Divine Institution of the Papacy

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting points though. Often early we are dealing with implicit understandings of the Primacy, the primacy can be implicitly read early on. Infallible can be read slightly later as I suggested above as the needs arose, obviously this increased through V-I.

The point which becomes important here is that there is no reason to believe a Divinely insitututed infallible primacy didn’t always exist. Nothing suggests this even implicitly. Very much on the contrary. Add to this its a reality today.

 

[MilesVitae]

Not exactly. The Church was established by the preaching of both Apostles, but the apostolic succession comes from St. Peter, not St. Paul. Interestingly, no Apostolic Church claims apostolic succession from St. Paul. It is not clear from Scripture if St. Paul ever did any ordaining, and even admitted he only baptized a few. His main claim was to be a preacher of the Gospel. That he states several were his “sons” is more an indication that they were followers of the Gospel he preached, not that he actually ordained them.

Thanks for the fulness of the post - the above is the only thing I feel the need to respond to. To clarify, when I said both Apostles handed the episcopacy to Linus, I was citing Irenaeus himself, who says “3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate,” without singling out Peter as the source of the Rome’s Apostolic succession.

 

[MilesVitae]

This is what you stated through your recent posts which you concede.

a] one can look to the tradition passed on by the Apostles through the succession of bishops in Rome.

b] he will list that of the greatest Church (namely Rome) which was founded by Peter and Paul.

This is what Saint Irenaeus said…

c] state that the Church at Rome had a primacy among all the churches (which virtually no one disputes, at least among the Orthodox), or

d] that Peter was in some way called by Christ to be first among the Apostles (which, again, virtually no one disputes).

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at either. Rome was preeminent among the churches ([c], above), and I will even grant that this was probably due, in part at least, to its Petrine origins, which makes sense because Peter was the first among the Apostles ([d]). But, it is perfectly coherent to believe that Rome received prestige due to her connection to Peter, as well as to Paul (as Irenaeus testifies), her great charity, and her spotless faith, not to mention her political centrality, instead of her Bishop receiving a divinely established papal office.

For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"

From what I’ve seen, there seems to be a good degree of disagreement about most accurate translation of the Latin (convenire?) which is here rendered “agree with” (although, to be fair, the “controversy” may be merely the product of apologetics). Personally, I gave up a while ago trying to resolve it for myself and, besides, as I’ve explained before and Marduk has also explained well, this passage doesn’t seem to be about a divinely established petrine office in Rome.

Earlier references tend to be less precise and less explicit than those of the Middle Ages and the modern era when the doctrine of papal primacy was more often questioned. This should not be surprising since Christology itself did not become highly developed until the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.

I can understand that. But, at the same time, the early Church would (if Catholicism is true) still have been explicitly aware that Christ had founded a perpetual office of universal authority in Peter and passed on to Rome, and I am troubled when I see passages which fail to mention such an office at the most appropriate times to do so. See, for instance, Irenaeus again. He states simply that Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome, with no inkling that Rome possessed a primacy from Peter. Granted, this passage is about the reliability of the tradition of Rome as an Apostolic see, not about papal authority - but, if Peter did pass on a divinely established primacy, one would expect it to occur to Irenaeus to mention this, even in passing, in identifying the greatness of Rome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can understand that. But, at the same time, the early Church would (if Catholicism is true) still have been explicitly aware that Christ had founded a perpetual office of universal authority in Peter and passed on to Rome, and I am troubled when I see passages which fail to mention such an office at the most appropriate times to do so. See, for instance, Irenaeus again. He states simply that Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome, with no inkling that Rome possessed a primacy from Peter. Granted, this passage is about the reliability of the tradition of Rome as an Apostolic see, not about papal authority - but, if Peter did pass on a divinely established primacy, one would expect it to occur to Irenaeus to mention this, even in passing, in identifying the greatness of Rome.

MIles when we are talking authority here, this is the point we debate with for example absolute and high, low petrine view. So in this understanding I’m not sure what you expect to read in the first couple hundred years.

I hear what you are saying though, yet I find this as no surprise. As we are talking collective evidence. As to what the Saint thought or we assume he should have said doesn’t change what he did say. The idea he viewed the Rome See as a superior principality and power is significant, its also significant he see’s all called to communion and unity with Rome. He see’s the Faith on which we speak of in Matthew 16.

