PAPAL PRIMACY AND AUTHORITY
The Roman Catholic Position (Universal Immediate Jurisdiction) vs. A Common Eastern Schismatic Position ("Appellate Jurisdiction" Position)

An Analysis of the Weight of Evidence Regarding the Universal and Immediate Authority of the Roman See (Rome v. Eastern Schismatics)

The Eastern Schismatic "Roman appellate jurisdiction" position appears to be the most generous position among the schismatics in their granting of inherent authority to Rome, where they accord the most inherent authority and jurisdiction to Rome of any of their other alternative positions regarding Rome's primacy. It also is seen by some as the most difficult Eastern Schismatic position to defeat with arguments, since you cannot use early testimonies that support Rome's appellate jurisdiction (of which there are many) to defeat this view, since these Eastern Schismatics already concede Rome's appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, it is the "appellate jurisdiction" position that is of most concern to Rome in attempting to establish that its side has the greater weight of testimony and physical data.

The Eastern Schismatics have multiple alternative positions concerning Roman primacy, where some schismatics will assert only a primacy of honor to Rome, where other schismatics demand the absolute equality of all bishops whatsoever in inherent authority and honor no matter what, and finally where others will grant to Rome even an inherent universal appellate jurisdiction that exceeds a primacy of honor. The primacy of honor position, and the absolute equality of all bishops position are extremely easy to defeat. While more difficult to defeat, the appellate jurisdiction position among the Eastern Schismatics can still be readily defeated as is shown below.

While the proofs for Rome in defense of its immediate and universal jurisdiction position will be more limited than proofs Rome could use if it also attempted to prove its appellate jurisdiction which these Eastern Schismatics already concede, we can still grant the Eastern Schismatics all the proofs they would have had under the "full equality of bishops only" position and "primacy of honor only" position. This is because any testimony specifically asserting a full equality of all bishops, or asserting only a narrow primacy of honor, also serve to implicitly refute Rome's immediate and universal jurisdiction position, just as do texts explicitly rejecting Rome's universal and immediate jurisdiction. Therefore, all such proofs from the Eastern Schismatics that could be found to assert any of their three positions are naturally included below. Despite this opportunity granted to the Eastern Schismatics for additional testimonies, the number of total testimonies extant for the Eastern Schismatics is still very small compared to the pro- Roman testimonies.

To refute the Eastern Schismatics that afford Rome not only equality or primacy of honor, but even primacy of universal appellate jurisdiction, the testimonies and physical evidence to determine who has most proof must be confined only to statements that could be interpreted either for or against Rome's immediate universal jurisdiction, since that is the sole point of contention that remains with them on the papal primacy issue.

This chart represents a list of each piece of testimony or piece of physical evidence that could be interpreted to either support the Roman Catholic position (of universal immediate papal jurisdiction), or the Eastern Schismatic position (where a testimony asserts no universal immediate papal jurisdiction). Not surprisingly, the chart indicates that the testimonies and physical data in favor of the Catholic position exceed that of the Eastern Schismatic position.

A testimony in support of a particular party to the dispute that could be expected to have some bias is given a normal weight of 1. An example of this kind of weight would be a Pope testifying to his own universal immediate jurisdiction, or an Eastern Patriarch testifying to a Pope's lack thereof.

A testimony in support of a side that is not expected to have bias is given a weight of 1.5. An example of this kind of testimony would be an Eastern Father speaking of the universal immediate authority of the Roman Pontiff; or alternatively, a testimony of a Roman Pontiff stating that Eastern Patriarchs have an equal authority to him. Such unbiased testimony is especially powerful since the statement lacks the kind of self interest there would be in a Pope asserting his own authority; or an Eastern Father denigrating the Pope's authority.

If there is some other reason to give extra or less weight to a testimony or piece of physical data other than the general criterion described above, it is indicated and described with the particular citation.

