[kosta50]

Petrodisus, the problem with extensive (but selective) quotes is akin to that of believing statistics. One can make them look any way he or she wants.

Without tying up too much bandwidth, the Council of Chalcedon, from which you quote too, was not all that you present it to be in your selective presentation.

One can just as easily make it appear quite opposite. Thus, a commentary on the outcome of the Council states:

"How it is possible after reading the foregoing proceedings to imagine for an instant that the bishops of this Council considered the rights they were discussing to be of Divine origin, and that the occupant of the See of Rome was, jure divine, supreme over all pontiffs I cannot understand. It is quite possible, of course, to affirm, as some have done, that the acts, as we have them, have been mutilated, but the contention involves not only many difficulties but also no few absurdities; and yet I cannot but think that even this extreme hypothesis is to be preferred to any attempt to reconcile the acts as we now have them with the acceptance on the part of the members of the council of the doctrine of a jure divine Papal Supremacy as it is now held by the Latin Church." [from The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, pp. 244-295)

There are countless instances in the Council that point to a conclusion completely opposite from the one you are trying to portray, which ony tells me that you either didn't read the whole Council or selected only those articles which suited your view or both. Thus, for example, the Bishops proclaim:

"The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all and the chief honor according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy, and to have the power to ordain the metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses." [emphases added]

Consider the very ending of the Council of Chalcedon, when:

"Lucentius [Papal legate], the bishop, said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence [In Latin: The Apostolic See ought not to be humiliated in our presence] and therefore whatever yesterday was done to the prejudice of the canons during our absence, we beseech your highness [the Emperor] to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and pray let us know clearly [in Latin: that we may know] what we are to report to that most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole church, so that he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See and to the setting at naught of the canons.

The most glorious judges said: The whole synod has approved what we proposed.

Thus ended the Council of Chalcedon: in humiliation for the "ruler of the whole Church."

So, while the "ruler" of the whole Church flatly rejected Canon XXVIII, and refused to sign it, his bark had no bute: the proclamations of the Ecumenical Council took effect inspiute of hbis opposition to it.

He wrote to the Emperor, saying that the Bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius, received his position by his (+Leo's) consent, and that "he should behave himself modestly." +Leo also stated that in no way can Constantinople be "an Apostolic See," but conceded that "only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith" he has "abstained from annulling this ordination."

To the Empress he threatened to "annul" the decisions "by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter," but his annulment had no sway as he admitted in another letter to her less than a year later when he coneded that even the Illyrian Bishops (under his jurisdiction) accepted the Canon he supposedly annulled "by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter."

[NB: the primacy and second in honor of the Bishop of Constantinople was firmy established by the Council of Trullo and subsequent Councils]

All this points to a radically different picture portrayed by your documents. It shows that while the Latin Church held that the Pope was the "ruler of the whole Church," the whole Church did not share in that opinion.

Given the virtual linguistic apartheid that existed after the 5th century between the two Church cultures, the Latin Church simply continued to live in its self-proclaimed truths, ignoring the fact hat the rest of the Church (the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) did not subscribe to that formula.

If anything, the IV Ecumenical Council shows that the Pope was anything but the ruler of the whole Church (individual Bishop's pronouncements notwithstanding), as the Church of his day saw his primacy of honor, which is in stark contrast to the idea of papacy, as it developed later without opposition, an illusion that persists to this day. Memory fades very quickly, and quoting individual bishops (especially papal legates) as authoritative representatives of the whole Undivided Church is a distortion, for the lack of a better word.

[Petrosius]

There are countless instances in the Council that point to a conclusion completely opposite from the one you are trying to portray, which ony tells me that you either didn't read the whole Council or selected only those articles which suited your view or both. Thus, for example, the Bishops proclaim:

"The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all and the chief honor according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy, and to have the power to ordain the metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses." [emphases added]

You should really look again at the passage you quoted above. Close inspection would reveal that it describes Rome as possessing "the primacy of all", while that of Constantinople is limited to Asia, Pontus and Thrace. In other words, Rome possesses a universal jurisdiction while Constantinople exercise a subordinate jurisdiction over the named provinces. That this is indeed the common understanding in the East of the hierarchical organization of the Church we find Emperor Justinian writing in 536:

Wherefore following in all things the Apostolic See, we set forth what has been ordained by it. And we profess that these things shall be kept without fail, and will order that all Bishops shall do according to the tenor of that formulary: the Patriarchs to Your Holiness, and the Metropolitans to the Patriarchs, and the rest ot their own Metropolitans: that in all things our Holy Catholic Church may have its proper solidity.

Thus ended the Council of Chalcedon: in humiliation for the "ruler of the whole Church."

The respect shown the Apostolic See was hardly "humiliation." This can be seen in that the Council forwarded the canons to the pope to be ratified. That Canon XXVIII was approved despite the objections of the Papal Legates is just an example of subordinates trying to force the had of their superior, whose authority they otherwise respect. This is neither the first nor the last time this has happened in history. If you have followed the conflicts in the Catholic Church since Vatican II you would unfortunately find numerous example of this kind. You can see this in the lasted moves by the French bishops to stop the motu proprio by Pope Benedict to all the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass. They may try to force the hand of the Pope but nevertheless do recognize him as the successor of Peter.

Given the virtual linguistic apartheid that existed after the 5th century between the two Church cultures, the Latin Church simply continued to live in its self-proclaimed truths, ignoring the fact hat the rest of the Church (the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) did not subscribe to that formula.

