the same thing

[GaryTaylor]

Comes back to Infallibility no?

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&sa=U&ei=Hg3GT5u8MqHz0gG0-OCRCw&ved=0CBMQFjAB&sig2=uGMm_Pfr0Gp7S7yGbDapQg&usg=AFQjCNEIsRRl4ooXA8sSTP2_DR6AUWDkaQ

“The second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.”

To view

google.com/url?q=http://www.franciscan-sfo.org/ap/hu/ha9-1.htm&sa=U&ei=cBHGT6WdIsjY0QHAgq2SCw&ved=0CBIQFjAA&sig2=KGnt2Ku-oaP8li7F9XSB5g&usg=AFQjCNGLCavstK-rPLFtB2Tlci7HLEsNYQ

How does this square with empires? Course I’m thinking about what Cav mentioned earlier with his research.

Certainly complex. I’ll listen to you guys for better understanding

 

[ConstantineTG]

I really don’t see how it would show anything of the sort. Obviously the Chalcedonians would have it that their deposition of St. Dioscoros at the Council somehow validates their authority to do that, but as it was not accepted by the majority of the people whom the new Chalcedonian bishop would be ruling over (who continued to recognize Dioscoros as the legitimate Pope of Alexandria), it did not have much effect other than outraging the people (to the point of murder, according to Evagrius Scholasticus). This is no trifling matter, of course, as adopting a mindset contrary to this reality whereby because something happened in a Council is automatically right would lead to troubling questions regarding, for instance, the Council of Florence. I can’t imagine that the EO would be too thrilled if the Eastern signatories at said Council were used as evidence of Eastern acceptance of the Roman Papacy and its prerogatives when that near-reunion so ticked off the people back home.

It shows that:

a. A Patriarch can be deposed by council
b. No one man possess the authority of a council
c. If the Pope of Rome had Supremacy back then, why not appeal to him to depose the Pope of Alexandria

 

[ConstantineTG]

Comes back to Infallibility no?

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&sa=U&ei=Hg3GT5u8MqHz0gG0-OCRCw&ved=0CBMQFjAB&sig2=uGMm_Pfr0Gp7S7yGbDapQg&usg=AFQjCNEIsRRl4ooXA8sSTP2_DR6AUWDkaQ

“The second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.”

To view

google.com/url?q=http://www.franciscan-sfo.org/ap/hu/ha9-1.htm&sa=U&ei=cBHGT6WdIsjY0QHAgq2SCw&ved=0CBIQFjAA&sig2=KGnt2Ku-oaP8li7F9XSB5g&usg=AFQjCNGLCavstK-rPLFtB2Tlci7HLEsNYQ

How does this square with empires? Course I’m thinking about what Cav mentioned earlier with his research.

Certainly complex. I’ll listen to you guys for better understanding

Without reading your link, I’d like to ask if those councils and bishops are part of another Church or part of the Church of Rome. Don’t forget the Pope is a Patriarch and thus would have some authority and/or influence, does not mean he has supremacy and infallibility as defined in the 1800s.

 

[dzheremi]

It shows that:

a. A Patriarch can be deposed by council
b. No one man possess the authority of a council
c. If the Pope of Rome had Supremacy back then, why not appeal to him to depose the Pope of Alexandria

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on point (a) as concerns Chalcedon specifically for the reasons I mentioned earlier (and to add to Cavaradossi’s good post: not only was St. Pope Dioscoros deposed for what could be termed “procedural reasons”, which is not in and of itself wrong, but according to the Copts he was not allowed to present himself at the council; he was under house arrest at the time…so it was a real snow job any way you look at it, and we absolutely do not accept it just because a council declared it any more than we accept the exile of St. Athanasius the Apostolic by the Arian Council of Tyre). Points (b) and (c), however, I am in agreement on. It doesn’t really make sense.

 

[steve_b]

Does she teach the contrary?

If Catholics can’t celebrate a common Eucharist with the Orthodox, then what’s the conclusion? Catholics can’t leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox.
[CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 838 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 838)
C:

And the Orthodox isn’t working to reunite with the Catholic Church? I think the Orthodox has made their position very clear on what the Catholic Church has to do to reunify.

