Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[byeveryword]

Jesus also calls Peter the rock, which He will build His Church on.

We are told by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, that everyone who hears the words of Jesus Christ and does them, will be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock.(Matthew 7:24)…the winds blew, the floods came and it did not fall.

With this scripture in mind, we have this part of this ancient liturgy from the apostles and with this I bid you and all:
:
THE BIDDING PRAYER FOR THE FAITHFUL.

x. "Let us pray for the peace and happy settlement of the world, and of the holy churches; that the God of the whole world may afford us His everlasting peace, and such as may not be taken away from us; that He may preserve us in a full prosecution of such virtue as is according to godliness. Let us pray for the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is spread from one end of the earth to the other; that God would preserve and keep it unshaken, and free from the waves of this life, until the end of the world, as founded upon a rock; and for the holy parish in this place, that the Lord of the whole world may vouchsafe us without failure to follow after His heavenly hope, and without ceasing to pay Him the debt of our prayer. Let us pray for every episcopacy which is under the whole heaven, of those that rightly divide the word of Thy truth. And let us pray for our bishop James, (5) and his parishes; let us pray for our bishop Clement, and his parishes; let us pray for our bishop Euodius, and his parishes; let us pray for our bishop Annianus, and his parishes: that the compassionate God may grant them to continue in His holy churches in health, honour, and long life, and afford them an honourable old age in godIiness and righteousness.’

Apostolic Constitutions of Hippolytus Book VIII.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Dictatus Papae is not official Church teaching or an official document .

Considering it was composed by the pope himself, I think you can call it an “official document”.

Of which axiom does your church not adhere? Can the pope not depose bishops at will? Can he not transfer bishops? Can he do so without a synod? All of these things reduce the status of other bishops - exactly the concept that Pope St. Gregory condemned.

It’s not certain who or when it was written. And…it’s just plain over the top and ridiculous.

It was composed by Pope Gregory VII roughly twenty years after the Great Schism. It seems with the patristic east out of the way, the pope could claim whatever powers he wanted, free of opposition.

It is clear from Catholic Teaching that the Pope is a servant with the role of strengthening his fellow Bishops. It’s clearly written in the documents of Vatican I and II.

And yet the pope can single-handedly depose them. From where is this power derived?

 

[mardukm]

Is schism a dogmatic matter?

Schism is always deplorable, but I think all apostolic Churches generally recognize the distinction between schism based on non-dogmatic matters, and schism based on dogma.

That being said, I obviously have some reading to do over the whole issue with St. Meletius, if indeed his supposed schism with Rome is purely a myth (one that is strangely spread by both the Orthodox and the Catholics—you’re only supposed to spread rumors that are advantageous to your position! Though I can certainly see how the myth might be advantageous to both). Certainly from modern eyes, the situation looks pretty scandalous, but then again, I doubt that scandal was something that the Roman citizens weren’t already used to back then.

Rome itself was not directly involved in the matter until 381 (Rome had explicitly affirmed Paulinus about 3 or 4 years prior to this, but not by way of rejecting the Meletian party, as the schism was not even mentioned in Rome’s letter to Paulinus), when she tried to broker a deal between the parties - namely, as both parties were orthodox, the party leadership may be maintained, but the party whose leader died first should submit to the authority of the party whose leader was still alive. St. Meletius is known to have agreed to this proposal (and may have been the one who proposed it), but Paulinus did not. So if anyone was in defiance of Rome (who brokered the negotiation), it was the Paulinist party, not the Meletians from whose party St. John Chrysostom came.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

Considering it was composed by the pope himself, I think you can call it an “official document”.

Of which axiom does your church not adhere? Can the pope not depose bishops at will? Can he not transfer bishops? Can he do so without a synod? All of these things reduce the status of other bishops - exactly the concept that Pope St. Gregory condemned.

It was composed by Pope Gregory VII roughly twenty years after the Great Schism. It seems with the patristic east out of the way, the pope could claim whatever powers he wanted, free of opposition.

And yet the pope can single-handedly depose them. From where is this power derived?

Not official.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Unlike the West where even KINGS and Empires are subject to the authority of the Vicar of Christ, in the East the church has been subjected to Monarchs, Kingdoms, Communism, Atheism, the Imperial Family and Islam and I probly missed a few. The West “refused” to be subjected to this situation…plain and simple

The papacy has had its own share of being under subjugation. Are you familiar with the Frankish control of the papacy prior to the Great Schism?

