I’m on a board with some Eastern Orthodox, and I’m trying to learn more about Eastern Orthodoxy.
One of the claims the poster makes is that no Ecumenical Council ever gave the Pope supreme jurisdiction or right of settling appeals in the Church.
They also say Pope Leo was forced to accept Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which apparently made Constantinople equal to Rome and said that Rome’s privileges were due to her being the Imperial City.
Here is his claim:
“Leo had no choice but to accept it because it was roman law and the Emperess Pulcheria refused to rescind it after he wrote letters to her. In fact there was a period of time when all roman popes were greek byzantines appointed by the emperor (google byzantine papacy or greek papacy) meaning they had to accept it as a prerequisite to becoming pope. Its also verified in RC canon law. When the latins captured Constantinople in 1204 and installed a latin patriarch they held the IV Lateran council in Lyons. Canon 5 of Lyons said that they have always accepted the ANCIENT priveleges which placed Constantinople after Rome. And the other 3 others after Constantinople. In other words in this canon Rome rejects Leo’s claim. It makes clear that rome always held to the ancient custom (ie canon 28), the canon does not say they just “started to accept it” but that it was an ANCIENT privelege always held.”
Does anyone know about such issues? Why aren’t the Ecumenical Councils more explicit about the Pope’s authority?