Any known statement that could be interpreted to support immediate universal jurisdiction (Roman Catholic position), or could be interpreted to reject immediate universal jurisdiction (Eastern Schismatic position) is provided below in the appropriate column, even if one side may wish to impeach the testimony by providing an alternate interpretation. The analysis below is not concerned with an impeachment (an alternate opposing interpretation), but only any testimony that could possibly be interpreted to support a particular side. While impeaching a testimony by an alternative interpretation could be used to give it less weight, since both sides practically always try to impeach every testimony of the other side, it seems redundant and useless to include impeachment in the analysis. Eastern Schismatics always try to impeach or lessen the force of quotations Roman Catholics use that could support their position, and Roman Catholics always try to impeach or lessen the force of quotations that Eastern Schismatics use that could support their view. Therefore, impeachment is not included in the analysis below. Instead, the criterion is that if a quote COULD be interpreted to add weight to the position of a side, then it is included despite contrary interpretations of the quotation that attempt to negate or nullify that weight.

It is important to remember, that just because there is a citation that could be interpreted (yet not exclusively interpreted) in favor of appellate jurisdiction or mere primacy of honor (this would be citations that could also be alternatively interpreted in favor of universal and immediate jurisdiction), but the citation does not actually speak against universal and immediate jurisdiction, such a citation does not support the Eastern Schismatic position against universal and immediate jurisdiction, since Rome already agrees it has appellate jurisdiction and primacy of honor as well as universal immediate jurisdiction. There is therefore no need to prove that Rome has appellate jurisdiction or primacy of honor one way or the other, which both sides accept. There is only a need to show that Rome either does or does not have universal immediate jurisdiction. Therefore, only citations that specifically could be interpreted to disclaim the power of Rome's universal immediate jurisdiction are cited below in support of the Eastern Schismatic view. Merely asserting that Rome has appellate jurisdiction or primacy of honor (or interpreting a quotation that way) does not disclaim that it also has universal immediate jurisdiction, and thus is not included in the citations that support the Eastern Schismatic view.

If you believe you have an early testimony (prior to 1000 A.D.) or piece of physical evidence for one side or the other, that has not been included below, you may write to apostolicsee@romancatholicism.org to have it reviewed and included in this project. If you disagree with the weight given to a particular testimony or piece of physical evidence, feel free to write and express your view on why an alternate weight should be given and you will receive a response. In all instances, I have striven to be as generous as reasonably possible to the Eastern Schismatics in giving their side the full weight that is warranted. As an example of this attempted generosity, even if a council took place in the East that has an apparent testimony against papal authority, I still give such a council in the East a weight of 1.2 instead of 1 if it had at least some Western bishops in attendance (such as Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon).

Finally, it is important to consider who started the schism of 1054, without any consideration of early testimonies on universal immediate papal jurisdiction. Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, excommunicated Leo III and struck them from the diptychs. In response, Leo III only excommunicated Cerularius himself. Thereafter, the entire East also began the formal schism by continually striking the Popes from the diptychs. Therefore, the East both started and continued the schism without magisterial warrant (i.e. without requesting an ecumenical council or appealling to the Pope's appellate jurisdiction). Instead, they based their horrid act of schism on the testimony of only a few earlier Fathers that they used, despite being contradicted by testimonies from other earlier Fathers that could support the Western view on the issues. This alone shows the Eastern Schism, in its formal acts, was unfounded ecclesiastically and caused the Holy Spirit to depart from the East.

This project is a private compilation and analysis, and is deliberately excluded as a teaching of the ordinary magisterium of Boniface X. This project has not been completed. More testimonies of immediate universal papal jurisdiction have been uncovered which will be incorporated below in a future edition.