The EO state it hasn’t needed a Ecumenical Council for ONE THOUSAND yeras. But the fact is the EO has constantly been under rule and couldn’t have accomplished this had they wanted to. With 20-years of Freedom which is still questionable in Russia. It now claims to be the One Holy Apostolic Church and in fact Rome is in schism. WOW that is simply AMAZING. What History books have you all been reading?

Lets get our terminology straight. An Ecumenical Council is a council called and sponsored by the Roman Empire (i.e. the οἰκουμένη). It is a historic term used in a historic context. The Orthodox Church has had other councils since then (e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672). The synod, btw, was held under Islamic occupation. Councils are convened to deal with heresy, not political circumstance.

In a World which has turned its back on God His Christ, there is absolutly no exuse for the ONLY TWO true orthodox churchs in Christianity to remain seperated. While the world is rushing headlong into hell, we continue to fight over “contrived” doctrinal differences that have ZERO substance and only serve to justify political, administrative seperation…its a tragedy and I’m convinced its a diabolical disorientation.

The Orthodox Church will never commune with those who persist in error. No political circumstance can change this.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Not official.

Does the Catholic Church reject its axioms?

 

[mardukm]

Considering it was composed by the pope himself, I think you can call it an “official document”.

There is no solid proof it was composed or even dicated by the Pope himself.

Of which axiom does your church not adhere? Can the pope not depose bishops at will?

No, he can’t.

Can he not transfer bishops?

Not at will, but only if needed. Yes, he can, but so can any other head bishop within their proper sphere of jurisdiction.

Can he do so without a synod?

It’s never happened that way, even after this “dictatus papae” was supposedly promulgated. So it obviously did not have much of an official standing.

All of these things reduce the status of other bishops - exactly the concept that Pope St. Gregory condemned.

Which is why it never gained much of an official standing.

It was composed by Pope Gregory VII roughly twenty years after the Great Schism. It seems with the patristic east out of the way, the pope could claim whatever powers he wanted, free of opposition.

This should tell you that at best, it was a series of axioms relevant only within the Latin Catholic Church, to address certain issues it had with the secular powers (e.g., the axiom about deposing bishops was a statement against the secular power having the authority to do so; the axiom about deposing without a synod was against the secular power limiting papal authority by literally preventing the convention of synods via refusing to allow its national bishops to attend; etc., etc.). And even then, it’s more extreme claims have never obtained much purchase within the Latin Catholic Church itself.

And yet the pope can single-handedly depose them. From where is this power derived?

I can’t answer that because such a “single-handed, at will” deposing power does not exist. Not according to Vatican 1, nor according to our Canons. If you can give a quote from Vatican 1, Vatican 2, or our Canons on this deposing power, we’ll be able to carry on a more well-reasoned discussion. But appeal to such unofficial sources really deflates the true purpose of dialogue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

There is no solid proof it was composed or even dicated by the Pope himself.

Then why was it included in the papal register?

No, he can’t.

Are you joking? There are numerous modern cases of this happening. Would you like me to post them?

Not at will, but only if needed. Yes, he can, but so can any other head bishop within their proper sphere of jurisdiction.

Ultimately “only if needed” is a matter of opinion, thus the pope’s prerogative.

It’s never happened that way, even after this “dictatus papae” was supposedly promulgated. So it obviously did not have much of an official standing.

Actually it did. I am not sure where you read your history, but the pope quite clearly believed such things and enforced them for centuries (many aspects are still enforced today).

This should tell you that at best, it was a series of axioms relevant only within the Latin Catholic Church, to address certain issues it had with the secular powers (e.g., the axiom about deposing bishops was a statement against the secular power having the authority to do so; the axiom about deposing without a synod was against the secular power limiting papal authority by literally preventing the convention of synods via refusing to allow its national bishops to attend; etc., etc.). And even then, it’s more extreme claims have never obtained much purchase within the Latin Catholic Church itself.

It may have been used to counteract imperial claims, but that does not justify giving these powers to the papacy.

I can’t answer that because such a “single-handed, at will” deposing power does not exist. Not according to Vatican 1, nor according to our Canons. If you can give a quote from Vatican 1, Vatican 2, or our Canons on this deposing power, we’ll be able to carry on a more well-reasoned discussion. But appeal to such unofficial sources really deflates the true purpose of dialogue.

Blessings,
Marduk

Very typical of the ever-changing Catholic Church. Would you agree that the RCC has rejected the claims and actions of the medieval and renaissance popes?

 

[Nicea325]

Then why was it included in the papal register?

Are you joking? There are numerous modern cases of this happening. Would you like me to post them?

Ultimately “only if needed” is a matter of opinion, thus the pope’s prerogative.

