Chieti Document Against Eastern Orthodox or Reformed Protestant Anti-Papal Claims

“With thanks to God, we members of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation see the Chieti Statement as the fruit of perseverance in fidelity to our one Lord.  It is a fruit holding many seeds, potentially yielding a harvest for the countless members of our Churches who experience the division every day in their lives and pray for it to be healed. Hoping to increase that harvest, we respond to Chieti. Although this consultation does not speak officially for either of our Churches, we have been asked to represent them in this dialogue.   We submit this response to our leaders, faithful, and the members of the International Dialogue for their prayerful consideration as a means of hastening progress along the path to full communion.” (2)

We exhort you […] that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope (St. Leo the Great) of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of the faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from the consent of the bishop of Rome. (3)

Regarding the faith which they uphold, the Ancient Rome has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound teaching, and is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony. (4)

Ecclesial communion arises directly from the Incarnation of the eternal Word of God, according to the goodwill (eudokia) of the Father, through the Holy Spirit. Christ, having come on earth, founded the Church as his body (cf. I Cor 12:12-27). The unity that exists among the Persons of the Trinity is reflected in the communion (koinonia) of the members of the Church with one another. Thus, as St Maximus the Confessor affirmed, the Church is an ‘eikon’ of the Holy Trinity [(SOURCE: St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia (PG 91, 663D)]. At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ prayed to his Father: Protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one’ (Jn 17:1). This Trinitarian unity is manifested in the Holy Eucharist, wherein the Church prays to God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.”

For it is not right that one [Patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople] who has already been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic See of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honor, until he be received by her [Apostolic See of the city of Rome], having returned to her, nay, to our Lord, by a pious confession and orthodox faith The Apostolic Throne [See of Rome], which is from the incarnate Son of God himself and which, in accordance with the holy canons and the definitions of faith, received from all the holy councils universal and supreme dominion (imperium), authority (auctoritatem), and the power (potestas) over all of God’s churches throughout the world to bind and loose. (5)

From earliest times, the one Church existed as many local churches. The communion (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2Cor 13:13) was experienced both within each local church and in the relations between them as a unity in diversity. Under the guidance of the Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13), the Church developed patterns of order and various practices in accordance with its nature as a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. [SOURCE: St. Cyprian of Carthage, De Oral. Dom., 23 (PL 4. 536)]

There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on the Rock[super petram, i.e. on Peter] by the voice of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere, scatters.(6)

Synodality is a fundamental quality of the Church as a whole. As St John Chrysostom said: “”Church” means both gathering (systema) and synod (synodos) [SOURCE: St. John Chrysostom, Explicatio in Ps 149 (PG 55. 493)] The term comes from the word ‘council’ (synodos in Greek, Concilium in Latin), which primarily denotes a gathering of bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for common deliberation and action in caring for the Church. Broadly, it refers to the active participation of all the faithful in the life and mission of the Church.

[John] “is the pillar of the churches throughout the world, who hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven”(7)

“…that is on the faith of his confession. Thus he shows many will believe and raises his mind and makes him shepherd. Do you see how he himself leads Peter to high thoughts of him, and reveals himself and shows that he is the Son of God by these two promise? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immovable in such an onset of waves, and to declare a fisherman to be stronger than any rock while all the world wars against him, these things he himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremiah, that he would set him as a column of brass and as a wall — but him [Jeremiah] for one nation [Israel], this man [Peter] for all the world. I would ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son, which gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave to him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave to Peter to sow that of the Father and of himself throughout the world; and to a mortal man he entrusted such authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys, who extended the Church throughout the world and declares it to be stronger than heaven”(8)

“there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love[…] the city [of Rome] is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together” […] 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.(9)

That goodly pair, Peter and Paul, the rulers of the Church, being present, set matters right again; […] for it was Peter, he who bears with him the keys of heaven […] for it was Paul, he who was caught up into the third Heaven, and into paradise, and who heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.(10)

4. The term primacy refers to being the first (primus. protos). In the Church, primacy belongs to her Head – Jesus Christ, who is the beginning. the firstborn from the dead: that in all things he might have the pre-eminence (protevon) (Col. 1:18). Christian Tradition makes it clear that, within the synodal life of the Church at various levels, a bishop has been acknowledged as the ‘first Jesus Christ associates this being ‘first’ with service (diakonia): ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all’ (Mk 9:35).