Roman Catholic Evidence

4,038.8 TOTAL EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT
Eastern Schismatic Evidence

1,663.4 TOTAL EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT
Scripture

Peter alone is called Rock and individually given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven with power to bind and loose WHATSOEVER (whatsoever could ordinarily include matters of immediate jurisdiction as there is no limiting language) individually in Matthew 16. As taught in the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Pharisees in the time of Christ believed "bind and loose" was the power to forbid and permit both doctrine and persons from the Church. Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The expression "asar" (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for "magic spell"). The corresponding Aramean "shera" and Hebrew "hittir" (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible. The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b). (WEIGHT 1.5)

In the Old Testament, Eliakim is given the keys to the House of David (the Hebrew uses key while Aramaic manuscript uses the plural keys). These keys are clearly keys of jurisdiction over the entire house, and use the same "whatever" language that could be interpreted to exceed appellate jurisdiction authority. (WEIGHT 1.5)

Tradition

Pope Saint Clement to the Catholics at Corinth, an Eastern Region in Greece "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, [Eastern Catholics at Corinth] beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58-59, 63 [A.D. 80]). This is broad language, and the letter does not claim to be in response to any appellate procedure. (WEIGHT 1)

Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch, writes with great deference to Rome in his epistles, and speaks of Rome's "presidency" and "instructions". The Roman epistle is markedly different from Ignatius's other epistles, which instruct rather than request instruction. "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). "You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). (WEIGHT 1.5) There is no mention anywhere in Ignatius of first following any formal appellate procedure to receive Rome's instructions.

Ireneaus of Lyons- The Church of Rome is the principalitatem pontentiorem (principal authority) with whom all Churches must agree. This testimony uses broad language that does not limit only to appellate acts. (WEIGHT 1.2- this is a statement from a Western Father, not the Pontiff so it will not be given a weight of 1. However, it is also not given a full weight of 1.5 like an Eastern Father would be given, since the Father is located in the West and may have a slight bias towards papal primacy.)

Pope Victor- attempted to enforce a bond of excommunication against the churches of Asia, which shows a belief in his legal jurisdiction over all. He attempted to exercise his power to excommunicate without first receiving a formal appeal. "Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love" (Church History 5:23:1-24:11). (WEIGHT 1)

Dionysius of Corinth- claimed to profit by a letter of Pope Soter, in the same way that Corinth had previously profited by Clement's letter which had commanded obedience from Corinth. This speaks to a pastoral headship, guidance, and care that is immediate and extends beyond appellate jurisdiction. "Today we have observed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:11). (WEIGHT 1.5)

Pope Stephen appealed to Matthean texts regarding Peter and successors as rock on which Church was built, to enforce his policy on baptism. He never received any formal appeal from Cyprian when he made this decision. (WEIGHT 1)

"Cyprian accorded such authority to Rome, that being in communion with Rome was the same as being in communion with the Church itself. The implication is that if Rome decided to cut communion, you were completely outside the Church. Communion with the Pope to Cyprian was considered the same as communion with the Catholic Church itself. "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 also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair." (WEIGHT 1.2)

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]). (WEIGHT 1.2)

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (Letters 55[52]:1). (WEIGHT 1.2)

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source." (Letters 59:14). (WEIGHT 1.2)

Origen asserts a general power to bind and loose "whatsoever", and puts in no apparent limitations. "[I]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 [the other apostles] 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]). (WEIGHT 1.5)

Lerins corroborates that not only was Stephen correct in policy against Cyprian, when Cyprian fought him on the question of baptism, but also asserted Stephen was correct in procedure over his interlocutors (WEIGHT 1.2)

"We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ's sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord's sheep hear and follow you." (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]). (WEIGHT 1.2) This speaks to a general power of immediate jurisdiction to guard and watch over the Sheepfold, so that the sheep hear and follow. This involves more than merely waiting for an appeal, and letting the other bishops and patriarchs handle things otherwise.

