www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint

As the study document (a.k.a., the Cyprus Document) of the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church makes clear, East and West - at least since the 4th or 5th century - have understood petrine succession and primacy differently. Here is how the authors of that document put it:


"In the West, the accent placed on the link between the bishop of Rome and the apostle Peter, particularly from the fourth century onwards, was accompanied by an increasingly more specific reference to Peter's role within the college of 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 (cf. Jerome, In Isaiam 14, 53; Leo, Sermo 94, 2; 95, 3). The position of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was understood in terms of the position of Peter among the apostles. In the East, this evolution in the interpretation of the ministry of the bishop of Rome did not occur. Such an interpretation was never explicitly rejected in the East in the first millennium, but the East tended rather to understand each bishop as the successor of all of the apostles, including Peter (cf. Cyprian, De unit. ecc., 4-5; Origen, Comm. in Matt.).

In a somewhat similar way, the West did not reject the idea of the Pentarchy (cf. above, n. 13) � indeed it carefully observed the taxis of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, around which the five patriarchates of the ancient Church developed (cf. Ravenna document, n. 28). However, the West never gave the same significance to the Pentarchy as a way of governance of the Church as the East did.

It is notable that these rather different understandings of the position of the bishop of Rome and the relationship of the major sees in West and East, respectively, based on quite different biblical, theological and canonical interpretations, co-existed for several centuries until the end of the first millennium, without causing a break of communion."


The Western developments in connection with the papacy and its role never occurred in the East, which is why they seem so foreign to Eastern Christians. Perhaps on this issue East and West will have to agree to disagree.

I would like to submit a followup statement, a question of sorts for Marduk. If the primacy of the bishop of Rome is attached not to the office of the bishop of Rome, but personally to the successor of Peter, how exactly is this power of primacy passed on from successor to successor?

The Apostolic Constitutions:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm

I'll fill in the rest of the facts later, but this paragraph can conveniently be taken care of:

I didn't fail to mention it because Pontiff St. Damasus did no such thing. Met. St. Meletius made the offer, and since Pontiff St. Damasus had no dealings with him (Met. St. Basil complaining of the Archbishop of Rome being uninvolved and misinformed about the East), Pontiff St. Damasus had no part in it. In fact, he held a synod in Rome in 380 which precluded both communion with Met. St. Meletius, or him serving as bishop in Antioch.
Au contraire: it would seem that he rejected the offer because he enjoyed Rome (and Alexandria's) support.

That he was Rome's man in 382 stands as a fact, not postulated as a theory.


Not really, but I'd be interested in you recounting what your sources say otherwise.

So much for Pastor Aeternus. At the time, it was made quite clear that his wishes were not dispositive. And no, he didn't wish to see Met. St. Meletius restored to his see.

I don't have to pretend: it was Ecumenical. But before going into that again, perhaps you should tell us when exactly it became Ecumenical. You do believe it is Ecumenical, no?

Since the Metropolitan of Antioch opened the Council, with his bishops in attendance, by definition it did not "intrude another into the See." Aside from its position as an Ecumenical Council.

The resolution of the Meletian Schism shows that "Ut Unum Sint" would not be accepted by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, who set their seal on the standard of Orthodoxy, from which we cannot deviate. They accepted neither a universal jurisdiction of Abp. Damasus for unity, nor depended on any overarching responsibility of his for the same.

And, if you could, explain what does it matter, between 381 and whatever date you accept as when it "became Ecumenical."