Like?
C:

Does the extraordinary measure include putting his foot on top of an Eastern patriarch’s head?

Specific case?
C:

Maybe you should ask them.

I have. I didn’t receive a response.
C:

There is such a lot of wrong things in that statement. It seems that they are looking for a leader of the Churches akin to the Pope. I mean, even as a lay person with no theological or ecclesiastical education, I know that the Orthodox Church doesn’t operate that way.

I think the crux of what he was saying is clear. There is no ONE body, no ONE authority to make the body(s) ONE. Those who have titles, can’t speak authoritatively except for their own particular jurisdictions, ergo Cardinal Kasper’s point, the Orthodox Church doesn’t really exist.
C:

I think you are overselling it. There is nothing in Scripture that says we are to be united through Peter.

I disagree

Who is it that wants to sew discord and division? Satan. He’s asked to sift the apostles in particular like wheat. And He was allowed to do that. He entered Judas at the last supper, and he got the apostles into an argument over who was the greatest among THEM. [Lk 22:24-31]

Jesus validated that one of the apostles would be the greatest among them, ending their argument and answering everyone’s question. The greatest among them is

• Peter, the one who Jesus prays for specifically, and gives the responsibility to, for strengthening his brothers when Satan sifts. Jesus said it is Peter. [Lk 22:31]
• Peter, the one who Jesus renames Rock on which He will build his Church [Mt 16:18]
• Peter the one who Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to, the one Jesus gives the power to bind and no one can loose and loose what no one can bind. [Mt 16:19] & [Is 22:22]
• Peter, the one Jesus commanded to feed and rule Our Lord’s sheep/Church [Jn 21:17…]
• and yes, when Satan sifts, and he will sift everyone like wheat, Jesus said it’s Peter who will strengthen his brothers through the sifting, because Jesus is praying specifically for Peter to accomplish what he’s being required to do by Jesus…[Lk 22:24-31]

When Jesus prayes this prayer

Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

*That’s zero tolerance for any disunity either singly or corporately… Being united to Peter also gurantees one is following Jesus instructions above AND His prayer, thus one is obeying the will of God. *

The problem is, Satan is sifting like crazy, and there are plenty of willing participants who go along with it.

 

[DadDave]

He entered Judas at the last supper, and he got the apostles into an argument over who was the greatest among THEM. [Lk 22:24-31]

Jesus validated that one of the apostles would be the greatest among them, ending their argument and answering everyone’s question. The greatest among them is

Peter, the one who Jesus prays for specifically, and gives the responsibility to, for strengthening his brothers when Satan sifts. Jesus said it is Peter. [Lk 22:31]

But also, Jesus is saying that Simon will fall – he will be sifted as well, but Jesus prayed that Simon might turn back and help the others. And then goes on to predict the betrayal before the cock crows 3 times.

Peter, the one who Jesus renames Rock on which He will build his Church [Mt 16:18]
Peter the one who Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to, the one Jesus gives the power to bind and no one can loose and loose what no one can bind. [Mt 16:19] & [Is 22:22]

And then in Mt 18:18 he gives the power to bind and loose to ALL the disciples.

Peter, the one Jesus commanded to feed and rule Our Lord's sheep/Church [Jn 21:17…]

That’s a stretch to say that he only gave that to Peter… rather he’s using it as an opportunity for Peter to reconcile. Interesting in that same passage that Jesus asks Peter is he has unconditional (agape) love for him, and Peter only responds with a friendship love each of the three times.

 

[steve_b]

But also, Jesus is saying that Simon will fall – he will be sifted as well, but Jesus prayed that Simon might turn back and help the others. And then goes on to predict the betrayal before the cock crows 3 times.

By telling everyone in advance what will happen, then no one is surprised when it all happens. And the fact EVERYONE is sifted, is why Jesus says to Peter, in front of the others, that He’s praying specifically for Peter so that he will be the one to strengthen all the others.

Jesus answers 2 questions for the apostles.

1. 
   *]He identifies Satan as the one responsible for sifting them, because he is allowed to do it. That’s why they are arguing among themselves, who is the greatest among THEM
   *]Peter is the one who will strengthen the apostles through the sifting of Satan, because Jesus is praying specifically for Peter.
   