This just will not wash. The bishops were highly educated and a knowledge of both Latin and Greek would have been general throughout the empire. Furthermore, the quotations I gave earlier concerning the authority of the pope were recorded in the Acts of the Councils in both Greek and Latin. Furthermore I will cite the following examples of the acceptance by those in the East of the authority of the popes:

In the year 500, the bishops of the East wishing to end the schism of Acacius addressed Pope Symmachus with the following words:

But do thou, as an affectionate father among children, beholding us perishing by the prevarication of our Father Acacius, not delay; who art daily taught by the sacred Doctor Peter to feed the sheep of Christ entrusted to thee throughout the whole habitable world, gathered together, not by force, but of their own accord.

In 514 Pope Hormisdas was addressed by about two hundred Archimandrites, Priests and Deacons of Syria:

To the most holy and blesssed Patriarch of the whole earth, Hormisdas, holding the See of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the entreaty and supplication of the humble Archimandrites and other Monks of the province of Second Syria.

Since Christ our God has appointed you Chief Pastor, and Teacher, and Physician of souls, we beseech you, therefore, most blessed Father, to arise, and justly condole with the Body torn to pieces, for ye are the Head of all, and avenge the Faith despised, the Canons trodden under foot, the Father blasphemed. The Flock itself comes forward to recognize its own Shepherd in you its true Pastor and Doctor, to whom the care of the sheep is entrusted for their salvation.

From the Metropolitan of Cyprus in 643:

To the most blessed Father of Fathers, Archbishop and Universal Patriarch, [Pope] Theodore, Sergius, the humble Bishop, health in the Lord.

Christ our God hath established thy Apostolic See, O Sacred Head, as a divinely-fixed immovable foundation, whereupon the faith is brightly inscribed. For "Thou art Peter," as the Divine Word truly pronounced, and on thy foundation the pillars of the Church are fixed. Into thy hands He put the keys of the heavens, and pronounced that thou shouldest bind and loose in earth and heaven with power.

The petition of Stephen, Bishop of Dora, first member of the Synod of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, read in the Lateran Council of Pope Martin in 649:

Who shall give us the wings of a dove, that we may fly and report hist to your supreme See, which rules and is set over all, that the wound may be entirely healed! For this the great Peter, the Head of the Apostles, has been wont to do with power from of old, by his Apostolical or Canonical authority; since manifestly not only he alone beside all thought worthy to be entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to open and to shut these, worthily of believing, but justly to those unbelieving the Gospel of grace. Not to say that he first was set in charge to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for He says, "Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep." And again, in a manner special and peculiar to himself, having a stronger faith that all in our Lord, and unchangeable, to convert and confirm his spiritual partners and brethren, when tossed by doubt, having had power and sacerdotal authority providently committed to him by the very God for our sakes Incarnate. Which, knowing Sophronius, of blessed memory, Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God,—placed me on Holy Calvary,—and there bound me with indissoluble bonds, saying "Thou shalt give account to our God Who on this sacred spot was willingly sacrificed in the flesh for us, at His glorious and dreadful appearing, when He shall judge the living and the dead, if thou delay and neglect His Faith endangered: though I, as thou knowest, cannot do this personally, for the inroad of the Saracens, which has burst on us for our sins. Go then with all speed from one end of the earth to the other, till thou come to the Apostolic See, where the foundations of the true faith are laid.

In 650, St. Maximus, Abbot of Constantinople writes:

Let him hasten before all to satisfy the Roman See. That done, all will every where, with one accord, hold him pious and orthodox. For he merely talks idly when he thinks of persuading and imposing on such like as me, and does not satisfy and implore the most blessed Pope of the most holy Roman Church, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the very Incarnate Word of God, but also from all holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and rules has received and holds in all persons, and for all things, empire, authority, and power to bind and to loose, over the universal holy Churches of God, which are in all the world. For when this binds and looses, so also does the Word in heaven, who rules the celestial virtues.

Nor can these statements be dismissed as the opinions of isolated individuals. In the year 500, the bishops of the East wishing to end the schism of Acacius addressed Pope Symmachus with the following words:

But do thou, as an affectionate father among children, beholding us perishing by the prevarication of our Father Acacius, not delay; who art daily taught by the sacred Doctor Peter to feed the sheep of Christ entrusted to thee throughout the whole habitable world, gathered together, not by force, but of their own accord.

In order to end the schism, the bishops of the East signed the famous libellus of Pope Hormidas which stated:

Our fist safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." These words which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. ... Moreover, we accept and approve all the letters of blessed Leo the Pope, which he wrote regarding the Christian religion, just as we said before, following the Apostolic See in all things, and extolling all its ordinances. And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and true and perfect solidality of the Christian religion, promising than in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.

This same profession was later signed by Patriarchs of Constantinople Epiphanius, John, Menna and by all the bishops at the Fourth Council of Constantinople.

If anything, the IV Ecumenical Council shows that the Pope was anything but the ruler of the whole Church (individual Bishop's pronouncements notwithstanding), as the Church of his day saw his primacy of honor, which is in stark contrast to the idea of papacy, as it developed later without opposition, an illusion that persists to this day. Memory fades very quickly, and quoting individual bishops (especially papal legates) as authoritative representatives of the whole Undivided Church is a distortion, for the lack of a better word.

I have shown through contemporary documents that:
1) the concept of the papal authority developed early in the Church;
2) this concept was communicated to the Eastern church and was known by them;
3) statements of authority of the pope were include in the official Acts of Ecumenical Councils;
4) on numerous occasions this authority was acknowledged by bishops in the East, including Patriarchs of Constantinople, and
5) on two occasions all the bishops of the East signed a statement confirming the authority of the pope.

On numerous occasions you have stated that the early Church only recognized the pope as holding a primacy of honor. What statements from the period can you produce to support this position that explicitly reject the claims of the Apostolic See? So please do not speak to me about a "distortion"!