5. In the second millennium, communion was broken between East and West. Many efforts have been made to restore communion between Catholics and Orthodox, but they have not succeeded. The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, in its ongoing work to overcome theological divergences, has been considering the relationship between synodality and primacy in the life of the Church. Different understandings of these realities played a significant role in the division between Orthodox and Catholics. It is, therefore, essential to seek to establish a common understanding of these interrelated, complementary and inseparable realities.

6. In order to achieve this common understanding of primacy and synodality, it is necessary to reflect upon history. God reveals himself in history. It is particularly important to undertake together a theological reading of the history of the Church’s liturgy, spirituality, institutions and canons, which always have a theological dimension.

7. The history of the Church in the first millennium is decisive. Despite certain temporary ruptures, Christians from East and West lived in communion during that time, and, within that context, the essential structures of the Church were constituted. The relationship between synodality and primacy took various forms, which can give vital guidance to Orthodox and Catholics in their efforts to restore full communion today.

“ […] is a former College Instructor in History and Government with over 20 years of teaching experience in public and private education. A nationally known writer and lecturer on Catechetics, Sex Education, and Liturgy, he is also the author of several books dealing with the ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox churches., including Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church, and Eastern Orthodoxy And The See Of Peter: A Journey Toward Full Communion.” (12)

[…] maintain Catholic orthodoxy amidst the developments of heresy and schism. In the Catholic Church Unity has been brought about and preserved by the subordination of a multiplicity of bishops to their common visible head. The true Church’s indivisible Unity reveals its concrete reality only where the Roman Primacy of headship and supreme teaching authority in the Church is seen to be an essential feature of the Church’s visible organization and hierarchical constitution. The visible marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity, therefore, cannot prescind from their linkage to the Roman Primacy as instituted by Christ. As T. Zapalena, S. observed in his “De Ecclesia Christi: Pars Apologetica” (Romae 1955): the “via notarum” “takes its nature and entire apologetical force from the promise, prediction and institution of Christ. But Christ instituted His Church upon Peter. Therefore, the primacy necessarily forms part of the Church’s true unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and indeed sanctity, at least the active, since the lawful administration of the means of salvation can only occur in dependence on Peter and his successor. (13)

The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of which Christ is the head is present in the eucharistic synaxis of a local church under its bishop. He is the one who presides (the ‘proestos’). In the liturgical synaxis, the bishop makes visible the presence of Jesus Christ. In the local church (i.e. a diocese), the many faithful and clergy under the one bishop are united with one another in Christ, and are in communion with him in every aspect of the life of the Church, most especially in the celebration of the Eucharist. As St Ignatius of Antioch taught: ‘where the bishop is, there let all the people be, just as, where Jesus Christ is, we have the catholic church [katholike ekklesia – St Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8]. Each local church celebrates in communion with all other local churches which confess the true faith and celebrate the same Eucharist. When a presbyter presides at the Eucharist, the local bishop is always commemorated as a sign of the unity of the local church. In the Eucharist, the proestos and the community are interdependent: the community cannot celebrate the Eucharist without a proestos, and the proestos, in turn, must celebrate with a community.

From Ignatius, whose other name is Theophorus,

To her who has found mercy in the greatness of the All-Highest Father, and Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church beloved and enlightened in her love to our God Jesus Christ by the will of Him who wills all things; to the church holding chief place in the territories of the district of Rome! – worthy of God, worthy of honour, blessing, praise, and success; worthy too in holiness, foremost in love, observing the law of Christ, and bearing the Father’s Name. (16)

9. This interrelatedness between the proestos or bishop and the community is a constitutive element of the life of the local church. Together with the clergy, who are associated with his ministry, the local bishop acts in the midst of the faithful, who are Christ’s flock, as guarantor and servant of unity. As successor of the Apostles, he exercises his mission as one of service and love, shepherding his community, and leading it, as its head, to ever-deeper unity with Christ in the truth, maintaining the apostolic faith through the preaching of the Gospel and the celebration of the sacraments.