Actually it did. I am not sure where you read your history, but the pope quite clearly believed such things and enforced them for centuries (many aspects are still enforced today).

It may have been used to counteract imperial claims, but that does not justify giving these powers to the papacy.

Very typical of the ever-changing Catholic Church. Would you agree that the RCC has rejected the claims and actions of the medieval and renaissance popes?

Mark,

With all due respect,but what exactly is your point? It seems nothing anyone says or the information provided makes any difference,so why continue in this never-ending dialogue? If it is set in your heart and mind what you truly believe is true,then fine…may God Bless you. It seems you want answers that may not exist or you just have a profound misunderstanding about the term primacy and the papacy? Either way, I find it useless to provide any sources because nothing seems to matter to you.

God Bless

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, but interpreting verses without patristic support [of that interpretation] is not different than what the majority of Protestants take part in. Show me an ECF who interprets that verse to mean what you claim.

This is the problem you are having with the Orthodox Catholic faith pre-schism. For one the living Tradition of the ECF’s is written in the Church’s heart not on documents or in record keeping. Trying to seek the Orthodox Catholic faith on plain letters and records is not gonna help you to arrive at the “complete Truth of the living apostolic Traditions both written and Orally handed down, but living none the less by our ECF’s.”

CCC 113…"According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture…"

In other words many of the ECF’s already believe and follow the Popes as seated upon Peter’s Chair without ever having to declare Peter’s “supreme Jurisdiction” over the Catholic Church. It was already believed and practiced by the ECF’s both while the Church was underground and after the Roman laws liberated the Catholic Church.

Even the secular powers and your Eastern Emperor’s recognized the Popes authority over the whole Church because they always sought the Popes approval on church matters. Your Eastern Emperors placed their own patriarchs in Constantinople which had no apostolic origin except only a secular power installation.

It is from this place in history when the Patriarch of Constantinople, writings tend to creep in and out about the Popes “supreme” authority, because the “new Rome” with all it’s power and riches begins to see the Popes authority in an “unorthodox” view which you are trying to force into history after a thousand years later? When the secular powers mixed with the Patriarch of Constantinople, “Authority” now begins its course between the Popes in Rome and the powerful Patriarch of Constantinople who was supported by its secular sometimes heretical emperors.

Read the heart of the Church first before reading the writtings of the Church, then they will become more clearer from the ECF’s what they believed in the Popes is still held by many Eastern Orthodox in communion with the Popes and the magisterium world wide.

Peace be with you

peace be with you

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Mark,

With all due respect,but what exactly is your point? It seems nothing anyone says or the information provided makes any difference,so why continue in this never-ending dialogue? If it is set in your heart and mind what you truly believe is true,then fine…may God Bless you. It seems you want answers that may not exist or you just have a profound misunderstanding about the term primacy and the papacy? Either way, I find it useless to provide any sources because nothing seems to matter to you.

God Bless

My point? My goal is to prove that the papacy of the ealry Church is not the papacy of today. I am defending Pope Benedict’s (and the Orthodox) position against the claim that universal jurisdiction and supremacy were early Church realities.

Do you have any sources to contribute to the discussion?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

This is the problem you are having with the Orthodox Catholic faith pre-schism. For one the living Tradition of the ECF’s is written in the Church’s heart not on documents or in record keeping. Trying to seek the Orthodox Catholic faith on plain letters and records is not gonna help you to arrive at the “complete Truth of the living apostolic Traditions both written and Orally handed down, but living none the less by our ECF’s.”

That is the exact logic used to justify innovation. I do experience living apostolic Tradition within the Orthodox Church. History and written records only confirm Orthodoxy. I have asked you to provide evidence of your claims, yet you justify the lack of evidence on some presumptuous notion that it was an understood truth. I could use your exact logic to justify any claim I want :

“Well, the rapture is not in the early Church fathers, but it is in the heart of the Church, so it has always been believed.”

“Well, the ordination of women is not in the early Church fathers, but it is in the heart of the Church, so it has always been practiced.”

“Well, created grace is not in the early Church fathers, but it is in the heart of the Church, so it has always been believed”

“Well, the Ignatian spirituality is not in the early Church fathers, but it is in the heart of the Church, so it has always been believed”

CCC 113…“According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture…”

In other words many of the ECF’s already believe and follow the Popes as seated upon Peter’s Chair without ever having to declare Peter’s “supreme Jurisdiction” over the Catholic Church. It was already believed and practiced by the ECF’s both while the Church was underground and after the Roman laws liberated the Catholic Church.

