Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Changes

Orthodox rebuttal of Catholic arguments: copy editing
 
Athanasius is used as a witness for papal primacy on numerous Catholic apologist sites.
{{quote|"Rome is called the Apostolic throne."<ref>[http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm/ Quote list]</ref><ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/primacy.htm/ Papal Primacy - Patristic Thoughts]</ref>}}
 
{{quote|Rome is called the Apostolic throne.<ref>[http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm/ Quote list]</ref><ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/primacy.htm/ Papal Primacy - Patristic Thoughts]</ref>}}
 
Whelton however says that Athanasius does not use the [[definite article]] (''the'') in the text.<ref>Whelton, M., (2006) ''Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), pp63-4.</ref>
{{quote|"Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne…"<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xx.ii.v.html/ ''History of the Arians'' Part V. Persecution and Lapse of Liberius.35]</ref>}}
 
{{quote|Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne ...<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xx.ii.v.html/ ''History of the Arians'' Part V. Persecution and Lapse of Liberius.35]</ref>}}
Rome is ''an'' Apostolic throne, not ''the'' Apostolic throne. Augustine too is misquoted on the same point of grammar&nbsp;...
 
[[===Pope Leo XIII]]===
{{quotesee also|"And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church (Ep. xliii., n. 7)"<ref>''Satis cognitum'' - Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On the Unity of the Church}}
{{quote|And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church" (Ep. xliii., n. 7)<ref>''Satis cognitum'' - Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On the Unity of the Church
Abridged from sections 10 through 15.</ref>}}
 
'''===Augustine'''===
{{quote|"…because...because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished."<ref>Letter XLIII. To Glorius, Eleusius, the Two Felixes, Grammaticus, and All Others to Whom This May Be Acceptable, My Lords Most Beloved and Worthy of Praise, Augustin Sends Greeting</ref>}}
 
Whelton goes on to say that for [[Augustine]] there is not one Apostolic See, but many&nbsp;...:
{{quote|"You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion&nbsp;..."<ref>Letter CCXXXII To the People of Madaura, My Lords Worthy of Praise, and Brethren Most Beloved, Augustin Sends Greeting, in Reply to the Letter Received by the Hands of Brother Florentinus.</ref>}}
 
===Ignatius of Antioch===
 
For [[Ignatius of Antioch|Ignatius]] each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."<ref>Empie, P. C., & Murphy, T. A., (1974) ''Papal Primacy and the Universal Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V'' (Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis, MN) p47.</ref> This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.<ref>Srawley, J. H., (1910) ''The epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch'', Volume 1, (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; London), p34</ref> C. Carlton sums up Ignatius's view of the bishop's role in the Church this way:
{{quote|"Just as the Father is the principal of unity within the Holy Trinity, so the bishop is the center of the visible unity of the Church on earth."<ref>Carlton, C., (1997) ''The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity,'' (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p169.</ref>}}
 
Ignatius sets out what he believes consists of the church in an epistle to the [[Tralles (Thracian tribe)|Trallians]];
{{quote|Just as the Father is the principal of unity within the Holy Trinity, so the bishop is the center of the visible unity of the Church on earth.<ref>Carlton, C., (1997) ''The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity,'' (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p169.</ref>}}
{{quote|"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."<ref>''Epistle to the Trallians''. Chapter III.—Honour the deacons, etc.</ref>}}
 
There is no reference to another tier above bishop. For Ignatius, the bishop is supreme, not the bishop because he is in communion with the bishop in Rome.<ref>"It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself." Ignatius ''Epistle to the Ephesians'' - Chapter VI - Have respect to the bishop as to Christ Himself.</ref><ref>"He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." Ignatius ''Epistle to the Smyrneans'' - Chapter IX.—Honour the bishop.</ref><ref>"As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop" Ignatius ''Epistle to the Magnesians'' - Chapter VII —Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters.</ref><ref>"For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp." Ignatius''Epistle to the Ephesians'' – Chapter IV – the same continued.</ref><ref>"And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God?" Ignatius ''Epistle to the Trallians''. Chapter VII.— The same continued.</ref>
Ignatius sets out what he believes consists of the church in an epistle to the [[Tralles (Thracian tribe)|Trallians]]:
 
{{quote|In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.<ref>''Epistle to the Trallians''. Chapter III.—Honour the deacons, etc.</ref>}}
 
There is no reference to another tier above bishop. For Ignatius, the bishop is supreme, not the bishop because he is in communion with the bishop in Rome.<ref>"It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself." Ignatius, ''Epistle to the Ephesians'' - Chapter VI - Have respect to the bishop as to Christ Himself.</ref><ref>"He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil." Ignatius ''Epistle to the Smyrneans'' - Chapter IX.—Honour the bishop.</ref><ref>"As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop" Ignatius ''Epistle to the Magnesians'' - Chapter VII —Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters.</ref><ref>"For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp." Ignatius''Epistle to the Ephesians'' – Chapter IV – the same continued.</ref><ref>"And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God?" Ignatius ''Epistle to the Trallians''. Chapter VII.— The same continued.</ref>
 
Thus when he writes to [[Polycarp]] the bishop of [[Smyrna]] he states that God is Polycarp’s bishop, implying that there is no intermediary between the local bishop and God.<ref>''Epistle to Polycarp''.
 