10. Since the bishop is the head of his local church, he represents his church to other local churches and in the communion of all the churches. Likewise, he makes that communion present to his own church. This is a fundamental principle of synodality.

The Regional Communion of Churches

11. There is abundant evidence that bishops in the early Church were conscious of having a shared responsibility for the Church as a whole. As St Cyprian said: ‘There is but one episcopate but it is spread amongst the harmonious host of all the numerous bishops’. [St. Cyprian, Ep.55, 24, 2; cf. also, ‘episcopatus unus est cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur (De unitate, 5).] This bond of unity was expressed in the requirement that at least three bishops should take part in the ordination (cheirotonia) of a new one; [First Ecumenical Council (Nicaca, 325), canon 4 & postolic Canon, 1: ‘A bishop must be ordained by two or three bishops’] it was also evident in the multiple gatherings of bishops in councils or synods to discuss in common issues of doctrine (dogma, didaskalia) and practice, and in their frequent exchanges of letters and mutual visits.

“[Jeremiah 23:16-17] They are now offering peace who have not peace themselves. They are promising to bring back and recall the lapsed into the Church, who themselves have departed from the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on the Rock [Peter] by the voice of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere, scatters.” (18)

The following is the occasion of his writing the other letters. The Bishop Dionysius having heard of the affairs in Pentapolis and having written, in zeal for religion, as I said above, his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the brethren belonging to the Church, of right opinions, but without asking him, so as to learn from himself how he had written, went up to Rome; and they spoke against him in the presence of his namesake Dionysius the Bishop of Rome. And he, upon hearing it, wrote simultaneously against the partisans of Sabellius and against those who held the very opinions for uttering which Arius was cast out of the Church; calling it an equal and opposite impicty to hold with Sabellius, or with those who say that the Word of God is a thing made and formed and originated. And he wrote also to Dionysius to inform him of what they had said about him. And the latter straightway wrote back, and inscribed his books ‘a Refutation and a Defence. Here mark the detestable gang of the adversaries of Christ, and how they themselves have stirred up their disgrace against themselves. For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defense concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all. (19)

12. Already during the first four centuries, various groupings of dioceses within particular regions emerged. The protos, the first among the bishops of the region, was the bishop of the first see, the metropolis, and his office as metropolitan was always attached to his see. The ecumenical councils attributed certain prerogatives (presbeia, pronomia, dikaia) to the metropolitan, always within the framework of synodality. Thus, the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), while requiring of all the bishops of a province their personal participation in or written agreement to an episcopal election and consecration – a synodical act par excellence – attributed to the metropolitan the validation (kyros) of the election of a new bishop. (SOURCE: First Ecumenical Council (Nicaca, 325), canon 4; also canon 6)The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451) again evoked the rights (dikaia) of the metropolitan – insisting that this office is ecclesial, not political  (SOURCE: Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canon 12) – as did the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), also.(SOURCE: Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaca II, 787), canon 11)

13. Apostolic Canon 34 offers a canonical description of the correlation between the protos and the other bishops of each region: ‘The bishops of the people of a province or region [ethnos] must recognize the one who is first [protos] amongst them, and consider him to be their head [kephale], and not do anything important without his consent [gnome]; each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese [paroikia] and its dependent territories. But the first [protos] cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord [homonoia] will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit’. (SOURCE: Council of Antioch (327), canon 9)