No, because there is no indication that St. Basil viewed Rome as a court of last resort. He attempted to sway many influential bishops in favor of St. Meletius, like St. Athanasius (and if I recall, St. Athanasius gave St. Basil the cold shoulder, never replying to his epistles), and there is no indication that he believed that swaying the bishop of Rome in Meletius' favor would resolve the situation any more than swaying the bishop of Alexandria. In fact, upon hearing of a rumor that Rome had given to the Paulinians a letter of recognition, St. Basil, contradicting this idea that Rome is a court of final appeals wrote in letter 214 to Count Terentius:

Cavaradossi is correct, because there is no evidence that St. Basil saw the bishop of Rome as the court of last resort. Moreover, even the Sardican canons do not promote the idea that the bishop of Rome can - on his own initiative - simply overturn a prior Synodical decision; instead, those canons allow a person to appeal to the pope in order to see if a new Synodical trial is warranted. If he (i.e., the pope) decides that a new trial is warranted, he calls a new synod of the bishops of the area, and at that new Synod he is allowed to cast one vote along with the other bishops. Clearly the pope does not by himself decide the outcome of the case; and in fact, he can be on the losing side in the new trial. Whether certain papal apologists wish to admit it or not, the Sardican canons do not support the later Roman Catholic idea that the pope is some kind of supreme judge, who on his own authority can simply issue decrees binding upon the whole Church.

But St. James spoke and concluided the proceedings of the Jerusalem Council. Why would the first Pope not do such? Heck, if any church should be granted ecclesiastical lordship, it should be Jerusalem. Or perhaps the first See of St. Peter, Antioch. God bless.

At the end of the day, I think the Vatican has to be cautious in not roughing up the Orthodox and giving them the "Canossa treatment," ala Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV crawling in the snows to bed forgiveness of the Pope. It is not clear cut necessity for conversion, such as for Protestants, Calvinists, Anglicans, Mormons, and others.

Let us not forget that Henry IV had the last laugh, and Gregory VII Hildebrand was the one who died alone, in exile.

Another problem for Mardukm's interpretation: at the time he wrote this, Apb. (at the time priest) John Chrysostom was not in communion with the Pontiff Damasus and his successor Siricius at Rome. Thus the work does teach Orthodoxy well, but rather undermines the claims of the Pastor Aeternus, and the suggestions of Ut Unum Sint, which presupposes the PA.

As Apotheum points out, there is no talk of headship. I contend (and I do not know Apotheum's agreement or disagreement with the following) that St. John Chrysostom does not speak of it because no such order as "head bishop" exists in the divine institution of the episcopate. Christ and the Holy Spirit did not consecrate any Apostle to any such office, a fact that Pastor Aeternus denies, alleging "To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures" i.e. Ultramontanism, "as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction....The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister," and, as it follows, Ut Unum Sint:

Dear Cavaradossi,


Your statements here don't really address the issue. Of course we can find instances when a certain bishop appeals to the bishop of Rome SIMULTANEOUS with appeal to other bishops. That was rather normal, since bishops, in communion with each other, naturally looked to each other for support. But the idea of "court of last resort" pertains to another completely different situation and context. The idea of a court of last resort refers to a situation where a bishop appeals to another bishop (in this case, the bishop of Rome), not just for the sake of support among many bishops, but specifically as a means to overcome the decision of a prior authority.

On the particular matter of Antioch, one will note that after his initial overtures to Pope St. Athanasius in 371 A.D., St. Basil basically gave up (St. Athanasius died in 377). But with regards to the bishop of Rome, St. Basil never gave up. Until his death at the very beginning of 379, he worked indefatigably to regularize relations between Rome and the Meletian party. It's obvious that from St. Basil's perspective, Rome's influence on the matter carried more weight than Alexandria's. But the High Petrine view does not assign to Rome singular, absolute influence - only that it is higher relative to others in a situation when its influence would be relevant and necessary (I believe more often than not, Rome's influence is both not relevant nor necessary).

