My intention was not to prove any documents validity.
That is not the point.
The Point is that the Thought and the desire for this kind of Papacy existed in the Early church to which these Various documents, whether they be forgeries or real GIVE EVIDENCE. Donation of Constantine, Pseudo Isidore, Arabic Canon 39 of Nicea, they all testify to the mindset of people in the early church. I don’t care about their Authenticity, They were written in the early church, they testify to the thoughts and desires of those in the Early Church.
But if you want genuine:
Luke Chapter 12
[41] Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
[42] And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
[43] Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
[44] Truly, I say to you,
he will set him over all his possessions.
Take for example St. Maximus the Confessor, the great defender of the two wills of Christ, a resident of Constantinople, and an interpreter of Dionysius the Areopagite. He provides an example of the Byzantine doctrine of Rome’s universal jurisdiction before the polemical debates of the 9th century. The quote below is from about AD 650:
Code:
"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 canonicall**y, 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 firmand immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
"…Pyrrhus was now Sergius’s successor, but on the accession of the Emperor Constans in 642 he was exiled. Maximus then sent a letter to the patrician Peter, apparently the Governor of Syria and Palestine who had written to him concerning Pyrrhus, whom he now calls simply abbot. Pyrrhus was in Palestine and Peter had restrained him from putting forward his heretical views. Pyrrhus had declared that he was ready to satisfy Maximus as to his orthodoxy. The latter says he would have written to Peter before
Code:
' but I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws if I were to do this without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law.' "
“…they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? 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, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy…
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 Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all 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 which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also.*** For if he thinks he must satisfy others***, and f
ails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence
to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.”
…
.