Cyril of Jerusalem calls Peter "prince" and one who holds the keys. Princes do far more than merely hear appeals. ""[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]" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14). (WEIGHT 1.5)

"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]" (Catechetical Lectures 17:27). (WEIGHT 1.5)

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]). Jerome was in communion with other bishops, thus the phrase "in communion with none but your blessedness" must speak to more than mere communion, but could be an indirect way of speaking to the direct authority of Damasus I as well. (WEIGHT 1.2)

Innocent I 416- "They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . ." (ibid., 29:1). Nothing was finished or completed until heard by Rome (not just appeals), and the other churches are like waters proceeding from the source of Rome, and thus fully dependent on Rome for their legitimacy. (WEIGHT 1)

Pope Celestine I "We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]" (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]). Here we see that the legates directly intervened in the affairs of the council, and did not wait for an appeal, but they judged immediately and universally in universal council according to Pope Celestine I, even before any appeal. (WEIGHT 1)

"All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], 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). Pope Leo I. We see here that Pope Leo states that nothing should be at odds with the head. This refers to more than mere appellate power over a few cases. (WEIGHT 1)

Peter Chrysologus declares the See of Ravenna in Italy cannot even try cases without the permission of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, the Roman Pontiff has not only power to hear appeals, but to determine whether another See can even hear and try initial cases. "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]). This goes beyond the authority of the canons regarding metropolitans having to be elected by their own populace, and governing their populace independently. (WEIGHT 1.2)

Third Session of Council of Chalcedon, official sentence of excommunication against Theoscorus of Alexandria, states that Pope Leo through the Council, with the thrice blessed Peter Apostle, who is the Rock, has stripped Theoscorus of his episcopate. This is not an appellate authority but an assertion of direct universal papal authority through an initial conciliar act. (520 bishops x 1.5= WEIGHT 780)

In the Second Session of Chalcedon it is stated "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." (520 bishops x 1.5= WEIGHT 780) The apparent implication is if Leo believes something, all else are bound to believe it.

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus [Patriarch of Alexandria] is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, session 1 [A.D. 451]). We see here an assertion by the Pope of a direct and immediate universal jurisdiction to even decide whether someone from Alexandria can sit in the far away council of Chalcedon, without any appeal. (WEIGHT 1)

"Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place." (Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, session 1 [A.D. 451]). (WEIGHT 1) Here is an assertion that one cannot even hold any synod in the Church without the authority (and thus at least implicit consent) of the Apostolic See of Rome.

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], 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!'" (Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, session 2). The Council appears to assert that Rome has a special charism and those who deny it are anathema, since the infallible Apostle Peter himself speaks through Rome. (520 bishops x 1.5= WEIGHT 780).

"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, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that you give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination." Philip the Presbyter, legate of Pope Celestine, at the Council of Ephesus (WEIGHT 1)

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour 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. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc." Philip the Presbyter, legate of Pope Celestine, at the Council of Ephesus (WEIGHT 1)

Though there are many pastors in universal church says Leo in letter 14, all should converge in Peter's one seat and none should be separated from its head. Leo the Great speaks in broad terms of the leadership role, which seems to press it even beyond the subject of appeals. Appeals are discussed in context, but nonetheless there is still language that speaks broadly and without direct reference in every case to an appeal. Saint Leo the Great "for the cementing of our unity demands harmony among the priests, although they have a common dignity… inasmuch even among the apostles, notwithstanding their honorable state, there is a certain distinction of power, there was given to one to take the lead of the rest, and from which there has risen a distinction among bishops also, and by important ordinance that has provided that one should not claim everything for themselves, but there should be in each province one whose opinion should have priority among the brethren. And again, that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal church should converge toward Peter's one seat." (WEIGHT 1)

"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]). Pope Damasus I speaks of the Roman Church being "at the forefront". He does not limit his phrase with "of honor" or "in appeals", which one would expect if the role was limited only to being forefront in honor or appellate jurisdiction. There is no qualification at all in his statement, and it could be interpreted to include even the forefront of any possible kind of jurisdiction. (WEIGHT 1)

"‘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]). Here Jerome speaks of Peter as the head, without qualification, not limiting it to honor or appeals. Therefore, this can be interpreted to mean that Peter and his successors are the head in every kind of jurisdiction, including immediate. (WEIGHT 1.2)

"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. . . . And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).- Pope Gregory the Great. Gregory the Great describes the Pope as sitting in the chair of the Prince of the Apostles, implying he has the same prerogatives. A prince usually does far more than hear appeals. (WEIGHT 1).