Finally, I have to wonder what exactly is the basis for your statement "there is no indication that he believed that swaying the bishop of Rome in Meletius' favor would resolve the situation." It can't possibly be from the letter you quoted to Count Terentius. The only things one can conclude from the letter are: (1) The Romans are ignorant of the facts regarding Antioch; (2) the Paulinians have given a FALSE impression of Meletius to Rome; (3) St. Basil did not accept the Paulinians, despite their letter from Rome, because he thought the Paulinians did "not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith." So very far from saying the decision of Pope St. Damasus would not resolve the situation, he was simply saying that he regarded the approval of Pope St. Damasus and the Westerns to have been based on a false impression of Meletius given to them by the Paulinians. You'll have to look for another source to support your claim that the decision of the bishop of Rome would not have resolved the situation, because it can't be from the letter you quoted.

Perhaps I was unclear in my statement that there is a distinction between the primacy of a Church among Churches and the primacy of the bishop (of that primatial Church) among his brother bishops.

The primacy of a particular Church (i.e., locale) was based on several religious factors. The city (and thus the See) of Jerusalem held the primacy for obvious, religious reasons (where our Lord lived, preached and died). The city (and thus the See) of Rome held the primacy, also for obvious, religious reasons (where the two greatest Apostles lived for a time, preached and died). The primacy of a particular Church might also be obtained because of the apostolic succession of its bishop.

In distinction, the primacy of a bishop is based on apostolic succession alone, and is not because of (though related to) the primacy of the Church of which he is the bishop. The office of which you wrote was established because of apostolic succession, not because of the honor or primacy given to that particular Church (i.e., locale).

This is the reason why Rome resisted the assignment of primacy to Constantinople among Churches in the East for so long. Constantinople's original claim to primacy was not based on any religious reason or apostolic succession, but due to purely secular motives. Only after Constantinople started claiming apostolic succession from St. Andrew (in the 6th century?), and after Trullo stopped claiming that Constantinople held its status merely because it was the capital of the Empire (7th century), did Rome finally accept the status of Constantinople (at the so-called 8th Ecum Council) among the Patriarchates.

Blessings

Dear brother Apotheoun,

That's OK. I've had some Easterns accuse me of being Latinized just because I don't sign the same way they do. It's a common enough hazard, especially when certain Easterns might think they are the only non-Latin Tradtion in existence. My assessment of the Canons does not mean I am latinized. It just means I am not anti-Latin. I am 100% secure in my identity as an Oriental (i.e., non-Latin), and do not feel the least bit threatened to admit the similarities with my Latin brethren.

The idea that identity in Canons indicates lack of faithfulness to the Eastern or Oriental Canonical Tradition is very poor rhetoric. I recall the time in college when I was exposed to the fact that the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ is exactly mirrored by several pagan religions even more ancient than Christianity. This has caused not a few to claim that Christianity should be rejected as a myth just like the ancient pagan religions. Tempting analysis, but ultimately injudicious and unacceptable. There is a name for that particular rhetorical error, but I forget it at the moment. It's sufficient to point out that your argument evinces that exact error.

Let's check out some of these identical canons that are SUPPOSEDLY unfaithful to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Tradition:
Canon 11 (which is CIC Canon 208) - In vitue of their rebirth in Christ there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality with regard to dignity and the activity whereby all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ in accord with each one's own condition and function.

Canon 673 (which is CIC Canon 837) - The celebration of the sacraments, above all the Divine Liturgy, as an action of the Church, inasmuch as possible, should be done with active participation of the Christian faithful.

Canon 595 (which is CIC Canon 747) - The Church, to whom Christ the Lord entrusted the depost if faith, assisted by the Holy Spirit, it might reverently safeguard revealed truth, more closely examine it and faithfully proclaim and expound it, has the innate duty and right to preach the gospel to all nations, independent of any human power whatever.

It's rather ridiculous to pretend that these Canons are unfaithful to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Traditions. It's interesting that non-Latins often claim that we live according to the SPIRIT of the law, not its letter, but in your own assessment of this issue, you depend wholly on the LETTER of the law, and not its spirit. It should also be noted that just because something is canonized does not make it unfaithful to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Traditions. The singular difference between the Latin Canonical Tradition, on the one hand, and the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Tradition, on the other, is the perception of what "Canon" means. To Latins, it refers to a rule that must always be followed except in extenuating circumstances. To Easterns/Orientals, a canon is as a guide, the exceptions as much a part of the "rule" of living the Christian life as the "rule" itself.