Then of course as I showed with St Cyril…“The divine Word pronounced Peter, the chosen one of the holy apostles, to be blessed. For when in parts of Caesarea called Philippi, the Saviour asked “Who do men say that the Son of man is”, he cried out saying “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, and speedily received the reward of his true conception about him, Christ saying “Blessed art thou Peter”, calling, I imagine, nothing else the rock, in allusion to his name, but the immovable and stable faith of the disciple on which the Church of Christ is founded and fixed without danger of falling.” [Gore, op. cit., p. 96.]

And so forth, however, its also important as to how one is viewing the primacy as I mentioned. There in no denial this developed over time and continues to. Its to what degree we debate.

 

[KathleenGee]

To simplify, yes there is the grace of office to settle disputes as in the case of the Church of Rome.

As Fr Barrows stated in his Catholicism series, the Church began as a seed and grew and emerged.

The role of the papacy is much, much needed to hold all of us together.

I have been subjected to alot of cafeteria Catholicism where people pick and choose what they want to believe in and this contradicts the role of Peter who was chosen head and given the keys to bind and loosen.

The papacy is the office that holds the Keys to the Blood of Christ.

I also believe that it is likewise a great grace of the Lord Himself to desire and work for common unity of faith that transcends all culture, politics, and language. The Petrine Office is most necessary for the perfection of faith in the Church and this grace is something we must pray for.

 

[mardukm]

To be clear, AC 34 does not cite the parable of the wise and faithful servant. I don’t think that was what you meant to imply, but I found your words somewhat misleading (unintentionally, I’m sure).

AC 34 is based on Christ’s words is what I meant. He stated he would set one servant over His household (singular), and that this servant (or, rather, the office) would exist until He returns. AC 34 tells us that bishops must recognize this head, and do nothing that affects the plenary Church without his consent, just as the head is bound to act in consensus with his brother bishops…

In any case, I don’t think the parable is obviously about the structure of the Church. It does seem to be about leaders in the Church (after all, in Luke, he gives the parable in response to Peter’s question “are you saying these things for our benefit or everyone else’s?”

Does not having leaders define the structure of the Church? How do you logically separate the two concepts? The Apostolic Churches are not like most Protestants, who give the primacy to individual interpretation of the Bible.

but I don’t think it is incoherent to see the head servant in the metaphor as anyone having a position of authority in Christ’s Church

,
Exactly. AC 34 applies to all levels of the hierarchy - local, metropolitan, patriarchal, and universal --. ALL levels, including the universal level. At each level, there is a visible head, a principle of unity.

without it implying anything about whether there would be a perpetual, universal office. I think you’re reading more into it than can be concluded from it

That does not make sense. The parable states that the head servant will be around when the Master returns. You can interpret the head servant as applying to anyone in a position of being head (priest for local parish, bishop for diocese, Metropolitan for metropolitan see, patriarch for patriarchate, pope for universal Church). Please explain the logic in stating the principle of headship will continue on all levels, EXCEPT the universal level.

As for AC34 applying universally, I have no problem with that one way or another. The question is still whether a universal primacy was divinely established or an historical development like the regional primacies.

Did the post-apostolic Church institute a novelty not previously approved by her Master? Where did the idea of having a head bishop (or, head servant) come from? Did it come from Christ - in other words, does Christ himself say he would set a head servant over His household, and that this head servant would exist when He returns? Yes.

Of course it is, but that doesn’t mean Cyprian was at all concerned in De Unitate with those primacies. As we both recognize, his concern was schism from the local bishop.

The schism of the Novatians was affecting the entire North African Church, not just a local Church. Can you please explain why St. Cyprian would only be concerned about the unity of the local Church, instead of the unity of the entire North African Church?

Again, while I’m not convinced that the paradigm of EE is incoherent,

EE is not incoherent at all. In fact, it is the principle by which the Catholic Church operates. It was the Council of Trent that affirmed that the Eucharist is the preeminent sign of unity of and for the Church. Eucharistic Ecclesiology has been an explicit part of the Catholic Church’s ecclesiology LOOOOONG before the EO coined the term in the early 20th century. What High Petrine advocates contest about EE is the understanding given to it by SOME EO, who claim it means that the local Church is so self-sufficient that there is no necessity of communion with any other Church (or, congruently, other orthodox bishops).

