Part 1

This is part 2 of the refutations to the "orthodox" article entitled: "All Bishops Are Successors of Peter (Florilegium)[1]"

In this article we will deal with the two quotations from Saint Leo magnus, which supposedly "prove" that the holy father defended the "orthodox" thesis that all bishops are successors of Peter.


FIRST QUOTE

St. Pope Leo the Great
Commenting on these words, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, it shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose, shall have been loosed in heaven,” he says:

“This power is confided to him in a special manner, because the type (“forma”) of Peter is proposed to all the pastors of the Church. Therefore the privilege of Peter dwells wherever judgement is given with his equity.”

~Sermon III.

 I tried to find this quote but I couldn't find it anywhere. I used the google tracking mechanism and just found more and more orthodox sites that performed the quote as mentioned above, but never the original text, which I would use to understand the passage more clearly. They cite sermon number three, this sermon, which I did the full reading, contains a reflection on the aforementioned passage from matthew 16, but it contains neither the words nor the meaning given by the quote made on the blog:

"And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook."[2]

Sermon III

I don't like to interpret isolated words, and I also don't like to attribute authorship that may be false. But I also don’t like to leave the thought vague, and something unanswered, so I’ll retain to answer the orthodox thinking about those words, and let them themselves tell us if they removed the passage from a text that I didn’t reach or they created and falsely attributed those words, which never left the mouth of the Saint.

Anyway, I will refute the “orthodox” thinking about this passage, so let's go to that thought.


THE PETRINE PRIMACY IN THE EYES OF HERETICS

For the "orthodox" the concept of "Petrine primacy" is completely different from the Catholic concept. Whereas, for us, Saint Peter is primate due to a juridical characteristic of sovereignty over others, for them, Saint Peter is only primate in temporal order, so that was always given to him first everything that is given to the Bishops in general.

As another orthodox website says: "this power of the first Apostle did not make him master of the others; it has passed to all bishops who exercise it lawfully; Peter was only distinguished by the priority of his ordination."[3] And this same site, commenting on the passage quoted in the blog, says: "St. Leo ascribes to St. Peter only a primacy, or rather a priority of ordination, and that instead of ascribing to the Bishop of Rome only, the power of Peter, be regards that Apostle only as the form or figure of the apostolic power, which is exercised in reality wherever it is exercised with equity."[3]

SAINT LEO MAGNUS, CATHOLIC OR "ORTHODOX"?

Bearing in mind both concepts, let's see if Saint Leo the Great was, as they falsely claim, a defender of the “orthodox” thesis that Petrine primacy does not come from any difference in authority but only from the representative characteristic of Peter; or defender of the Catholic thesis that Petrine primacy means Peter's authority to preside over others and that it was passed on in succession only to the holy Roman see:

II. In case of difference of opinion between the Vicar and the bishops, the bishop of Rome must be consulted. The subordination of authorities in the Church expounded.
For the cementing of our unity cannot be firm unless we be bound by the bond of love into an inseparable solidity: because as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office; so we being many are one body in Christ, and all of us members one of another.  The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the 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 towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.[4]
Letter 14

Notice how enlightening this exhibition is. Saint Leo magnus says that although all priests have common dignity, they are nevertheless not of equal value, of equal rank; since even among the apostles, although there was no distinction in honor, there was a distinction in power, and one of them was given the leadership role. So Saint Leo magnus explains in a very clear way that there were different patents in the Church, different powers, and that Peter was the leader, not a mere representative of an egalitarian collective power, but of a single power that was contained in himself.

And Saint Leo magnus continues: "through which the care of the universal Church must converge on the sole seat of Peter". Notice how Saint pope says Peter's only seat, only one, which is Rome. As the title itself describes, and it also describes the Holy Father's opinion: “the subordination of the exposed Church”, that is, he describes the precept of subordination of the Churches, which, again, proves that he never believed that he did not there were different authorities among the apostles and priests.

Dear "orthodox" friend, would you dare to say that this Holy Father defends your thesis?

ASSISTING THE AUTHOR TO SOLVE A DOUBT

The post makes a second quote from Saint Leo the Great, however the author of the post warns:

"In the following, it appears St. Leo is saying the metropolitans hold the place of Peter but it is not clear to me."

“And so we would have you recollect, brethren, as we do, that the Apostolic See, such is the reverence in which it is held, has times out of number been referred to and consulted by the priests of your province as well as others, and in the various matters of appeal, as the old usage demanded, it has reversed or confirmed decisions: and in this way the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace Ephesians 4:3 has been kept, and by the interchange of letters, our honourable proceedings have promoted a lasting affection: for seeking not our own but the things of Christ Philippians 2:21, we have been careful not to do despite to the dignity which God has given both to the churches and their priests. But this path which with our fathers has been always so well kept to and wisely maintained, Hilary has quitted, and is likely to disturb the position and agreement of the priests by his novel arrogance: desiring to subject you to his power in such a way as not to allow himself to be subject to the blessed Apostle Peter, claiming for himself the ordinations of all the churches throughout the provinces of Gaul, and transferring to himself the dignity which is due to metropolitan priests; he diminishes even the reverence that is paid to the blessed Peter himself with his proud words: for not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth.”

 

 Then I will help to clarify the doubt of the author of the post, the answer is no! The metropolitan priests had no Petrine authority, to explain the quote I will tell you what happened in this case.

Saint Leo the Great rebuked a bishop, named Hilary, for having appointed a successor to another succession that was outside his constitution, usurping the power of the metropolitan priests that was given by Rome.

Note the quotes, Hilary sought a power that was not under his jurisdiction:

"And supposing that his brother's passage from this world was brief, but after the common course of men, what does Hilary seek for himself in another's province, and why does he claim that which none of his predecessors before Patroclus possessed?"[5]

And therefore made an unjust appointment:

"Hilary, therefore, was anxious not so much to consecrate a bishop as to kill him who was sick, and to mislead the man whom he set over his head by wrongful ordination."[5]

Usurping a power from the metropolitan priest that had been given by Rome:

"we have decreed that the wrongfully ordained man should be deposed and the Bishop Projectus abide in his priesthood: with the further provision that when any of our brethren in whatsoever province shall decease, he who has been agreed upon to be metropolitan of that province shall claim for himself the ordination of his successor."[5]

"As we said before, each metropolitan should keep in his own hands the ordinations that occur in his own province, acting in concert with those who precede the rest in seniority of priesthood, a privilege restored to him through us."[5]

That is why Saint Leo magnus says “transferring the dignity that is due to the metropolitan priests to himself” because he usurped a right of appointment that was the right of metropolitan priests. And he adds “it decreases even the reverence that is given to the blessed Peter himself” because the order violated the right granted by Rome (Peter) that the metropolitan priests had the right of appointment.

Therefore, both passages, the first and the second, were unsuccessfully misused and added nothing to the "orthodox" argument. It only served as a stumbling block for those who, because of their excessive vanglory, believe they can subdue Catholic doctrine.


[1] All Bishops Are Successors of Peter (Florilegium)

[2] Sermon III of the pope St. Leo the Great

[3] The Papacy:Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches

[4] Letter 10 of the pope St. Leo the Great

[5] Letter 10 of the pope St. Leo the Great