Who started the East-West Schism in 1054 AD?

[JMJ_coder]

I have always ponder about the East-West Schism for a while and since it was the Papal Legate who issued the bull of Excommunication against the Church of Constantinople, it would seem that Roman Legates were responsible for the Schism since it was the Papal Legate who issued the excommunication.

Who is really to blame, but based on my research the repeated answer is that the Church in Rome was responsible for the most part. Though the Pope had little to do with it rather than his legates were the ones who started the division.

In your own words, do you think both Churches were responsible? Was the Eastern Orthodox who started the split, or was it Catholic Church?

How come of the Five Patriarchiate Churches, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Constantinople, only One Church split (Rome) but the rest of the other 4 remain in full communion?

There is plenty of blame to go around, and the root causes (beyond human sinfulness) go back hundreds of years before 1054 A.D.

More can be said later.

How come of the Five Patriarchiate Churches, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Constantinople, only One Church split (Rome) but the rest of the other 4 remain in full communion?

After the Council of Chalcedon (5th century), the Patriarchate of Alexandria and half of Antioch was no longer in full communion with the Church. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was virtually non-existent in 1054 due to Muslim conquest and barbarism.

When the division came in 1054, the imperial might of Constantinople kept Alexandria’s Byzantine/Greek population (the Copts were already out of communion, see above) loyal to the Emperor and the same with Antioch Melkites (though they did want to remain loyal to Rome – I’ll provide citations later). The Maronites in Antioch remained loyal to Rome and the non-Chalcedonians in Antioch as in Alexandria didn’t have to choose sides.

Keep in mind also that while Constantinople had a greater number of bishops and faithful, they just had a majority (~55%) and one that wouldn’t last long (due in large part to continued Muslim aggression).

 

[ricko]

Here is a link to a Catholic Answers article about the split:

catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

There is plenty of blame to go around, and the root causes (beyond human sinfulness) go back hundreds of years before 1054 A.D.

More can be said later.

After the Council of Chalcedon (5th century), the Patriarchate of Alexandria and half of Antioch was no longer in full communion with the Church. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was virtually non-existent in 1054 due to Muslim conquest and barbarism.

Explain yourself what you mean that the Patriachates of Jerusalem was virtually non-existent in 1054?

That is not what history say. "After the Arab conquest in the 7th century, Muslims recognized Jerusalem as the seat of Christianity and the Patriarch as its leader. When the Great Schism took place in 1054 the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the other three Eastern Patriarchs formed the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Patriarch of Rome (ie the Pope) formed the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Patriarch lived in Constantinople until 1187. In 1099 the Crusaders appointed a Latin Patriarch.

 

[Louie1983]

What i don’t understand is how can cerularius excommunicate the pope when it’s the pope who was the recognised leader of the church? It’s clear both in scripture and tradition that there was to be one leader which are the successors of peter.

 

[ferdie]

What i don’t understand is how can cerularius excommunicate the pope when it’s the pope who was the recognised leader of the church? It’s clear both in scripture and tradition that there was to be one leader which are the successors of peter.

And the Keys of the Kingdom was entrusted to Peter alone, and naturally to his successors.

 

[Louie1983]

And the Keys of the Kingdom was entrusted to Peter alone, and naturally to his successors.

Yes this is true, this is where i get confused about the orthodox stand.

 

[Hesychios]

What i don’t understand is how can cerularius excommunicate the pope when it’s the pope who was the recognised leader of the church? It’s clear both in scripture and tradition that there was to be one leader which are the successors of peter.

If you read the account I gave above, the ‘east’ only excommunicated two Cardinals and their entourage or associates. This in response to the action of Cardinals Frederic and Humbert. There was no intention of excommunicating the whole Latin church.

No Pope was involved either way. Could they have excommunicated a Pope? Yes. But that was not what happened at this point in time.

The question then is “after one was elected, what did the Pope do ?”

The answer is: nothing, he simply let things stand the way Cardinal Humbert and Cardinal Frederic left them. The Pope after that was Cardinal Frederic himself and he did nothing.

As far as I know, no Pope was formally excommunicated by the east (except for Frederic, who rose to the See five years after he was excommunicated by the Patriarch). They simply behaved as if they were no longer in communion with the east, and forty one years later launched the Crusades.

The Latin church itself was not formally excommunicated, although it is possible that it happened after some of the atrocities during the crusades. Most scholars feel that the schism was not widespread, and hardly understood by most eastern Christians until the crusades were underway.

I believe most crusaders came into the east thinking of the eastern Christians as heretics and schismatics and behaved rather rudely.

 

[josie_L]

Explain yourself what you mean that the Patriachates of Jerusalem was virtually non-existent in 1054?

That is not what history say. "After the Arab conquest in the 7th century, Muslims recognized Jerusalem as the seat of Christianity and the Patriarch as its leader. When the Great Schism took place in 1054 the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the other three Eastern Patriarchs formed the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Patriarch of Rome (ie the Pope) formed the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Patriarch lived in Constantinople until 1187. In 1099 the Crusaders appointed a Latin Patriarch.