   Considering all the passages I provided, describing Peter, as the leader and choice of the Father, If the apostles were still foggy on who Jesus has selected to be their leader, iow, the greatest among THEM, this point Jesus makes at the last supper ends their argument…
   D:
   

   And then in Mt 18:18 he gives the power to bind and loose to ALL the disciples.

   Jesus doesn’t mention the keys there. Jesus only gives the keys to Peter[Mt 16:19] Which means Peter is the one who can open and no one can shut, and he can shut what no one can open. [Is 22:22]
   
   It also means, Peter can open what they shut and shut what they open, or he can make what they shut or open, solid.
   D:
   

   That’s a stretch to say that he only gave that to Peter…

   Jesus is sitting with all the apostles. And again, just as He has done many times already in the scriptures, He singles Peter out again from the others and speaks directly to Peter.
   D:
   

   rather he’s using it as an opportunity for Peter to reconcile.

   It’s not an either/or. It’s both, and the focus is Jesus and Peter, again, 1 on 1
   D:
   

   Interesting in that same passage that Jesus asks Peter is he has unconditional (agape) love for him, and Peter only responds with a friendship love each of the three times.

   Does it change even 1 iota, anything Jesus gives to Peter? No. Peter is the leader, not by vote, not by straw poll, not by usurping the position, but by God willing it so.

 

[dcointin]

By telling everyone in advance what will happen, then no one is surprised when it all happens. And the fact EVERYONE is sifted, is why Jesus says to Peter, in front of the others, that He’s praying specifically for Peter so that he will be the one to strengthen all the others.

Jesus answers 2 questions for the apostles.

1. 
   *]He identifies Satan as the one responsible for sifting them, because he is allowed to do it. That’s why they are arguing among themselves, who is the greatest among THEM
   *]Peter is the one who will strengthen the apostles through the sifting of Satan, because Jesus is praying specifically for Peter.
   
   Considering all the passages I provided, describing Peter, as the leader and choice of the Father, If the apostles were still foggy on who Jesus has selected to be their leader, iow, the greatest among THEM, this point Jesus makes at the last supper ends their argument…
   
   Jesus doesn’t mention the keys there. Jesus only gives the keys to Peter[Mt 16:19] Which means Peter is the one who can open and no one can shut, and he can shut what no one can open. [Is 22:22]
   
   It also means, Peter can open what they shut and shut what they open, or he can make what they shut or open, solid.
   
   Jesus is sitting with all the apostles. And again, just as He has done many times already in the scriptures, He singles Peter out again from the others and speaks directly to Peter.
   
   It’s not an either/or. It’s both, and the focus is Jesus and Peter, again, 1 on 1
   
   Does it change even 1 iota, anything Jesus gives to Peter? No. Peter is the leader, not by vote, not by straw poll, not by usurping the position, but by God willing it so.

1. 
   Could you provide Patristic commentary that supports this interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19? Specifically I mean that St. Peter alone is given the keys, and therefore exercise an authority that the other apostles do not.

 

[Trebor135]

Could you provide Patristic commentary that supports this interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19? Specifically I mean that St. Peter alone is given the keys, and therefore exercise an authority that the other apostles do not.

I second your question.

 

[DadDave]

Why is Peter the only person called “Satan” by Jesus?

Why is James – who wasn’t one of the twelve – making decisions at the Jerusalem council?

 

[steve_b]

Could you provide Patristic commentary that supports this interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19? Specifically I mean that St. Peter alone is given the keys, and therefore exercise an authority that the other apostles do not.