Even the secular powers and your Eastern Emperor’s recognized the Popes authority over the whole Church because they always sought the Popes approval on church matters. Your Eastern Emperors placed their own patriarchs in Constantinople which had no apostolic origin except only a secular power installation.

It is from this place in history when the Patriarch of Constantinople, writings tend to creep in and out about the Popes “supreme” authority, because the “new Rome” with all it’s power and riches begins to see the Popes authority in an “unorthodox” view which you are trying to force into history after a thousand years later? When the secular powers mixed with the Patriarch of Constantinople, “Authority” now begins its course between the Popes in Rome and the powerful Patriarch of Constantinople who was supported by its secular sometimes heretical emperors.

Read the heart of the Church first before reading the writtings of the Church, then they will become more clearer from the ECF’s what they believed in the Popes is still held by many Eastern Orthodox in communion with the Popes and the magisterium world wide.

Peace be with you

peace be with you

Evidence, my dear friend, that is all I ask of you. Please provide sources to substantiate these claims.

 

[Nicea325]

My point? My goal is to prove that the papacy of the ealry Church is not the papacy of today. I am defending Pope Benedict’s (and the Orthodox) position against the claim that universal jurisdiction and supremacy were early Church realities.

Do you have any sources to contribute to the discussion?

Prove the papacy of the early church is the not the papacy of today? Geeee…I as a cradle Roman Catholic I could have told you the that much. Was the church of the 4th,5th and
6th centuries the same as the 1st century church? Did the first Christians meet at churches as we know them today? Did they have the same understanding of the docrines of the Incarnation,Trinity,etc as the church of today? Did it not grow and mature over time?

Whatever gave you notion or the belief the office of the papacy has not developed over time? Just like all doctrines,they develop over time,but that in no shape or form negates it all. Is the U.S. government of the first 100 years the same as the government of today? Did George Washington deal with federall agencies such as the FBI,Homeland Security,etc? Does that mean it is not valid or did not operate with the same principles?

Sources to contribute? Change and development are both part of evolution and process,it is logical all things change,including the church,thus no need to provide sources to identify the obvious. The only constant is God.

Peace

 

[Ignatios]

I’m just curious to get the Orthodox response to this:

“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction WE MUST carry out…This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not believe.** PETER HAS SPOKEN THUS THROUGH LEO.**” - Council of Chalcedon, 451

Isn’t this pretty damning?

I apologize if the quote was already mentioned, but I wasn’t about to go through all those pages of discussion.

The first part you posted was a portion of the what had happened and it is out of cotext here is the thye whole chapter it is very interesting to read it is actually just the opposite of what the RC tries to show:
**"Extracts from the Acts.

Session I.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 93.)

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.278278 This whole paragraph reads with material differences in the Latin. Moreover while the Greek text is clear and grammatical, the Latin is most incorrect and halting. Leo is described as “Pope of the city of Rome,” instead of “bishop of Rome.”

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.279279 This statement, so absolutely contrary to fact, has been a sore difficulty to the commentators. Arendt (Leo the Great and his Times, § 270) says that this meant only that “he had, without permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there, and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it.” Almost the same is the explanation of the Ballerini (Leo M. Opera, Tom. ii. 460, n. 15.)

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop “Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.

The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray.

Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].

The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.

And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly (τῆς ἱερᾶς συγκλήτου280280 The Latin here has the usual form “amplissimus senatus,” for which the Greek is περιφανέστατοι συγκλητικοὶ.) had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence."**
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iii.html

very interesting huh?

 

[Ignatios]

I’m just curious to get the Orthodox response to this:

“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction WE MUST carry out…This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not believe.** PETER HAS SPOKEN THUS THROUGH LEO.**” - Council of Chalcedon, 451

Isn’t this pretty damning?

I apologize if the quote was already mentioned, but I wasn’t about to go through all those pages of discussion.

And the second part namely where the fathers cried out that Peter spoken through Leo it was no more than acknowledgment of the Orthodoxy of Leo for every Orthodox Bishop is Peter himself as St Chrysostom once mentioned.

 

[copperblade]

Are you joking? There are numerous modern cases of this happening. Would you like me to post them?

Actually, if you don’t mind. As a reader of this thread, I’m interested in what you’re talking about, and the answers from other forum members. No need to be exhaustive or anything, but just a good example of what you’re referring to would be nice.

 

[copperblade]

When was the pope first called pope?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

And the second part namely where the fathers cried out that Peter spoken through Leo it was no more than acknowledgment of the Orthodoxy of Leo for every Orthodox Bishop is Peter himself as St Chrysostom once mentioned.