“The two priests signed next, and then Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Some writers have en-devoured to evade the force of this fact, by suggesting that Hosius was made president, as the emperor’s favourite, and from general respect for his character. One can hardly suppose that the suggestion could be due to anything but the exigencies of a theory which is opposed to the idea that Rome presided.[…] It is admitted on all hands, that long before the Council of Nicea the See of Rome was considered to be the See of Peter, and we have already seen that there is irrefragable proof that Alexandria acted as at least in some sense subordinate to Rome. It is freely admitted on all sides that Rome had a primacy of honour by those who deny her primacy of jurisdiction. Yet, according to this strange theory, her primacy of honour did not involve even the presidency at the first Ecumenical Council. What did that primacy of honour involve? Further, the sees are, even on this theory, placed in their usual order after the president’s signature, viz. first the papal legates, then Alexandria, and then Antioch.” (20)

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

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 [of Rome], a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (21)

In all that concerns the Catholic religion and the faith of Christians, we have thought it right to approach in the first place Your Holiness who is overseer and guardian of the divine faith. (22)

[I am sure that the council] will define the Catholic belief by your authority [sou auqentounto] as Christian faith and piety require. (23)

They (the See of Rome) who receive the dignity of the empire, or the honour of the principal priesthood from our Lord Jesus Christ, ought to provide and to care for those things which please him, and rule and govern the people committed to their care according to his will and good pleasure. Therefore, O Most Holy Head [Caput], it is incumbent upon us and you, that irreprehensibly we know the things which be his, and that in these we exercise ourselves, since from him (Christ) we have received the imperial dignity, and you the dignity of the chief priesthood … As then you are the veritable chief priest (primus sacerdos) who presides in the place and in the see of the holy and superlaudable Apostle Peter, let your paternal blessedness come to us. (24)

Since Christ our God has granted to the great Peter, in addition to the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the dignity of being the first [Primate] among pastors, it is necessary to report to Peter or his successor [Pope] everything new that has been introduced in the catholic Church by those deviating from the truth. Thus, having learned to do this from our ancient holy fathers, we too, the most humble and lowly of all, in view of the innovation introduced to our Church, consider it our duty… to report this to the Angel of your supreme beatitude in our humble letter.(26)

14. The institution of the metropolitanate is one form of regional communion between local churches. Subsequently other forms developed, namely the patriarchates comprising several metropolitanates. Both a metropolitan and a patriarch were diocesan bishops with full episcopal power within their own dioceses. In matters related to their respective metropolitanates or patriarchates, however, they had to act in accord with their fellow bishops. This way of acting is at the root of synodical institutions in the strict sense of the term, such as a regional synod of bishops. These synods were convened and presided over by the metropolitan or the patriarch. He and all the bishops acted in mutual complementarity and were accountable to the synod.

The Church at the Universal Level

15. Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition.

16. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.

“But you say that the Church is founded upon Peter although the same thing is done in another place upon all the apostles, and all receive the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all, nevertheless among the twelve one is therefore chosen that by the appointment of a head an occasion of dissension may be taken away”(28)

“For in view of our office there is no freedom for us, on whom a zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent greater than on all others, to dissimulate or to be silent. We [Rome] bear the burdens of all who are oppressed, or rather the blessed apostle Peter, who in all things protects and preserves us, the heirs, as we trust, of his administration, bears them in us […] Enough error on this matter!  All priests who do not wish to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock, upon which Christ built the universal Church [the Roman Church] should now hold the aforementioned rule […] let them know that they have been expelled by the authority of the apostolic see [See of Rome] from every ecclesiastical office, which they used unworthily nor can they ever touch the mysteries which ought to be venerated, of which they deprived themselves when they were obsessed with obscene desires.” (29)

17. When a new patriarch was elected to one of the five sees in the taxis, the normal practice was that he would send a letter to all the other patriarchs, announcing his election and including a profession of faith. Such ‘letters of communion’ profoundly expressed the canonical bond of communion among the patriarchs. By including the new patriarch’s name, in the proper order, in the diptychs of their churches, read in the Liturgy, the other patriarchs acknowledged his election. The taxis of the patriarchal sees had its highest expression in the celebration of the holy Eucharist. Whenever two or more patriarchs gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, they would stand according to the taxis. This practice manifested the eucharistic character of their communion.