No, I don’t think it does. It doesn’t preclude bishops having the keys, but it doesn’t follow that the other bishops must have the keys as well.

The shared Sacred Tradition of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach that it does mean the other bishops have the keys as well. I would just submit to that teaching.

It isn’t VI decrees which are my objection here. Was Jesus establishing Peter’s primacy in Matthew 16:18? Yes. Was this office of primacy the office of the Pope? Yes, according to Catholicism. How, then, can it also be about the establishment of the episcopacy?

The giving of the keys is intimately connected with any/all authority in the Church - the authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins, to govern, to teach, to sanctify, to have episcopal primacy (on all levels). I don’t understand how one can question that the giving of the keys to the Church designates not just the establishment of the papacy, but the establishment of the whole College.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

There a couple of things I would like to point out and that is 1) the Rome was the center or capital of the Roan Empire where the authority resided of and for the empire. 2) Why did Peter go to Rome in the first place? It seems to me that because Rome was the center of the Roman world That is where he, Peter, thought he needed to be. I do not know if Paul went to Rome was there first or that peter was there first but it does seem to me or at least appears that Peter was in Rome before Paul, from traditional POV. So then Rome became the center of the Church founded on Peter which to me makes a lot of sense. 3) it seems to me that for whatever reason a memory of those who succeeded Peter was continued while I have not seen anything as to a list of who succeeded the other Apostles where they founded Churches I am not sure why that is or if there was any such list to begin with. This suggests to me that the line of successors to Peter was mort important than a list of the other Apostles to show or maybe it was just understood without having to say so that Peter is the authority and his successors had that same authority.

Also I want point out the fact that Roman authorities went after the leaders in Rome of the this new religion called Christo’s hoping to kill off the new religion and its leaders of it. While there were persecutions in the various parts of the empire of converts to this new religion of and on for nearly three hundred years, it was the leaders of the new religion in Rome that Roman authorities went after. Yet, in the end, the Church did not die off, but got stronger. had it not a divine institution I think it would never have survived.

 

[josie_L]

Enjoy, Josie, your contributions here.

We cannot say that Peter was only part of the whole of the apostles; Christ appointed him to head His church.

The role of the bishop was decided on early in the church as the conciliar model was not workable…vulnerable to pick and choose which cleric to follow.

The Church of Rome in ancient times had the grace to settle disputes and provide support for emerging churches.

As the faith expanded into many different cultures, the emergence of Descartes and the Enlightment, nationalism in Christian countries, the role of the Bishop of Rome emerged into the papacy to be the sign of communion and unity and common faith.

So many times I see Orthodox and Latin Catholics essentially believe the same but express them differently, or the Latin Church take the extra step to intellectually definte doctrines, and then we have a tempest in a teapot.

If there is any justification for the papacy, it is the communion of one heart and one mind – which goes back to the first church, the Church of Jerusalem.

The more I grew in my faith, the more I see my Catholicism as in one motif – communion.

It is the same prayer of Our Lord – that we be as one so as to be a sign to the world that all may believe.

I believe when the Orthodox and Latin Churches finally unite, there will be a great grace of conversion for the world.

Thank you Kathleen! Totally agree with your post! God bless!

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Josie…

I read Latin/Orthodox posts, find them very enlightening. Likewise they demonstrate the great complexity of geographical, historical, cultures and languages and the justification of the 5 patriarchs, – Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople. I stay out of them.

But I think in essence God is simple.

And He is calling us to be one. Reactions against common unity appear to me to be proud and willful. And I read somewhere that the Latin Church must work very hard to be most humble with the Orthodox.

We have alot to pray for in seeing common unity, and the return of faith found in upholding the papacy.

 

[MilesVitae]

There a couple of things I would like to point out and that is 1) the Rome was the center or capital of the Roan Empire where the authority resided of and for the empire. 2) Why did Peter go to Rome in the first place? It seems to me that because Rome was the center of the Roman world That is where he, Peter, thought he needed to be. I do not know if Paul went to Rome was there first or that peter was there first but it does seem to me or at least appears that Peter was in Rome before Paul, from traditional POV. So then Rome became the center of the Church founded on Peter which to me makes a lot of sense.

True, though I think all of these are compatible with an Orthodox position.

