Regarding John Chrysostom, I am expecting a stock-standard Catholic rebuttal that this great saint appealed for help to the pope.
I expect this because I've debated Catholics for more than 10 years and we go through the same arguments.
But anyway, here's my answer before the question...
Yes, when he was faced with banishment from Constantinople he appealed to the pope for help. However he equally appealed to other westerners for help.
John Chrysostom became patriarch in Constantinople. In this high ranking position his tendency for austerity and moral behaviour earned enemies at court, particularly the Empress Eudoxia. ( Bury, J. B., (1889) A History of the Later Roman Empire, Volume 1 (Macmillan & Co; London), pp92ff) The details of this conflict are not important to this book but suffice to note that John Chyrsostom was deposed from his office. On occasion then he appealed for help to the pope.
To say that this saint’s writings support the papacy would make him a hypocrite, as he never accepted Rome’s authority over his local church. However it is true that he did seek Rome’s help when faced with exile from his own See. This however is only part of the story. He appealed to the Pope he appealed to others for help, including two other western prelates; Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia. Importantly he appealed to all three westerners in the same terms rather than viewing the Pope as leader. ( Stephens, W. R. W., (2005), Saint Chrysostom: His Life and Times,(Elibron Classics), pp349-50. This work was originally published in 1872.) Catholic writers such as Newman put his appeal to the pope as… “We have letters written by him to the Bishops of Thessalonica, Corinth, Synnada, Laodicea, Mopsuestia, Jerusalem, Carthage, Milan, Brescia, and Aquileia. Above all, he addressed himself to the Holy See”. Newman’s terminology ‘above all…to the Holy See’ ( Newman, J. H., (1873) Historical Sketches: The Church of the Fathers (Basil Montagu Pickering; London), p281.) is based on the a priori that the Holy See is above all, thus an appeal to the pope is above all. There is nothing in this but supposition. It is clear that Newman notes appeals made to many different people, why the appeal to Rome is a stand-out is not based on any evidence.
In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI also spoke of Chrysostom’s appeal…
“How well known and highly esteemed Chromatius was in the Church of his time we can deduce from an episode in the life of St John Chrysostom. When the Bishop of Constantinople was exiled from his See, he wrote three letters to those he considered the most important Bishops of the West seeking to obtain their support with the Emperors: he wrote one letter to the Bishop of Rome, the second to the Bishop of Milan and the third to the Bishop of Aquileia, precisely, Chromatius.”
( Ep. CLV: PG LII,702. General Audience Paul VI Audience Hall - Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071205_en.html/
I add this reference in because the occasional catholic apologist tries to explain away this as John Chrysostom writing to the bishop of Rome, and then merely forwarding copies on to the other two bishops as if the appeal was to the pope alone. See also the following three footnotes as well.)
Historian J. N. D Kelly also recognises this…“While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia...His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church...Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs.”
( Kelly, J. N. D., (1995) Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, (Cornell University Press), p246.)
There's nothing in any of his writings to support the papacy. not make appointments – there is a lack of any pope exercising authority in his work. Thus the Catholic encyclopaedia of 1911 offers this frank admission of Chrysostom’s writings “...that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm/