completely in line with my own. I can’t think of an example right now.

 

[Hesychios]

As I was reading this I thought - Don’t the Orthodox have a source of their own like Catholic Answers that can give patristic evidence of why Bishops must be autonomous and separated along nationalistic lines? I would love a link to read up.

All you have to do is read the canons of Nicea.

This was the first ecumenical Council after the persecutions and the fathers were keen to establish the church as they knew it from the underground period.

Every province in the Roman empire was organized along a ‘nation’. Each such province had a synod of bishops. This synod of bishops named it’s own membership, so it was self-sustaining. It policed itself and met twice per year to resolve conflicts.

It should be noted that the churches outside the empire were organized similarly. This seems to indicate that the Apostles set this system up and it spread this way.

When the patriarch of Antioch was attempting to assert it’s authority over the church of Cyprus the Cypriot church appealed to the Council meeting at Ephesus, and the Council declared that because of it’s ancient origin the church of Cyprus has alway been self-governing and shall remain so. Then it cautioned all other Metropolitans to take copies of the decree with them to protrect themselves from such encroachment in the future!

…since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.

Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.
Canon VIII Ephesus 431AD

Read the canons of the First Ecumenical Council.

 

[steve_b]

When the patriarch of Antioch was attempting to assert it’s authority over the church of Cyprus the Cypriot church appealed to the Council meeting at Ephesus, and the Council declared that because of it’s ancient origin the church of Cyprus has alway been self-governing and shall remain so. Then it cautioned all other Metropolitans to take copies of the decree with them to protrect themselves from such encroachment in the future!

Even going back to Ignatius of Antioch bishop from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d., before there were such a thing as patriarchs, he didn’t claim authority over any other Church but his. He never claimed presidency for his see or any see he wrote to, except for Rome holding the presidency.
H:

…since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.

Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.
Canon VIII Ephesus 431AD

Other quotes from the council of Ephesus

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 Saviour 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,

Note: the pope & the emperors at this time, watch over the Catholic Church.

 

[dcointin]

Where in these quotes do we find that the Pope has jurisdiction over other sees?