It seems to me to also be a recognition of an authority the Pope has. Part of the statements, continuing, state:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with (2) **the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. **Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.”

To me it looks like a recognition of the authority of the Pope. They acted like the Pope asked. Of course, it was through a council, but so what? I don’t think Catholics would say that a Pope can do whatever he wants without a council. And also a direct statement that Peter was the “rock” of the Church seems important in light of some of the discussions here.

I don’t know. I’m hoping not to come off with a sense that I know everything. I know nothing. The impression I’m getting, however, is that the Pope did have a legitimate, higher authority than simply one of equality. Primus Inter Pares doesn’t mean one wouldn’t have authority over others. There’s a lot of figures today that are known as primus inter pares that have actual power. The office of the Italian prime minister being one of them. Otherwise, I think the proper term would more be* super partes* (“above the fray”).

 

[mardukm]

Then why was it included in the papal register?

The papal registers contain not just official promulgations, but also drafts that were never promulgated.

Are you joking? There are numerous modern cases of this happening. Would you like me to post them?

Yes, please do. I am seriously unaware of this.

Ultimately “only if needed” is a matter of opinion, thus the pope’s prerogative.

You didn’t respond to the part where other head bishops also do this. Why is it if Eastern bishops do it, it is not worth a hoot, but when a Pope of Rome does it, the very foundations of the earth are suddenly demolished.

Actually it did. I am not sure where you read your history, but the pope quite clearly believed such things and enforced them for centuries (many aspects are still enforced today).

Yes. Please show us examples of non-synodal depositions done by he Pope.

It may have been used to counteract imperial claims, but that does not justify giving these powers to the papacy.

Once you depose the EO Patriarch of Antioch for demoting all bishops under the Metropolian in the U.S to mere auxiliary status (not certain what went on there, but I think that’s what happened) – then, let’s talk about whose log in the eye is bigger. Until then, I don’t see what business you or I have in the historic affairs of the Latin Catholic Church. That the Pope’s authority went beyond patristic bounds in the Medieval Ages in the LATIN Catholic Church IN RESPONSE TO ITS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES is beyond question. Whether this is the reality enshrined by Vatican 1’s Decree on the Primacy, or in the Code of Canons (either of 1917 or 1983) is another thing altogether.

Very typical of the ever-changing Catholic Church. Would you agree that the RCC has rejected the claims and actions of the medieval and renaissance popes?

I’m not aware that the Latin Catholic Church makes up the whole of the Catholic Church. Whatever canonical powers their head bishop has/had to address their LOCAL needs is the business of their LOCAL Church. Canons do change, btw.

As stated, show us evidence from Vatican 1, Vatican 2, or our Canons that the Pope has this “single-handed, at will” deposing power, then we’ll talk. Until that time, your argument is one big straw man, and a log in the eye, as well .

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

It seems to me to also be a recognition of an authority the Pope has. Part of the statements, continuing, state:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with (2) **the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. **Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.”

To me it looks like a recognition of the authority of the Pope. They acted like the Pope asked. Of course, it was through a council, but so what? I don’t think Catholics would say that a Pope can do whatever he wants without a council. And also a direct statement that Peter was the “rock” of the Church seems important in light of some of the discussions here.

I don’t know. I’m hoping not to come off with a sense that I know everything. I know nothing. The impression I’m getting, however, is that the Pope did have a legitimate, higher authority than simply one of equality. Primus Inter Pares doesn’t mean one wouldn’t have authority over others. There’s a lot of figures today that are known as primus inter pares that have actual power. The office of the Italian prime minister being one of them. Otherwise, I think the proper term would more be* super partes* (“above the fray”).

Dear Fabius,

Again this not what the Synod said it is what the Roman legates said by themselves, you must becareful my friend where you get your info from, for there is a lots of flaws on line and many takes things out of context as you have had just seen in the last few posts, here it is within context:

**“The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following (Col. 426]
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with286286 The translation of the English Hefele (iv. 328) “in communion with” is most extraordinary. the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of
260
the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.”
**ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html

That was not the Synod who spoke it was the legates again . All those quotes almost got me to believe into Catholicism at one time and I went through the RCIA but the reality is much different than those flawed quotes, actually they are showing the opposite of the reality, Now keep in mind that Pope Leo I is a Saint in the Orthodox Church as well and indeed he was the most influential Pope of all along with Pope Saint Gregory the great, that is why those two Pope were the only ones who are called the Great, but many mistaken influence with Authority.

GOD bless you all†††