===Letter to the Romans===
Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans is used by Catholic apologists to suggest Roman primacy.<ref>Ray, S. K., (1999) ''Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church'', (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), p72</ref> In particular his opening remarks:
{{quote|Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.<ref>[http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/ignatius/epistle-romans.asp Epistle to the Romans]</ref>}}
 
J.H. Srawley concedes that the Roman church ''presides'' but argues that it is unclear as to what area the act of ''presiding'' ("presides in the place of the region of the Romans" and "presides over love") refers to. He argues that the act of ''presiding'' may be simply of those churches in the ''region of the Romans,'', that is, those in Italy.<ref>Srawley, J. H., (1919), ''The Epistles of St Ignatius'' (The Macmillan Company; NY), p70</ref>
 
===Tome of Leo===
Often cited as a proof of Papal Supremacy<ref>Ray, S. K., (1999) Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early church, (Ignatius Press; San Francisco) p 235</ref><ref>[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii/ The Authority of the Pope: Part II] at Catholic Answers</ref><ref>[http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/orthodox.htm/ IS THE ORTHODOX CHURCH APOSTOLIC ?] Catholic Apologetics</ref><ref>[http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a30.htm/ Popes, Councils, and Orthodoxy]</ref> is the [[Tome of Leo#The Tome|Tome of Leo]] which is a letter sent by [[Pope Leo I|Pope Leo]] to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451. It in part seems to suggest that Leo speaks with the authority of Peter. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that the approval of the Tome is simply to state a unity of faith, not only of the pope but other churchmen as well.
Before the Tome of Leo was presented to the Council, it was submitted to a committee headed by Patriarch St. Anatolius of Constantinople for study. The committee compared the Tome of Leo to the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius and declared the Tome orthodox. It was then presented to the council for approval.
{{quote|"After reading of the foregoing epistle (Pope Leo's), the most reverend bishops cried 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 thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html/ Extracts from the Acts. Session II. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)]</ref>}}
 
However it is not just Leo's teaching that is the teaching of the Apostle, but [[Cyril of alexandria|Cyril]]'s teaching as well. Both teach as Peter. The same language was used following the reading of Cyril's letter at the council.<ref>"And when these letters had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written. ''Extracts from the Acts''. Session II. (Continued). (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 343.)</ref> The language of the council is simply to reinforce that all believe.<ref>Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA). pp85ff</ref> At the Third Ecumenical Council [[Pope Celestine I|Pope Celestine]] and Cyril were compared to Paul!.<ref>"And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Cœlestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Cœlestine the guardian of the faith! To Cœlestine of one mind with the synod! To Cœlestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Cœlestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!"[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xiv.html/ Extracts from the Acts. Session II.(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 617.)]</ref>
 
===John Chrysostom===
Another apparent witness for supremacy claims is John Chrysostom. This evidence is supposed to be based on an incident when he faced exile and he appealed to the pope for help. When he was to be exiled he appealed to the pope for help, as well as two other western prelates; [[Venerius of Milan]] and [[Chromatius|Chromatius of Aquileia]]. He appealed to all three in the same terms rather than viewing the pope as leader.<ref>Stephens, W. R. W., (2005)''Saint Chrysostom: His Life and Times'',(Elibron Classics), pp349-50</ref>
 
In 2007 [[Pope Benedict XVI]] also spoke of this:
{{quote|"How well known and highly esteemed Chromatius was in the Church of his time we can deduce from an episode in the life of St John Chrysostom. When the Bishop of Constantinople was exiled from his See, he wrote three letters to those he considered the most important Bishops of the West seeking to obtain their support with the Emperors: he wrote one letter to the Bishop of Rome, the second to the Bishop of Milan and the third to the Bishop of Aquileia, precisely, Chromatius (Ep. CLV: PG LII, 702)."<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071205_en.html/ GENERAL AUDIENCE Paul VI Audience Hall - Wednesday, 5 December 2007]</ref>}}
 
Historian [[John Norman Davidson Kelly|J. N. D Kelly]] wrote:
{{quote|"While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost&nbsp;... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia&nbsp;... His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church&nbsp;... Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs."<ref>Kelly, J. N. D., (1995) ''Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom'', (Cornell University Press), p246.</ref>}}
 
The [[Innocent I|pope]] took up the cause of John Chrysostom, convoking a western synod to investigate the matter.<ref>[[Palladius of Galatia|Palladius]], (1985) ''Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom'' (Newman Press; NY) p.24</ref> They found in favor of John Chrysostom and sent delegates to Constantinople but these were ignored and sent back after only three months.<ref>''Ibid.'' pp29-30.</ref> The pope's findings in support of John Chrysostom were not viewed as serious enough to annul John Chrysostom's exile.
 