I think he meant they were under muslim rule so experiencing quite a few constraints (Christians and Jews alike were considered dhimmis). And whether or not Muslims recognized Jerusalem as the seat of Christianity doesn’t signify as I don’t think they were well-versed in Christian scriptures and/or traditions to validate such claims. I think if you read Ricko’s article above your post you will find the answers you need.

 

[josie_L]

Explain yourself what you mean that the Patriachates of Jerusalem was virtually non-existent in 1054?

That is not what history say. "After the Arab conquest in the 7th century, Muslims recognized Jerusalem as the seat of Christianity and the Patriarch as its leader. When the Great Schism took place in 1054 the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the other three Eastern Patriarchs formed the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Patriarch of Rome (ie the Pope) formed the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Patriarch lived in Constantinople until 1187. In 1099 the Crusaders appointed a Latin Patriarch.

Here’s part of the article (posted by ricko):

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated. The validity of the bull is questioned because Pope Leo IX was already dead at that time. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates and abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church.”

“There was no single event that marked the schism, but rather a sliding into and out of schism during a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. The East’s final break with Rome did not come until the 1450s.”

“Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. . . . The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware” (Ware, 67)."

“This changed when the Byzantine Empire collapsed suddenly in 1453. A soldier forgot to lock one of the gates of the fortified city of Constantinople, and the Turks sacked the city. With the Turks in control of the capital city, the rest of the empire crumbled quickly. Under pressure from Muslims, most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day. The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.”

catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

 

[Louie1983]

If you read the account I gave above, the ‘east’ only excommunicated two Cardinals and their entourage or associates. This in response to the action of Cardinals Frederic and Humbert. There was no intention of excommunicating the whole Latin church.

No Pope was involved either way. Could they have excommunicated a Pope? Yes. But that was not what happened at this point in time.

The question then is “after one was elected, what did the Pope do ?”

The answer is: nothing, he simply let things stand the way Cardinal Humbert and Cardinal Frederic left them. The Pope after that was Cardinal Frederic himself and he did nothing.

As far as I know, no Pope was formally excommunicated by the east (except for Frederic, who rose to the See five years after he was excommunicated by the Patriarch). They simply behaved as if they were no longer in communion with the east, and forty one years later launched the Crusades.

The Latin church itself was not formally excommunicated, although it is possible that it happened after some of the atrocities during the crusades. Most scholars feel that the schism was not widespread, and hardly understood by most eastern Christians until the crusades were underway.

I believe most crusaders came into the east thinking of the eastern Christians as heretics and schismatics and behaved rather rudely.

Hey Hesychios,

What i meant was who gave the “east” the idea that they held the same authority and primacy as the pope? it was clear from the early church fathers and scripture that there was only 1 leader of the church which was founded on st peter and his succesors there after (we have discussed this previously).

I’m not denying that things could have been handled better from both sides, but there seems to be an idea that the patriarchs of the east held the same authority as the pope? this seems to be assumed for some reason when there is no traditional and scriptural proof to support this.

God bless,

 

[hawkeye]

satan

 

[Hesychios]

Hey Hesychios,

What i meant was who gave the “east” the idea that they held the same authority and primacy as the pope? it was clear from the early church fathers and scripture that there was only 1 leader of the church which was founded on st peter and his succesors there after (we have discussed this previously).

I’m not denying that things could have been handled better from both sides, but there seems to be an idea that the patriarchs of the east held the same authority as the pope? this seems to be assumed for some reason when there is no traditional and scriptural proof to support this.

God bless,

Tradition.

Now you are beginning to understand how the church really works, and how it will be if we are ever in communion again. That is exactly how it was, that is the Tradition. You will recall that even in scripture, Peter did not act very “Pope-like” in the modern sense.

Recognize also, that by this time (1054AD) of schism the Popes of Rome were not being commemorated in the Eastern Catholic cathedrals. Perhaps a little background is necessary:

In the church as it was in the first millenium (and how it is today in the Orthodox church) each Patriarch would commemorate his fellow Patriarchs in the liturgy:

• Thus the Pope at Rome would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Pope at Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Pope at Alexandria would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Patriarch of Antioch would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope at Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
• The Patriarch of Jerusalem would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope at Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch.

By 1005AD (or thereabouts) the Pope of Rome had been stricken from the dyptichs. This was because it had agreed to use the filioque in the liturgy at Rome.

So Rome was already on probation, as far as the eastern churches were concerned.

The church at Rome likes to refer to itself as The Apostolic See. But in fact, it was the only Apostolic See in the west! In the east, there was not just one Apostolic See, but dozens of them.

In the early church the See at Rome controlled only central Italy, no further. That was to change later in the west but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the east, which continued to follow the pattern established by the canons. The Eastern Catholic churches did not see anything different about Rome from the first century to the tenth, while the churches in the west kept evolving their own understanding of what the bishop of Rome was, and what they hoped it could become.