1. it seems to me that for whatever reason a memory of those who succeeded Peter was continued while I have not seen anything as to a list of who succeeded the other Apostles where they founded Churches I am not sure why that is or if there was any such list to begin with. This suggests to me that the line of successors to Peter was mort important than a list of the other Apostles to show or maybe it was just understood without having to say so that Peter is the authority and his successors had that same authority.

Hmmm. That’s an interesting point. One could point out that, indisputably, Rome was the principle church (and, in some cases, like the passage from Irenaeus which we just discussed, this is clearly why Rome’s succession is listed) - but, at the same time, it is very interesting that Rome’s succession is the one so often listed…Does anyone know if there is any other parallel for the other Apostles?

Also I want point out the fact that Roman authorities went after the leaders in Rome of the this new religion called Christo’s hoping to kill off the new religion and its leaders of it. While there were persecutions in the various parts of the empire of converts to this new religion of and on for nearly three hundred years, it was the leaders of the new religion in Rome that Roman authorities went after. Yet, in the end, the Church did not die off, but got stronger. had it not a divine institution I think it would never have survived.

Hmmm. Rome was the capital, though, after all. One can see why the pagan Romans would be keen to eliminate Christians in their own capital.

 

[MilesVitae]

To simplify, yes there is the grace of office to settle disputes as in the case of the Church of Rome.

As Fr Barrows stated in his Catholicism series, the Church began as a seed and grew and emerged.

The role of the papacy is much, much needed to hold all of us together.

I have been subjected to alot of cafeteria Catholicism where people pick and choose what they want to believe in and this contradicts the role of Peter who was chosen head and given the keys to bind and loosen.

The papacy is the office that holds the Keys to the Blood of Christ.

I also believe that it is likewise a great grace of the Lord Himself to desire and work for common unity of faith that transcends all culture, politics, and language. The Petrine Office is most necessary for the perfection of faith in the Church and this grace is something we must pray for.

Why is the papacy so necessary? After all, the Orthodox have maintained unity in the true faith.

 

[spina1953]

True, though I think all of these are compatible with an Orthodox position.

Hmmm. That’s an interesting point. One could point out that, indisputably, Rome was the principle church (and, in some cases, like the passage from Irenaeus which we just discussed, this is clearly why Rome’s succession is listed) - but, at the same time, it is very interesting that Rome’s succession is the one so often listed…Does anyone know if there is any other parallel for the other Apostles?

Hmmm. Rome was the capital, though, after all. One can see why the pagan Romans would be keen to eliminate Christians in their own capital.

Hi Miles Vitae: I know as most do that Christianity started in the Middle East and many Churches were founded BY the Apostles as well as by Paul, I am sure that there is traditions concerning those churches, yet it just seems to me that for whatever reason no one hears of any lists of which Churches were founded by the Apostles and some list of their successors of those Churches. It seems to on the Peter side that at some point he was in Rome or had went to Rome after sometime after his arrest and braking away. Later he came to Jerusalem for the Council, which implies that he and Paul were in Antoich sometime before the Council, then after the council went back to Rome. Then Paul after being arrested asked to be sent to Rome because he was a Roman citizen. I am trying to give this some serious thought to it in trying to better understand why it seems that the successor to Peter was remembered but not so of the rest of the Apostles, in that it might in some way show or point to the primacy and authority of Pewter being the head of the Church to which he has the authority to pass on his leadership as that head.

 

[MilesVitae]

Does not having leaders define the structure of the Church? How do you logically separate the two concepts? The Apostolic Churches are not like most Protestants, who give the primacy to individual interpretation of the Bible.

Sorry, I didn’t express myself clearly. I meant that the parable isn’t meant to be a treatise on the structure of the Church - it’s thrust is about leaders in the Church being prepared for the coming of the Lord. It’s point is not to lay out the structure of the Church.
,

Exactly. AC 34 applies to all levels of the hierarchy - local, metropolitan, patriarchal, and universal --. ALL levels, including the universal level. At each level, there is a visible head, a principle of unity.

So, the head servant having authority over all of the master’s whole household is an image for any leader, at any level? If that is the case, then it does not imply that there will be a universal head - it simply means that the leaders of the Church must be prepared for Christ’s coming. If there is a universal head, then the lesson of the parable can be applied to him as well, but the existence of a universal head does not follow from this parable. Who this passage applies to follows from ecclessiology - not the other way around. Even if one accepts a low petrine EE, I find this passage coherent, since (especially in such a view) the local bishop can be called the head servant having authority over Christ’s household.