In the sixth century a 30 year schism between Rome and Eastern Churches was healed by subscription to formula by Pope Hormisdas in 519, where it was clearly enunciated that the divine promise of Our Lord to protect his Church was through the instrumentality of preserving Peter's faith, and the teaching ministry of the Apostolic See of Rome, which is the Rock and Solidity of the whole Christian religion. It is attested that 2500 bishops of both east and west signed this formula and returned to full communion with the Church. Signed by the Eastern bishops in 519. This language requires full agreement with the Apostolic See and the language is not limited to appeals only, therefore this may be cited in support of Rome against even the most generous Eastern Schismatic position. To be further generous to the Eastern Schismatic position, let us assume without evidence that only 500 eastern bishops signed the formula as promulgated instead of 2500. "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." (500 x 1.5= WEIGHT 750).

Justinian writes separately and approvingly of the formula of Hormisdas. ""You should know, most religious father, the end which for a long time was being sought by the highest efforts; you should know clearly - even before those who have been sent to you should have arrived - that the most blessed John, bishop of our New Rome, along with his clergy agrees with you, varying by no ambiguities, divided by no discords; you should know that that by him has been subscribed a certificate, which you had decided must be submitted, conforming with the council of the holiest fathers." (Letter of Justin I to Pope Hormisdas, from Roman State & Christian Church: a Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535, vol. 3, edited by P. R. Coleman - Norton, p. 974) (WEIGHT 1.5)

Pope Agatho's letter in 581 (sixth ecumenical) was approved by the Greeks as the voice of Peter. In that letter Agatho stated that "the Roman Church had never turned away from the path of truth, in any direction of error, whose authority is that of the Prince of the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the ecumenical synods have faithfully embraced and followed in all things" He goes on to say that the teaching of Rome "remains undefiled unto the end, according to the Divine Promise of the Lord and Savior himself" He then cites Christ's promise to Peter. (151 bishops x 1.5= WEIGHT 226.5)

Council of Lateran 649, immediately directs eastern bishop Stephen of Dore, disciple of Sophronius of Jersusalem without appeal, to squelch Monothelite heresy of the east, and must resort to the See that "rules over all others", the See of Peter "it has been a custom to perform this from the first and from of old, on the basis of its apostolic and canonical authority, for the reason evidently that the true great Peter, head of the Apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted alone out of all, with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but also because he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole Catholic Church" As the text runs, "Peter do you love me? Shepherd my sheep, and because he possessed more than all others in an exceptional and unique way firm and unshakeable faith in Our Lord, he was deemed worthy to strengthen his comrades when they were wavering, since he had been adorned by the God who became incarnate for our sakes with power and priestly authority over them all." Maximus the Confessor was present and subscribed to all the utterances in this council of Lateran 649. (105 Bishops x weight 1.5 (some eastern bishops attended)= WEIGHT 157.5)

Maximus too in a separate statement unambiguously held that the Roman See held "supreme dominion, authority, and power over all of God's churches throughout the whole world to bind and loose" Abscula 12, translation from Metropolitan Valerian in his book "Orthodox Christianity". (WEIGHT 1.5)

Martyr Pope Saint Martin, delegated his immediate Petrine authority to John, Bishop of Philadelphia. The Pope states that "John must correct the things which are wanting, and appoint bishops, presbyters, and deacons in every city which are subject to the See both of Jerusalem and of Antioch, we charge thee to do this in every way in virtue of the apostolic authority which was given us by the Lord in the person of most holy Peter, prince of the Apostles, on account of the necessities of our time and the pressure of the nations" Manse 10 806, translation from Thomas Wolly Nalles See of Peter page 120. (WEIGHT 1)

In the 700's, Pope Hadrian I sent dogmatic letter to be read aloud at the Council of Nicea II in which he states "But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm citing (Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVI., col. 1217.). This was also read allowed in both Greek and Latin and inscribed into the official acts of Nicea II session II. This was also read aloud in both Greek and Latin and approved by Eastern bishops. There is no limitation to only appellate authority, but simply without qualification states just as Peter was chief of the Apostles the successors also have the chief ship. This statement could be interpreted as a broad authority greater than mere appellate jurisdiction.

