I agree it sounds like Jesus had a very good relationship with Peter. And I donât deny the Church having a Hierarchy. The question is was it really always under Rome. We have writings like Ignatius, but then we also have an entire Council outside Rome who asked Rome to stay out of there business (And they stayed in communion with the entire church for saying something like that). Was it believed by some, I would agree. But we had a world without internet and things moved slowly. When it came to the final straw 1000 years later, Constantinople had no regard for the notion, because the Pope said so. And they stuck together and Rome is alone.
Considering the history, it rather seems like everyone was more like " as long as you stay out of our business, you can claim whatever you claim". But when that claim started to stretch a bit wider, everyone didnât buy into it.
Thus itâs true we can find writings, but one can hardly say it was universally believed.
I know in the other thread you had linked me to (thank you again for sharing, by the way), you mentioned that you were considering Orthodoxy in some sense, and it seems from above that youâve given it a lot of thought.
I did once find a statement from Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware:
"Orthodox believe that among the five Patriarchs a special place belongs to the pope.The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the decrees of the Vatican council of 1870, and taught today in the Roman Catholic Church; but at the same time Orthodoxy does not deny to the holy and Apostolic See of Rome a âPrimacy of Honorâ, together the right ( under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom. Note that we have used the word PRIMACY, no SUPREMACY. Orthodox regard the Pope as the Bishop âWho presides in Loveâ, to adapt a phrase from of St. Ignatius: Romeâs mistake - so Orthodox believe- has been to turn that primacy or PRESIDENCY OF LOVE into a supremacy of external power and jurisdiction.
This primacy which Rome enjoys takes it origins from three factors. First, Rome was the city where St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred, and where Peter was bishop. The Orthodox Church acknowledges Peter as the First among the Apostles: it does not forget the celebrated âPetrine Textsâ in the gospels. Secondly, the see of Rome also owed its primacy to the position occupied by the city of Rome in the Empire: she was the capital, the chief city of the ancient world, and such in some measure continued to be even after the foundation of Constantinople. Thirdly, although there were occasions when Popes fell into heresy , on the whole during the first 8 centuries of the Churchâs history, the Roman see was noted for the purity of itâs faith. When hard pressed in the struggle against heretics, people felt they could turn with confidence to the Pope. But as with Patriarchs, so with the pope: the primacy assigned to Rome does not overthrow the essential equality of all bishops. The Pope is the first bishop in the Church - but he is among equals."
The Catholic response given was as follows:
"What is most remarkable about that quote is how it agrees on so many essential points with the Catholic understanding of the papacy. The Pope has a primacy of love, and presides in love, even though he exercises a real (not merely honorary) authority. The fact that he has authority does not negate the fact that he presides in love.
The role of the Pope, as head of the universal Church, is first and foremost to assure the unity of the Churches. Pope John Paul explains that âWith the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the first servant of unity,â (Ut Unum Sint, no. 94). The Pope has authority from Christ. However, this authority is not so that he can reign as a dictator or monarch, as non-Catholics sometimes think. Instead, this authority is given so that he can assure unity. As the Holy Father explains, it would be impossible to assure the unity of the Churches without possessing the necessary authority."
And that last point is a very real one. Look at how the political influences have caused division among the Orthodox Churches. And though they maintain Apostolic Succession, valid orders and Sacraments, you can see the fruits of this type of arrangement in their recent struggles with the pan-Orthodox council.
Should the Orthodox Bishops ever recognize that this structure harms their own unity and that of the universal Church, the hurdles are very few (mainly, the specifics of the papacy and the filioque), but run very deep, and must be resolved before reunion can occur. However, their day-to-day worship would change very little.
(EDIT: Iâm trying to find the link for the statement from above, I believe from EWTN.)