In light of this, I'd like to amend my original assessment - as a whole, I believe only about 20% of the CCEO has matter foreign to the Eastern/Oriental Canonical Tradition (caveat: "foreign" but not "opposed").

Probably because its coordination was acheived at Rome, and the official language of Rome is Latin. The desire to have a separate Code of Canons for the non-Latin Churches was not a brainchild of the Latins, but was explicitly expressed by Patriarch Audu of the Chaldeans way back during Vatican 1. Also, this general body of laws does not suborn our particular laws.

Further, as someone else pointed out, the Church today is living in a reality that was not a big factor in the early Church - non-Latin Churches being established in jurisdictional territories that Traditionally belong to the Latins. If we have new canons based on this new reality, that should come as no surprise.

I have encountered several Easterns on the I-net who interpret Eucharistic ecclesiology to mean that each member Church is totally "independent" and "wholly apart" from other Churches - which is in fact the exact opposite of what Eucharistic ecclesiology is all about according to Scripture (see St. Paul's teaching in Romans 12 and I Cor 12). As a High Petrine advocate, this idea of Churches being totally "independent and wholly apart" is one of the Low Petrine excesses I oppose.

Interesting. I never stated that St. Chrysostom was making a specific statement on Rome, only that he was making a statement on the principle of headship, which can just as much apply to the headship of a bishop in his diocese, as to any ecclesiastical reality that has a coryphaeus. I suppose one can read anything into what other people write and pretend one has made a point.

Thanks for this. I'd never read this before. This Eastern viewpoint expressed here is defintely High Petrine. Whereas the document states that the East understands each bishop as "the successor of all the apostles, including Peter," many Eastern pundits on the I-net rather like to pretend that each bishop is the successor of Peter, period. BIG difference. I believe the Catholic Church can work with the former position, but not the latter.

"So foreign" is hardly a descriptive I would attach to the comparision of Eastern and Western viewpoints contained in that document. It states that the Western understanding was "never explicitly rejected" in the first millenium. That it was never explicitly rejected is easily proven - it is evinced in the normal praxis of appealing to the bishop of Rome as court of last appeal (in honor of the memory of St. Peter, no less), and of the confirmation of Ecumenical Councils by the bishop of Rome. But certain Easterns today want to affirm that it must be explicitly rejected. These particular Easterns have what I have often referred to as the "Low Petrine view." According to the document, it is not patristic.

Who here said he could?

AMEN!!!

Blessings

I guess you have a different understanding of what "brokered" means. It doesn't mean that Pope St. Damasus was the one that made the offer. It just means he was a middle-man of sorts between the parties, promoting a resolution (whatever that would be) between the parties.

Secondly, I'm not sure about the events of the Synod in 380, except that it declared anathemas against several heresies. But I do know that Pope St. Damasus was concerned about the welfare of Antioch. In fact, there was also another Roman Synod in 382, and part of its purpose was to heal the schism at Antioch.

Thirdly, can you please explain what you mean by "precluded both communion with Met. St. Meletius, or him serving as bishop in Antioch?"

Fourthly, I'm not sure what your source is that claims it was St. Meletius that proposed the resolution, but Socrates Scholasticus suggests that it was actually the Paulinians who proposed it, since they were the ones eager to have St. Meletius connected with their party. I have read one source that claims it was St, Meletius who proposed it, but it also wrongly stated that Paulinus rejected the offer.