18. From the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) onwards, major questions regarding faith and canonical order in the Church were discussed and resolved by the ecumenical councils. Though the bishop of Rome was not personally present at any of those councils, in each case either he was represented by his legates or he agreed with the council’s conclusions post factum. The Church’s understanding of the criteria for the reception of a council as ecumenical developed over the course of the first millennium. For example, prompted by historical circumstances, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787) gave a detailed description of the criteria as then understood: the agreement (symphonia) of the heads of the churches, the cooperation (synergeia) of the bishop of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs (symphronountes). An ecumenical council must have its own proper number in the sequence of ecumenical councils, and its teaching must accord with that of previous councils. Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council.

19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica to establish rules for such a procedure. Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692). The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.

“[…] separated themselves from the body of Christ, and from the chief throne in which Christ placed the keys of faith: against which the gates of hell, namely the mouths of heretics, have not prevailed up to now, nor shall they ever prevail, according to the promise of him who does not lie. Therefore let the most blessed and apostolic Paschal, who is worthy of his name, rejoice, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”(31)

“Today the supreme head of the New Covenant – the one who proclaimed Christ as Son of God [Peter] most clearly when he said. ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ – sees the leader of the Old Covenant [Moses] standing next to the lawgiver of both.” (32)

But why did He [Jesus] take along Peter and James and John? Peter, because he wanted to show him that the witness, which [Peter] had truly borne, was now confirmed by the witness of The Father, and to make credible His [i.e. Jesus’] own statement that the heavenly Father had revealed this to him [i. e. Peter]; and because as president he was also receiving the oars of the entire Church.” (33)

“We have made as yet no reply to the Emperors, fearing they may return to their error. We exhorted them long ago about the images and the dioceses of the archbishops which… we sought to restore to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, which they sequestered together with our patrimonies at the time they overthrew the holy images. To those exhortations, they never replied. They have returned in one point from their errors, but in the other two they remain where they were [dioceses of Southern Italy]… If your God-protected Royal Excellency agrees we repeat our exhortation [to Constantinople, expressing gratitude that the holy images are in their former state. But as to the dioceses of our holy Roman churches… and the patrimonies we warn the Emperor solemnly that if he does not restore them to our Holy Roman Church, we shall decree him a heretic for persistence in this error.” (35)

Γαυδέντιος ἐπίσκος εἷπεν• Εἰ δοκεῖ, ἀναγκαῖον προστεθῆναι ταύτῃ τῇ ἀποφάσει, ἥντιμα ἁγάπης εἰλικρινοῦς πλήρη ἐξενήνοχας, ὥστε ἐαν τις ἐπίσκοπος καθαιρεθῇ τῇ κρίσει τούτων τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῶν ἐν γειτνίᾳ τυγχανόντων, καὶ φάσκῃ πάλιν ἑαυτῷ ἀπολογίας πρᾶγμα ἐπιβάλλειν, μὴ πρότερον εἰς τὴν καθέδραν αὐτοῦ ἕτερον ὑποκαταστῆναι ἐὰν μὴ ὁ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐπίσκοπος ἐπιγνοὺς περὶ τούτου ὅρον ἐξενέγκῃ. (36)

The presbyterial bishop said, “If it is necessary to add to this decision, the dignity of sincere love, complete exclusivity, so that if the bishop deposes them in the judgment of these bishops in the neighborhood, and again imposes an apology on himself, no more.” to be substituted in his chair unless the bishop of the Romans excommunicates him about this.