Other texts are used to allege he supported Roman primacy. John Chrysostom sometimes ascribes to Peter greatness.
{{quote|"For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren."<ref>''Homilies on the Gospel of John'', Homily 88.1-2</ref>}}
 
This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler over the'' "brethren''". He goes on to ascribe Peter as the ''"teacher of the world".''<ref>"And if any should say 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world&nbsp;... And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together." John Chrysostom ''Ibid.''</ref>
 
However, according to Abbé Guettée on other occasions John Chrysostom ascribes the same titles to others:<ref>Abbé Guettée (1866). ''The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches'', (Minos Publishing Co; NY), p156ff.</ref>&nbsp;...
{{quote|"The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere."<ref>Homily 24 ''On Genesis''</ref>}}
 
Denny also notes that John Chrysostom goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter.<ref>Denny, E., (1912) ''Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum'', (Rivingtons; London), pp84ff</ref><ref>"Where the [[Cherubim]] sing the glory, where the [[Seraphim]] are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love&nbsp;... I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it&nbsp;... Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!&nbsp;... what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38 )."- John Chrysostom ''Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans'', Homily 32, Ver. 24 quoted in Abbé Guettée (1866). ''The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches'', (Minos Publishing Co.; NY), p157.</ref> Further, the Catholic encyclopedia offers this frank admission of his writings:
{{quote|"...&nbsp;that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope."<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm/ St. John Chrysostom] at New Advent</ref>}}
 
===Basil the Great===
 
[[Basil the Great]] also supported Meletius against Rome's candidate.<ref>Whelton, M., (2006)''Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims'', (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), p120</ref> Writing to Count Terentius Basil said
{{quote|"But a further rumour has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by “us”"us" I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius. I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this&nbsp;... But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men."<ref>Letter CCXIV - To Count Terentius.</ref>}}
 
From his letters it appears that Basil did not hold the popes in high esteem. When Basil wrote to the west for help (in combating Arianism) he addressed his letters to the whole western church.<ref>Letter XC -To the holy brethren the bishops of the West</ref> He didn't especially write to Rome for help and did not even list it first.
{{quote|"To his brethren truly God-beloved and very dear, and fellow ministers of like mind, the bishops of Gaul and Italy, Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia".<ref>Letter CCXLIII - To the bishops of Italy and Gaul concerning the condition and confusion of the Churches.</ref>}}
 
Damasus was the leader of a group supporting the heretic Marcellus
{{quote|"If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>}}
 
Of the pope, St Basil wrote
{{quote|"...&nbsp;but what possible good could accrue to the cause by communication between a man proud and exalted, and therefore quite unable to hear those who preach the truth to him from a lower standpoint, and a man like my brother, to whom anything like mean servility is unknown?"<ref>Letter CCXV - To the Presbyter Dorotheus</ref>}}
 
===Coryphæus===
 
Coryphæus means the ''head of the choir''. Catholic apologists note that John Chrysostom uses the term to describe Peter.<ref>Ray, S. K., (1999) ''Upon this rock: St. Peter and the primacy of Rome in scripture and the early Church'', (Ignatius Press; San Francisco), pp219-220</ref> However he also uses this term in relation to others:
{{quote|"He took the coryphaei (''plural'') and led them up into a high mountain apart&nbsp;... Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer&nbsp;... 'We are able to drink the chalice.'"<ref>''Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew'', Homily 56.2</ref>}}
{{quote|"TheHe coryphaei, Petertook the foundationcoryphaei of(''plural'') theand Church,led Paulthem theup vesselinto ofa electionhigh mountain apart&nbsp;..."<ref>''Contra ludosWhy etdoes theatraHe 1'',take PGthese VI,three 265alone? Because they excelled the others. CitedPeter showed his excellence by Chapmanhis great love of Him, ''StudiesJohn onby being greatly loved, James by the Earlyanswer&nbsp;... Papacy"We are able to drink the chalice."<ref>''Homilies (London:on Sheedthe &Gospel Ward,of 1928Saint )Matthew'', p76Homily 56.2</ref>}}
 
{{quote|The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election.<ref>''Contra ludos et theatra 1'', PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, ''Studies on the Early Papacy'' (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928 ), p76</ref>}}
 
It is argued by Catholics that John Chrysostom only uses the singular Coryphæus in relation to Peter. This is true, but others don'tdo not restrict the use of the singular to Peter.
 