OOPS! I was wrong. According to Socrates and Sozomen (the Church historians), Paulinus actually DID accept the offer. The statement from Paulinus often bandied about that he rejected St. Meletius because he could not accept his ordination by Arians has been wrenched out of context. According to both historians, Paulinus was weakening due to old age, and so the Paulinians desired to make peace with the Meletians. At the initial overture, Paulinus made the statement that he could not accept St. Meletius' ordination. Thus, Meletius was ordained again on that same day. Thereafter, the agreement between the Paulinians and Meletians was achieved. Together the two groups selected 6 who had good qualifications to be bishop, and there was an OATH made that none of these 6 would attempt to be ordained bishop immediately, but that the government of the Church in Antioch would be handed over to either the Paulinist or Meletian party depending on whether it was Paulinus or Meletius who outlived the other (meanwhile, Meletius and Paulinus simply governed their particular camps as usual) - this was the agreement brokered by Rome. When St. Meletius died, the oath was broken, and several bishops installed Flavian as their leader - Flavian was actually one of the 6 priests from the Meletian party who, upon oath, had promised NOT to be ordained bishop upon the death of either Meletius or Paulinus. It is not clear if it was the Meletian party that caused the oath to be broken, or if certain parties outside of Antioch (i.e., at Constantinople) were the ones who (perhaps forcibly) installed Flavian as bishop of Antioch. It seems the decision was reactionary - those who installed Flavian did not want a bishop of obvious "Western" influence into an "Eastern" See.

The situation was complicated. The idea that is false and not a fact is the pretense that Pope St. Damasus was opposed to St. Meletius just because he conceded the See to Paulinus. That is the suggestion of saying that Paulinus was "Rome's man," which is why I said it was false.

Already given above.

The ones who exacerbated the schism were the ones who installed a member of the Meletian party at the Church of Antioch, breaking the oath made by both parties. So basically, your best argument is to support the breaking of oaths and causing the continuation of schism. I'd agree with you - Pastor Aeternus opposes such aberrations in the Chuch of God, and has nothing to do with that. This reminds me of the arguments I've encountered from certain non-Catholics, using St. Cyprian's opposition to Pope St. Stephen, and the rejection of the Council of Sardica by most Easterns at the time, as proof against the primacy of the bishop of Rome. But St. Cyprian was wrong on the matter on which he opposed Pope St. Stephen, and the Easterns who rejected Sardica were heretics. So basically, the arguments from Low Petrine advocates depend on (1) those who are in error, (2) those who are heretics, (3) those who break oaths and perpetuate schism. Upon thoughtful consideration, I am even more inclined to reject the Low Petrine excesses.

You haven't presented any proof so far. If he was so against St. Meletius and the Meletians, surely the Pope would have made it evident in his letter of approval to Paulinus. Let me ask again, where is your proof for this statement?

It was accepted as Ecumenical for the first time at Chalcedon (the 4th Ecum). It was not recognized as such by Ephesus (the 3rd Ecum) - read the Acts of the 3rd Ecum. You are actually the first one I've met who claims that the Second Ecum was ecumenical from the get-go.

The Paulinists and Meletians made a common OATH that Paulinus should have the See after Meletius died. That local council intruded another into the See of Antioch.

At the time, it is false to claim it was an Ecum Council. It did not have the confirmation of the bishop of Rome, and thus was only a local council, and did not have ecumenical authority (which means it did not have the authority on its own to intrude a bishop upon the Church of Antioch).

Yes, oath breakers and perpetuators of schism would not agree with Ut Unum Sint. The Fathers of the Second Ecum were thoroughly orthodox, but they also let secular considerations intrude too much into the government of the Church.

It didn't have the proper authority to intrude someone into the See of another autonomous Church.