Gaudentius episcopus dixit: Addendum si placet huic septentiæ, quam plenam sanctitate protulisti, ut cum aliquis episcopus depositus fuerit eorum episcoporum judicio, qui in vicinis locis commorantur, et proclamaverit agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma; alter episcopus in ejus cathedra post appellationem ejus, qui videtur esse depositus, omnino non ordinetur, nisi causa fuerit in judicio episcopi Romani determinata. (37)

Gaudentius, the bishop, said: We must add, if it pleases you, to this seventy, which you brought forth with full sanctity, as when a certain bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who reside in neighboring places, and has proclaimed that business should be done for him in the city of Rome; another bishop in his chair after his appeal, who seems to have been deposed, will not be ordained at all, unless the cause has been determined in the judgment of the bishop of Rome.

Ὅσιος ἐπίσκοπος εἶπε• Καὶ τοῦτο ἀκόλουθον νομίζω εἶναι, ἵνα ἐὰν ἐν οἱᾳδηποτοῦτν ἐπαρχίᾳ ἀπίσκοποι πρὸς ἀδελφόν καὶ συνεπίσκοπον ἑαυτῶν ἀποστέλλοιεν δεήσεις, ὁ ἐν τῇ μείζονι τυγχάνων πόλει, τοῦτιʼ ἔστι τῇ μητροπόλει, αὐτὸς καὶ τόν διάκονον αὐτοῦ κιὰ τὰς δεήσεις ἀποστέλλοι, παρέχων αὐτῷ καὶ συστατικὰχ ἐπιστολὰς, γράφων δηλονότι κατὰ ἀκολουθίαν καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς κιὰ συνεπισκόπους ἡμῶν, εἴ τινες ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἢ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι διάγοιεν, ἐν αἶς ὁ εὐσβέστατος βασιλεὺς τὰ δημόσια πράγματα διακυβερνᾷ.

Εἰ δὲ ἔχοι τις τῶν ἐπισκόπων φίλους ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τοῦ παλατίου καὶ βούλοιτο περί τινος ὅπερ πρεπωδέστερον εἴη ἀξιῶσαι, μὴ κωλύοιτο διὰ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ διακόνου καὶ ἀξiῶσαι καὶ ἐντείλασθαι τούτοις, ὥστε τὴν αὐτῶν ἀγαθὴν βοήθειαν ἀξιοῦντι αὐτῷ παρέχειν.

Οἱ δὲ εἰς Ῥώμην παραγινόμενοι, καθὼς προείρηκα, τῷ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ ἡμῶν καὶ συνεπισκόπῳ Ἰουλίῳ τὰς δεήσεις, ἃς ἔχοιεν διδόναι, ὀφείλουσι παρέχειν, ἵνα πρότερος αὐτὸς δοκιμάζῃ• εἰ μή τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀναισχυντοῖεν, καὶ οὕτω τὴν ἑαυτοῦ προστασίαν καὶ φροντίδα παρέχων εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον αὐτοὺς ἀποστέλλοι ἅπαντες οἱ ἐπίσκοποι ἀπεκρίναντο, ἀρέσκειν αὐτοῖς, καὶ περπωδεστάτην εἶναι τὴν συμβουλὴν ταύτην. (38)

And the bishop said, I think that it is well, that when the bishops of the province shall be gone to the brethren, and their bishops shall send their greetings, he and his deacon, and his bishops shall send them to the cities of the provinces, and to the cities of the provinces, with letters of recommendation, declaring the things to be done and the things to be done by the public churches, and by the governments, and by the kings, and by the cities, and by the cities, and by the cities.

If any of you has an elder’s wife who is a widow and you are not qualified to be overseer, do not let him keep quiet about it for the sake of the servant and his wife, so that they may be of service to them in this good work, which is a service worthy of them.

As for the rest of you, I now send them to Rome to be tested and examined by our beloved brother Paul, who is also our fellow worker in prayer. If, after some time, you find that you have been neglecting them, it would be good for you to ask him about them.

Et hoc consequens esse videtur, ut de qualibet provincia episcopi ad eum fratrem et coëpiscopum nostrum preces mittant, qui in metropoli consistit, ut ille et diaconum ejus et supplicationes destinet, tribuens commendatitias epistolas pari ratione ad fratres et coëpiscopos nostros, qui in illo tempore in his regionibus et urbibus morantur, in quibus felix et beatus Augustus rempublicam gubernat.