Basil also uses the term Coryphæus. He refers to Athanasius as "Coryphæus of all."<ref>Letter LXIX in Denny, E., (1912) ''Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum'', (Rivingtons; London), p335</ref>
 
He refers to Pope Damasus as Coryphæus, but as the leader of the westerners, not of the whole church.
{{quote|"Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphæus."<ref>Letter CCXXXIX - To Eusebius, bishop of Samosata</ref>}}
 
[[Hesychius of Jerusalem]] uses the term Coryphæus to refer to James.<ref>Denny, E., (1912)''Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum'', (Rivingtons; London), p85</ref>
===Maximus the Confessor===
 
Pope Leo III has already been shown to have misquoted Athanasius. Whelton states that (in his encyclical ''Satis cognitum'') he misquotes [[Maximus the Confessor]].<ref>Whelton, M., (2006) Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims, (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA)., p125</ref> In ''Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem '' Maximus (also rendered Maximos) is alleged to have said&nbsp;...:
{{quote|"Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man&nbsp;... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See."<ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae2.htm/ Satis cognitum]</ref>}}
 
Edward Denny giving his own translation and using that of Vincenzi<ref>Vincenzi, L, (1875) ''De Hebraeorum et Christianorum Sacra Monarchia''</ref> shows that the words of Maximus give Rome a power conferred upon it by Holy Synods. This is in contrast with Catholic teaching and also would suggest that if a Synod can confer power, it can also take it away. Denny states that Vincenzi is "...&nbsp;compelled by the facts to admit that these very authorities to which St Maximus refers, as they have been handed down to us, are witness against the Papal Monarchy."<ref>Denny, E., (1912)''Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims on the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis cognitum'', (Rivingtons; London), p327</ref>
 
===Formula of Pope Hormisdas===
[[Pope Hormisdas]] issued a formula of orthodox catholic faith which the [[Patriarch John II of Constantinople|Patriarch John II]] could sign if he wished reunion of the two churches.
 
{{quote|"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller""] of Antioch with all his followers together with the followers of all those mentioned above.
 
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. '''I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.''' But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome."<ref>Dom Chapman, J., (1923) ''Studies on the Early Papacy'', (Sheed & Ward; London.), pp213-214</ref>}}
Those in agreement with orthodox faith would naturally be in agreement with the church in Rome on this matter – which was stating orthodox faith. For Catholic apologists agreement to this text means an agreement to Rome, because Rome is the leader. For Orthodox agreement to Rome is because it stated the truth.
 
{{quote|"For the Greeks, the text of the ''[[libellus]]'' meant a factual recognition that the apostolic Roman church had been consistent in orthodoxy for the past seventy years and, therefore deserved to become a rallying point for the Chalcedonians (those who accepted the [[Council of Chalcedon]]) of the East."<ref>
Meyendorff, J., (1989) ''Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD450-680'' (St Valdimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY) p214.</ref>}}
 
Further evidence seems to point to this. Patriarch John expressed his opinion that Rome (Old Rome) and Constantinople (New Rome) were on the same level.<ref>Dvornik, F., (1966) ''Byzantium and the Roman Primacy'', ([[Fordham University Press]], NY), p.61.</ref> The Patriarch showed this when he added to the document…document:
{{quote|"I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one".<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>}}
 
Furthermore despite it being one of the demands in the formula the east continued to disregard papal demands by not condemning Acacius.<ref>
In doing so John was re-affirming Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon - a canon which the popes were not to affirm for many centuries to come.
 
The politics of this is demonstrated by the fact that the Emperor Justin ignored the pope's candidate for the vacated see of Alexandria and instead…instead "authorised the consecration of Timothy III, an intransigent Monophysite".<ref>Davis, L. D., (1990), ''The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology''(Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p 223</ref>
{{quote|"…authorised the consecration of Timothy III, an intransigent Monophysite."<ref>Davis, L. D., (1990), ''The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology''(Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p 223</ref>}}
 
[[Theodoric the Great|Theoderic]], king in Italy, and an [[Arianism|Arian]] grew suspicious of the new alliance between Rome and Constantinople. [[Pope John I|John]] who succeeded as pope was sent to Constantinople to restore Arian churches there. Thus the ''orthodox'' Catholic pope was sent to urge the restoration of churches to heretics. This the pope did with limited success.<ref>''Ibid.'', p 224</ref><ref>Meyendorff, J., (1989) ''Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD450-680'' (St Valdimir's Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY) p220.</ref> Having failed, upon his return the pope was arrested and died in prison.
 
This then is not the capitulation of the eastern churches to Roman authority. It is not even the capitulation of the church in Constantinople – as other eastern churches ignored the formula completely. The popes didn'tdid not have authority over the church and in fact were forced to go and plead the case of heretics before the imperial throne.
 
==Opposition arguments from early church history==