So your question to me sounds like you are asking “how dare they?” But that question would never have occurred to a bishop of the Eastern Catholic churches in the first one thousand years. All the Patriarchs are equal in authority. Each one is fully sovereign in his own church. There is one church in the east that has never had a churchman designated ‘Patriarch’ but has been totally sovereign and independent (Cyprus), this was confirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. No Patriarch can claim to rule over the church in Cyprus, that includes the bishop of Rome.

What I am suggesting to you is that your understanding of what a Pope of Rome is, is not traditional. When the Papacy changed, it became necessary to look for a rationale in scripture to support it. Some people think that if one quote-mines scripture, one can find support for almost any cause.

In my earlier post I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) on the “Donatio”. Within that gloss there was a link to the Pseudo-Isadorean Decretals. These documents had a lot to do with the development of western attitudes to the Papacy, which modern Roman Catholics have inherited.

 

[Hesychios]

satan

I think that it was unwise for you to say such a thing. Might I remind you of another thread that asks “Are catholics their own worst enemy?”

You might wish to reflect upon that.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Looks to me, from that source, as though the Roman legates asked something… excessive; however, the “ecumenical patriarch” bit sounds only slightly less egotistical.

The underlying question here seems to be whether the seat of Peter moved to Constantinople when the seat of government did.

…

You’re wrong about the underlying question.

Many people are not aware that the title “ecumenical” originally meant “concerning the Oikoumene”–in other words, “imperial”.

The Imperial Librarian was the custodian of the Emperor’s books.

An Ecumenical Council was called to summon bishops from all places of the Empire, as opposed to a regional or local council–and was usually convoked by the Emperor.

The Imperial Barber was the Emperor’s stylist.

The Imperial Physician was the equivalent of the US Surgeon General.

And the Ecumenical Patriarch was simply the bishop of the Imperial City.

There was great disagreement between Pope St. Gregory I and Patriarch St. John the Faster (both monks, btw, who could have known each other) when St. John was the first to be given (not assume) the title “Ecumenical Patriarch”–which got mistranslated into Latin as “universal Bishop”. St. Gregory’s letter on the subject seems to reject what became known as “ordinary and immediate personal jurisdiction of the Pope.”

Look up the story.

 

[josie_L]

I think that it was unwise for you to say such a thing. Might I remind you of another thread that asks “Are catholics their own worst enemy?”

You might wish to reflect upon that.

Actually I think he has a valid point.

 

[ferdie]

Who or what else could be behind this division?

 

[josie_L]

Tradition.

Now you are beginning to understand how the church really works, and how it will be if we are ever in communion again. That is exactly how it was, that is the Tradition. You will recall that even in scripture, Peter did not act very “Pope-like” in the modern sense.

Recognize also, that by this time (1054AD) of schism the Popes of Rome were not being commemorated in the Eastern Catholic cathedrals. Perhaps a little background is necessary:

In the church as it was in the first millenium (and how it is today in the Orthodox church) each Patriarch would commemorate his fellow Patriarchs in the liturgy:

• Thus the Pope at Rome would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Pope at Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Pope at Alexandria would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem (in that order).
• The Patriarch of Antioch would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope at Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
• The Patriarch of Jerusalem would commemorate the Pope at Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope at Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch.

By 1005AD (or thereabouts) the Pope of Rome had been stricken from the dyptichs. This was because it had agreed to use the filioque in the liturgy at Rome.

So Rome was already on probation, as far as the eastern churches were concerned.

The church at Rome likes to refer to itself as The Apostolic See. But in fact, it was the only Apostolic See in the west! In the east, there was not just one Apostolic See, but dozens of them.

In the early church the See at Rome controlled only central Italy, no further. That was to change later in the west but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the east, which continued to follow the pattern established by the canons. The Eastern Catholic churches did not see anything different about Rome from the first century to the tenth, while the churches in the west kept evolving their own understanding of what the bishop of Rome was, and what they hoped it could become.

So your question to me sounds like you are asking “how dare they?” But that question would never have occurred to a bishop of the Eastern Catholic churches in the first one thousand years. All the Patriarchs are equal in authority. Each one is fully sovereign in his own church. There is one church in the east that has never had a churchman designated ‘Patriarch’ but has been totally sovereign and independent (Cyprus), this was confirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. No Patriarch can claim to rule over the church in Cyprus, that includes the bishop of Rome.

What I am suggesting to you is that your understanding of what a Pope of Rome is, is not traditional. When the Papacy changed, it became necessary to look for a rationale in scripture to support it. Some people think that if one quote-mines scripture, one can find support for almost any cause.

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

to be continued. . . .*

 

[josie_L]

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“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 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

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]).

Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

to be continued. . . .

 

[Hesychios]

satan

I think you are frustrated

I am not expecting to change your mind. But the questions are asked and I answer them from the Orthodox perspective. You don’t have to like it.

Name calling does not help one bit.

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. **

Rome need not ask for more.**
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology
(San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 198-199.

 

[josie_L]

Council of Ephesus

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘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 the 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 today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Pope Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).*