"Peter and Peter, the God-loved presbyters and legates of the Apostolic See, said: Let the holy Synod say whether it receives the letters of the most holy Pope of Old Rome.The holy Synod said: We follow, we receive, we admit them." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm citing (L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 117 et. seq) It describes the authority of the successors in terms of Peter's Apostolate. Peter could be interpreted to have direct authority and immediate authority over faithful such as Aninias and Saphira, just as the other apostles did. Peter is also specifically described as having authority over the other apostles, being their chief or prince, not merely an appellate court. Historically, a chief or prince usually has more authority than merely being a court of appeal, such as having full immediate executive powers over his subjects. (350 bishops x weight 1.5 each= WEIGHT 525).

Theodore the Studdite, a Byzantine Father, expressed that Rome was an authority to which every innovation should be submitted and whose Divine authority as "chief pastor" should be obeyed (a pastor actively guides his entire flock, and does more than take appeals). "Since it is to the great Peter that Christ our God gave the Keys of the Kingdom and entrusted the dignity of the Chief of the flock, it is to Peter, that is to say, his successor, that one ought to submit every innovation which is made in the Catholic Church by those who turn aside from the truth. That is what we humble and lowly monks have learned from the ancient Fathers...I borrow now the cry of the Coryphaeus (Chief) of the Apostles, calling Christ to his succour when the waves of the sea were risen up, and say to your Blessedness who art the Representative of Christ, 'O First shepherd of the Church which is under heaven', save us now, we perish. Imitate the Christ your Master, stretch out your hand to your Church as He stretched out His hand to Peter. Peter began to sink in the waves, whilst our Church is still once more submerged in the depths of heresy. Emulate, we beg you, the great Pope whose name you bear [Pope Leo the Great], and just as he on the appearance of the Eutychian heresy, stood erect spiritually as a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare to say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunders against the present heresy. For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical Council [Council of Hieria with 338 Bishops in 753 A.D.], while those who following ancient custom, have not even the right of convoking an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare say it to you, that your Divine Primacy should call together a lawful Council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive away heresy and neither your Primacy may be anathematized with all the orthodox by these new voices without authority, nor that wills evilly disposed may find in this adulterous council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in order to obey your Divine Authority as Chief Pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the least members of the Church." (WEIGHT 1.5. )

"Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See." (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420) (WEIGHT 1.5)
Scripture

The other Apostles are given the power to bind and loose in Matthew 18. (Using the above principles, I generously give this passage a WEIGHT 1.5, however it is not clear if this power is to all the Apostles collectively or to teach one individually, and Christ does not declare he gives them each the keys like he declares to Peter. Therefore, this really should be given less weight to prove the Eastern position than the Matthew 16 passage is given to prove the Roman position).

Tradition

Saint Cyprian possibly argued at one point that the bishop of Rome had no authority to impose his rule on other bishops. However, his statement could also be interpreted contextually to refer only to his fellow local bishops near Carthage, rather than to all bishops. He says "nor my brothers does anyone set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical power does one compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop according to his liberty and power has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (WEIGHT 1.2) (this is cited as an example of a Western Father rejecting papal authority, not as weighty as a Pope himself rejecting his own authority, but still weightier than an Eastern Father rejecting his authority).

Eastern Bishop Polycrates resisted Pope Victor and did not believe he had the power to change worship times in the East. (WEIGHT 1)

Cyprian again- "Yet, that he might set forth unity, he arranged by his authority the origin of that unity as beginning from one. As surely the rest of the Apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power." (WEIGHT 1.2)

The bishops at Chalcedon rejected the command of the Pope through the legate Paschasinus that Dioscorous leave the assembly and be judged, rather than sit as a judge. (Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, session 1 [A.D. 451]). (520 bishops x 1.2= WEIGHT 624).