“Si vero habet episcopus amicos in palatio, qui cupit aliquid quod tamen honestum est impetrare, non prohibetur per diaconum suum rogare ac significare his, quos scit benignam intercessionem sibi absenti posse præstare.

“X. Qui vero Romam venerint, sicut dictum est, sanctissimo fratri et coëpiscopo nostro Romanæ Ecclesiæ preces quas habent tradant, ut et ipse prius examinet, si honestæ et justæ sunt, et præstet diligentiam atque sollicitudinem, ut ad comitatum perferantur. Universi dixerunt, placere sibi et honestum esse consilium.

“Alypius episcopus dixit: Si propter pupillos et viduas vel laborantes, qui causas non iniquas habent, susceperint peregrinationis incommoda, habebunt aliquid rationis; nunc vero cum ea postulent præcipue, quæ sine invidia hominum et sine reprehensione esse non possunt, non necesse est eos ire ad comitatum. (39)

And this seems to be the consequence, that the bishops from every province send prayers to that brother and our co-bishop, who is in the metropolis, that he and his deacons may direct their supplications, giving letters of commendation in the same manner to our brothers and co-bishops, who at that time in they dwell in these regions and cities, in which the happy and blessed Augustus governs the republic.

If, however, the bishop has friends in the palace, who wishes to obtain something that is nevertheless honorable, he is not prevented from asking through his deacon and indicating to those whom he knows can offer a kind intercession for him in his absence.

“X. But those who have come to Rome, as has been said, should deliver the prayers they have to our most holy brother and co-bishop of the Roman Church, so that he himself may first examine whether they are honest and just, and show care and concern that they may be conveyed to the company. They all said that it was a good and honest decision to please them.

Bishop Alypius said: If for the sake of the orphans and widows or the laborers, who have not unjust causes, they have undertaken the inconveniences of a pilgrimage, they will have some reason; Now, however, when they demand especially those things which cannot be without the envy of men and without criticism, it is not necessary for them to go to the company.

“Canon 3, proposed by Hosius, forbade bishops to transfer from one province to another; in a dispute between bishops a judge might not be brought in from another province; and it was illegitimate to visit or seek the assistance of the secular court (canons 7–9). Canon 4 stated that a deposed bishop who appealed to Rome should not be replaced until judgment was passed;“ (40)

“”Since our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those who are in the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others, and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the pollutions wherewith these have been branded by unlawful marriages: now whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of this heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration, so blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God requires…“ (41)

Let him [Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria] 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 [See of Rome], a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (43)

“For although the pastors, each one singly, preside over their flocks with a special care and know that they have to render an account for the sheep entrusted to them, we [Rome] have a duty which is shared with all; in fact the function of each one is part of our work: so that when men resort to the see of the blessed Apostle Peter [See of Rome] from the whole world, and seek from our stewardship that love of the whole Church entrusted to him by the Lord, the greater our duty to the whole, the heavier we feel the burden to rest on us.”(44)

“Of course in this Your Holiness has acted with the great wisdom befitting the Bishop of the apostolic see [See of Rome], that is, in guarding the ecclesiastical canons you have not suffered any innovations in the old rules and customs which have been observed to this day inviolate.”(45)

As for those things which the universal council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favour of the Church of Constantinople, let your holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet , keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so the whole force and confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of your blessedness” (46)

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 [Pope] Leo. (47)

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus of Alexandria] of the episcopate. (48)

And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, [Pope] Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, show what the true faith is. (49)

20. Throughout the first millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service (diakonia) of love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging to the one Church.

21. This common heritage of theological principles, canonical provisions and liturgical practices from the first millennium constitutes a necessary reference point and a powerful source of inspiration for both Catholics and Orthodox as they seek to heal the wound of their division at the beginning of the third millennium. On the basis of this common heritage, both must consider how primacy, synodality, and the interrelatedness between them can be conceived and exercised today and in the future.