There are several problems with your statement.
(1) John Chrysostom was not the bishop of Constantinople when he wrote "On the Priesthood." It was written when he was a deacon about 386.
(2) St. Meletius was never out of communion with Rome. In fact, the Meletians appealed to Rome on a matter of doctrine in 378/9, and the reply from Rome was a partial basis for the Decrees of the Second Ecum (under St. Meletius) on the Holy Spirit. Though the Pope chose Paulinus as bishop (only because of the circumstance that St. Meletius was in exile), it does not mean that the Pope was against St. Meletius, nor that St. Meletius was against Rome. You keep claiming some sort of animus between Rome and the Meletians, yet no evidence has been offered. Certain people make too much of the fact that Rome chose Paulinus. Though he chose Paulinus, there is actually no evidence that he chose Paulinus in preference against St. Meletius.
(3) John Chrysostom actually separated himself for a while from the Meletians after St. Meletius's death (perhaps because he deplored the fact that the Meletians had broken their oath), and soon after accepted ordination to the priesthood at the hands of Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus (see Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History).
(4) As bishop of Constantinople, St. Chrysostom was the one who proactively tried to establish friendly relations between the Church of Rome under Pope St. Siricius and the Antiochenes under St. Flavian. In fact, Pope St. Siricius had given instructions to a Council of Caesarea concerning the acceptance of Flavian, which regularized the relations between Rome and the Meletians. What are your reasons and sources for claiming that St. Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome?

It only demonstrates that creative (to put it nicely)interpretations of history by Catholic Absolutist Petrine advocates and non-Catholic Low Petrine advocates don't agree with Pastor Aeternus and Ut Unum Sint.

Apotheoun seems to be a Low Petrine advocate, so it's probably little wonder you agree with him. That doesn't prove anything. The concept of headship was established by Christ. A bishop is a head in his local Church, but now you are denying that such a headship can even exist. The rhetoric of the Low Petrine view is rather inconsistent.

There seems to be a confusion over the matter. The visible headship of the Church as a whole is of divine institution (WHERE it's located, that's another matter), but it is not a different Order. The Sacrament of Orders is for the SANCTIFICATION of the Church, not its government, so please stop pretending that the headship has anything to do with Orders.

The visible headship is for the government of the Church, and the primordial visible headship was established by Christ Himself. As the Church grew, it became evident that the principle of visible headship needed to be applied to smaller, and progressively smaller sections of the Church (as the membership of those local Churches grew). Thus, the Church established primates, patriarchs, metropolitans, etc. This all came out of the primordial model established by Christ Himself for His Church as a whole.

Blessings

First, I believe it's rather common knowledge and belief that the Apostles conceded the bishopric to St. James because the Lord expected the Apostles to be ITINERANT, instead of remaining in one place.

Second, as St. Chrysostom indicated, St. James was the teacher of Jerusalem, but St. Peter was the teacher of the whole world.

Third, I'm not aware of any Ecum Council that was presided over by the bishop of Rome, but every Council that has been graced with that status required the confirmation of the bishop of Rome. Read the Acts of the 3rd Ecum Council, and you might notice that the confirmation of the bishop of Rome is considered a different kind of animal than the general agreement of the bishops.

Blessings

Holy Tradition records it as an issue of "glory" (doxa), not of mobility and immobility.

Acts 1:4 And eating together with them, He commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith He) by My mouth.
Acts 8:1 AND at that time there was raised a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all dispersed through the countries of Judea, and Samaria, except the Apostles.

Acts 12:17 But he [St. Peter] beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison, and he said: Tell these things to James, and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.

That was a decade or so after the Ascension.

And he came back:
Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the Apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question....6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them...

And it seems the Apostles were associated with Jerusalem:
Gal. 2:1 Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. 2 And I went up according to revelation; and communicated to them the gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing: lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude. 5 To whom we yielded not by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man,) for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing. 7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. 8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) 9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas [i.e. Peter] and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: 10 Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.
11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Not here he doesn't:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210133.htm
Rather than a fishing expedition, why don't you quote the Acts of the IIIrd Ecumenical Council?

Btw, when do you believe the Second Ecumenical Council became Ecumenical?

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was held over the Abp. of Rome's explicit opposition. The IIIrd Ecumenical Council did not differ in its opinion on "confirmation of the bishop of Rome" versus "the general agreement of the Bishops."