It is common for some Catholic apologists to argue that, as some early Christians appealed to Rome, this somehow “proves” the primacy of the Church of Rome, ergo, “papal primacy.” Commenting on this, William Webster noted:
Appeals of Eastern Fathers to Rome
An historical argument often used by Roman apologists is that of the appeals by various Eastern fathers to the bishops of Rome during times of theological or personal crisis. The argument presented is that these Church fathers appeal to Rome as the final and supreme arbiter in ecclesiastical disputes thereby demonstrating the attitude of the early Church towards the bishops of Rome. While it is true that Eastern fathers throughout Church history from time to time appealed to Rome for aid, they did not appeal to Rome exclusively as the only court of appeal. In addition to their communication with Rome they often appealed to the bishops of other important sees. One notable example is that of John Chrysostom.
John Chrysostom
When he was unlawfully deposed as bishop of Constantinople and sent into exile, Chrysostom wrote Pope Innocent I detailing the illegalities of his case and appealing for his aid. However, this letter was not addressed to Innocent alone but also to Venerius and Chromatius, the bishops of Milan and Aquileia, the two most important and influential sees in Italy next to Rome. Dom Chrysostom Baur, in his biography of Chrysostom’s life, gives the following background to his appeals to Rome:
Shortly before the last crisis had arisen, and Chrysostom had been sent from Constantinople for the second time, he and his friends had decided to set forth in detail all the events of the last months in a letter to the Pope and the Western Bishops . . . The note in the record which states that ‘this letter was also sent to Venerius . . . and Chromatius,’ cannot first have been added in Rome; so it cannot be that the Pope gave the order to send it to the two Bishops. It must have been thus in the original itself, since Chrysostom speaks to the recipients of the letter in the plural, in the text. That point is important for the question . . . as to whether this letter can be considered a formal proof of the ‘primacy’ of Rome.
This letter has usually been classed among the great ‘appeals’ which apologists and dogmaticians quote in proof of the recognition of the Roman primacy. But such significance cannot be given to this ‘appeal,’ which Chrysostom addressed not only to Pope Innocent, but also at the same time and in the same words, to the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia. The essence of the letter is this: Chrysostom begs the Pope and the two named bishops, that they would be pleased not to let themselves be drawn to the cause of injustice by the efforts of his enemies, not to acknowledge his unjust banishment, and above all that they would not bring to an end the fellowship of the Church with him, but help according to their power, that the injustice which had been done him would be reversed, and the guilty persons judged by an impartial ecclesiastical court. He could naturally have written thus to any bishop. Actually Chrysostom demanded nothing so formal and consequential as the calling of a new impartial synod, and that was just what the Pope sought, with all his energy, to attain. So one cannot very well state that Chrysostom had appealed from the unjust judgment of a synod to the personal decision of the Pope. (Dom Chrysostumus Baur, O.S.B., John Chrysostom and His Time [Westminster: Newman, 1959], Volume II, pp. 299, 301-302; Vol. I, pp. 349-350)
P.R. Coleman-Norton adds these comments:
Though S. Chrysostom elicits the interference of Pope S. Innocent, yet he does not appeal to him as a supreme arbitrator. That S. Chrysostom expected Pope S. Innocent to show his Letters to neighboring prelates is apparent from his use of the plural and from Palladius’ note that the first epistle was addressed also to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia—a use and an action which can be understood only in the supposition that S. Chrysostom wrote to the Pope as bishop to a brother-bishop. (P.R. Coleman-Norton, The Correspondence of John Chrysostom [With Special Reference to His Epistles to People S. Innocent I.] Found in Classical Philology, Volume 24, 1929, p. 284)
So, the mere fact that a father appeals to Rome is not positive evidence that he is expressing belief in papal ‘primacy.’ (William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock [rev ed.; Battle Ground, Wash.: Christian Resources Inc., 1999], 207-9)
