And the Byzantines anathematized that same chunk. Funny how the borders of heresy and orthodoxy happened to coincide so neatly with the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Actually no. Chalcedon had plenty of supporters throughout the empire, and so did its detractors.
One of the grievances of the opponents of Chalcedon was the failure to condemn the Three Chapters, which the Fifth Council solved. The West was particularly tardy on this.
Yes you are correct to observe that saint Chrysostom does not speak about the pope who then occupied the chair of saint Peter in Rome in the quotes that I posted; but that he did recognise saint Peter as first among the apostles is clear from what he said. Saint Chrysostom also believed and taught apostolic succession so his remarks about saint Peter are not well interpreted if they are read as the saint's musing on "things past" apart from them being the basis for the "things present" in his own age through the faithful continuance of the apostles' teaching and office.
I have three additional quotes to help establish the saint's view on apostolic succession and saint Peter.
Yes, at Antioch, not Rome. And of course, depending on date, at the time these were said perhaps Antioch wasn't incommunion with Rome.
"God has had great account of this city of Antioch
, as He has shown in deed, especially in that he ordered Peter, the ruler of the whole world, to whom He entrusted the keys of heaven, to whom he committed the office of bringing all in [or to sweep the whole world of its plunder] to pass a long time here, so that our city stood to him in the place of the whole world. And in mentioning Peter, I have perceived that a fifth crown is woven from this, for Ignatius received the episcopate after him
." (Hom in S. Ignat M 4, vol II, 591)
Talks about Antioch, not Rome, and Ignatius, not Clement of Rome, as receiving the episcopate (he's not denying Rome, however)
"In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter
has come to me [that is, Saint Flavian
, his bishop] our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter
, and also to his chair
. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal
Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself
." (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86)
Note: St. Flavian was not recognized by Rome (he was elevated by the Second Council in direct opposition to Rome's candidate Paulinus) for two decades, so it would be interesting when this was written (Flavian also was ordained a priest by St. Meletius). Yet he is another Peter, succeeding to the virtue of Peter, Peter's chair, etc. And as long as Antioch retains Peter's confession (no mention of Peter of Rome) we have Peter at Antioch. Note also the emphasis on the political status of Rome, also below.
"They who were dragged hither and thither, who were despised and bound with fetters, and who suffered all those thousand torments, in their death are more honored than kings; and consider how this has come to pass: in the most regal
city of Rome to the tomb of the fisherman and the tentmaker run emperors and consuls and generals
." (c. Jud et Gent, 9, vol I, 825)
I do not believe that saint John Chrysostom's statements match the statements produced during Vatican I on the papacy but they do provide one piece of evidence from the ancient Church that the bishop of Rome was regarded as successor of saint Peter and that the bishop of Rome had acknowledged primacy. Exactly what the primacy of the bishop of Rome meant in the later 4th and early 5th century and how the Church grew in her understanding of what that kind of primacy implied is what I am trying to work through.
I fail to see how the quotes are helping Vatican I claims.