ST. OPTATUS OF MILEVIS (A.D. 370)

“For the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardone only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” (De Schismate Donatistorum,7:3).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):
Writing to Pope Leo III …
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

St Gregory I
To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven…{Epistles, 5, 37; to Emperor Maurice}

Augustine cont. Re: Peter’s primacy
“Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19)… Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles.”
(Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)

Pope Leo I
“Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.”{Epistle XLIII, emphasis added}

“To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him . . . Yet he was not the universal Apostle. But . . . John would be called universal Bishop . . . [Popes had never assumed this title, though it had been given them], lest all the Bishops be deprived of their due meed of honor whilst some special honor be conceded to one.”{Epistles, 5, 37; to Emperor Maurice, emphasis added}

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Chrysostom
(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)

Writing to Pope Leo III …
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

(cont) Writing to Emperor Michael, …

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

 

[steve_b]

Could you provide Patristic commentary that supports this interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19? Specifically I mean that St. Peter alone is given the keys, and therefore exercise an authority that the other apostles do not.

(continued)

For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).

Eulogius of Alexandria (581 A.D.):
Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ but only to Peter. (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

St. Epiphanius, Archbishop of Salamis (385):
Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same (Peter) furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter) heard from the same God, ‘feed my lambs’; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master. (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Philip at Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431):
“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…”[4]
(NPNF, XIV:223)

 

[steve_b]

Why is Peter the only person called “Satan” by Jesus?

As Jesus said to Peter, (upper room, last supper) Satan has asked to sift you(plural in the greek) like wheat, but I have prayed for you Peter(singuilarly) that you will strengthen your brothers through the sifting … Lk 22:24…] Obviously Peter isn’t Satan.

And sinse Satan is invisible, Jesus is the only one who can see him. And Satan as Jesus said, was already sifting Peter immediately after Jesus changes Simon’s name to Rock, & gives him the keys to heaven. Satan is right there sifting Peter, and only Jesus can see him. So when Jesus said what He said to Satan, why not say Jesus is directly addressing Satan who is already sifting Peter?
D:

Why is James – who wasn’t one of the twelve – making decisions at the Jerusalem council?

Peter made the decision at that council, and James implemented what Peter said

 

[ConstantineTG]

Specific case?

Pius IX and Patriarch Gregory of the Melkites

 

[steve_b]

Pius IX and Patriarch Gregory of the Melkites

I couldn’t find that story about Pius IX. So I checked the forums to see if this subject came up in discussion. Here’s one such discussion, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=233034

It seems possible according to the responders, that the incident might not have happened. What I really wanted to see is the evidence properly referenced. None was given. Just thinking out loud, something like this, should be easy to validate if it happened.

 

[dcointin]

Thank you for the quotations! I’ll need to research these and read them in context. I decided to start with the one by St. Theodore the Studite, but I haven’t been able to find it online. Do you have any idea where I might be able to find this?

 

[DadDave]

Some of the same Fathers that say the keys aren’t exclusive to Peter…

John Chrysostom

"For (John) 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"[Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.2]

Augustine

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”’’On Christian Doctrine’’ Book I. Chapter 18.17 ‘’The Keys Given to the Church’’.]

"...Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."’’On the Gospel of John’’. Tractate CXXIV.7]

"...the keys that were given to the Church,"’’A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists.’’ Chapter 10.45]

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."’’Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily X.10]

**
Tertullian**

"What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and) your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet."’’On Modesty’’. Book VII. Chapter XXI]

Hilary of Poitiers

“This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature‘’On the Trinity’’. Book VI.37]

Pope Leo I
"…though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock."“On the Gospel of John” On John xx. 10, 11. (Homily LXXXVI)]

 

[steve_b]

Thank you for the quotations! I’ll need to research these and read them in context.

always the best idea.
d:

I decided to start with the one by St. Theodore the Studite, but I haven’t been able to find it online. Do you have any idea where I might be able to find this?

I found some references to his works on Catholic and/or Orthodox sites. He’s writing during the iconoclastic era, so he’s in that era of the late vs “EC” writers

 

[ConstantineTG]

I couldn’t find that story about Pius IX. So I checked the forums to see if this subject came up in discussion. Here’s one such discussion, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=233034

It seems possible according to the responders, that the incident might not have happened. What I really wanted to see is the evidence properly referenced. None was given. Just thinking out loud, something like this, should be easy to validate if it happened.

You need not go further than Wikipedia. Look up the Melkite Catholic Church entry.

 

[DadDave]

Are there documents that show the Pope approving/denying//choosing the bishops and patriarchs in the East? There should be many documents over a 1000 year period during the first millenium?