Equality of Constantinople had recognition of the Emperors in the Code of Justinian. "All innovation having been abolished, We command that ancient custom and the former ecclesiastical canons which have been in force up to this time shall be observed through all the provinces of Illyria; and if any doubt should arise with reference to them, it must be removed by the knowledge of the Holy Law possessed by that most reverend man, the Patriarch of the Church of the City of Constantinople (which enjoys the prerogatives of Ancient Rome), and the judgment of the ecclesiastical assembly of that City." To Philip, prefect of Illyria Given on the day before the Ides of July, during the Consulate of Eustachius and Agricola, 421. (weight 1 x number of eastern emperors after promulgation 5= WEIGHT 5). Since the law is promulgated by imperial edict, and forced on people, rather than subscribed to by their own signatures or verbal assent, we do not add the people who were required to submit to the law as a separate testimony. Further, the law is unclear whether it is granting Constantinople all the prerogatives of Rome or only the contextual prerogative of appeal immediately discussed beforehand, so it does not appear that there would be serious reason for anyone to have revolted or rejected this law.

Gregory the Great in Letter to Patriarch of Alexandria "Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to principality itself, the See of the Prince of the Apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is a See of one, though he himself exalt the See in which he deigned even to rest and to end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist, he himself established the See which even though he was to leave it he sat seven years. Since then, it is a See of one and one See over which a divine authority of three bishops now preside. Each is a Petrine See although Rome takes the first place of these as the beginning of unity, not as over thee, that is, the bishop of Rome neither ordains the bishops of the other Petrine Sees nor calls them into Council." (WEIGHT 1.5)

Gregory the Great opposes the title universal bishop …"if one bishop is called universal, the universal church comes to ruin, if the one who is universal falls… I am truly the honored with the honor due to all and each is not denied them, for if your holiness calls me universal pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. A claim to universal episcopal authority is to deny the other bishops what they have also. The universal claim of one immediately denies it to the others." (WEIGHT 1.5)

Saint Leo Great in his dispute about canon 28 "The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown, nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based in antiquity… the See of Alexandria may not lose any of the dignity which is merited from Saint Mark, the evangelist and apostle of the place of Peter, nor may the splendor of so great a church be obscured by another's clouds… The Church of Antioch too, in which first the place of the blessed apostle Peter the Christian name arose, must in question of name arose, must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and its place in the third place must never be lowered therefrom. For a See is on a different footing to the holders of it" (WEIGHT 1.5)

Patriarch John II added a gloss to the Formula of Hormisdas, proclaiming the two Sees are actually "one See" "I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one." (this statement from Patriarch John II is vague as to its meaning, but to be generous to the Eastern Schismatics we will give it a WEIGHT 1 anyway).

A letter from Justinian to Hormisdas in 520 cited in, for example, "Roman State & Christian Church" (Letter #560 p. 984) references some in the East rebelling against the formula of Hormisdas in at least some respects, and not removing some bishops from the diptychs. While it could be easy to interpret this as merely a pastoral issue involving only some lesser living bishops, we will grant the Eastern Schismatics this argument for the sake of generosity. Let us even assume that 80% of the bishops rebelled of the 500 bishops we claim originally supported Rome by signing the full formula (an extremely generous percentage), so the weight would be 400 bishops x 1= WEIGHT 400)

Canon 28 Council of Chalcedon states Constantinople is equal to Rome in authority. This, taken alone, would seem to derogate from any special prerogative given to Rome from Peter the Apostle. (520 bishops x 1.2= WEIGHT 624) Of course it was not approved by Rome when it was sent to Rome for confirmation, and the prerogative spoken about may be more limited than first appears from the text, but this study does not allow impeaching arguments to alter the weight of any particular testimony for reasons discussed in the introduction.