That does not make sense. The parable states that the head servant will be around when the Master returns. You can interpret the head servant as applying to anyone in a position of being head (priest for local parish, bishop for diocese, Metropolitan for metropolitan see, patriarch for patriarchate, pope for universal Church). Please explain the logic in stating the principle of headship will continue on all levels, EXCEPT the universal level.

Again, I don’t see how this is meant to be an exposition of the structure of the Church. It is about the fact that the heads in the Church (whatever structure of headship there may be) must also be prepared for Christ’s coming.

Did the post-apostolic Church institute a novelty not previously approved by her Master? Where did the idea of having a head bishop (or, head servant) come from?

Hmmm, this is a good point (although, again, I don’t think it can be based upon the parable we have been discussing). But, just as the various other heads are not necessarily perpetual, and were later institutions by the Church (not directly by Christ), why can the same not be true for the universal head?

I’ve got to run out the door shortly, so I’ll have to finish posting later.

 

[spina1953]

I am thinking that if the master gives his authority to be the head of the household till the mater returns it seems to me that the head servant has the authority to decide how or who will not just succeed him but to appoint those whom he thinks will continue to run the household till that day when the master returns. It also seems to me that the head servant can also appoint those to do or run other parts of the household so that together they run the various parts of the household smoothly.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why is the papacy so necessary? After all, the Orthodox have maintained unity in the true faith.

Divine institution, the bishop of Rome continues to serve as St Peter’s successor, there is only one Bishop of Rome which continued through time Of course the Orthodox have valid succession, ordination.

Unity of the Church is what is needed, communion.

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Miles!

The Orthodoxy have unity among themselves but not with us.

I was thinking about the Orthodox and although we have mission ethnic churches, the work is always to bring them into more integration with the local church.

But for instance, I would find the Greek Orthodox welcoming those of Greek heritage. I love the Greeks and their food is so good!!! I worked for a Greek widow and she went through my entire Greek cookbook, affirming everyone was good. And then she and her daughter and I spoke one night, and we are all against the division between the Latin and Orthodox churches and want us to be one as well.

Not only do I see the Orthodox are profoundly separated us…in emotion… in my perception as we believe the same but articulate aspects differently or come in from a different angle on a doctrine, but I see Orthodox more ethnically defined and separated.

If we are only coming together with those of our own ethnic origin, then are we being more man oriented than Christ oriented as well?

I think the position of the papacy…in relation to the fact the Bishop of Rome further defined itself for the sake of common unity of faith…would resolve the problem of ethnic based churches. I use the Greek Orthodox as an example as they are well known where I live. But I think of the Russian Orthodox as well, and spoke with a ByleRussian (spelling?) who is now in the Latin Church, who conceded that yes, his perception was that Orthodox are more ethnically defined than the Latins.

The Latin Church carries a more universal charism and this because of the papacy. This universality also encourages a greater evangelizing force as I read that the Orthodox focus on more inward mysticism. I don’t mean to label or misrepresent but to share a perception that many of us have of the Orthodox.

Likewise, I see the Orthodox in its mysticism, not prone to mistakes as we witnessed with the abuses and attempts by anti-Church, anti-Gospel forces in the Latin Church with the beginning of Vatican II implementation.

 

[MilesVitae]

The schism of the Novatians was affecting the entire North African Church, not just a local Church. Can you please explain why St. Cyprian would only be concerned about the unity of the local Church, instead of the unity of the entire North African Church?

I see your point…

The shared Sacred Tradition of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach that it does mean the other bishops have the keys as well. I would just submit to that teaching.

Does it teach that this specific passage is about the keys being passed from Peter to the others? It is true that all the bishops possess the keys, but that is not the same as saying that the possession of the keys by the other bishops follows from that passage, or that the passage means they have the other keys…

The giving of the keys is intimately connected with any/all authority in the Church - the authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins, to govern, to teach, to sanctify, to have episcopal primacy (on all levels). I don’t understand how one can question that the giving of the keys to the Church designates not just the establishment of the papacy, but the establishment of the whole College.

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand The passage in Matthew seems to be specifically about Peter receiving his position of primacy, whatever the relationship of the other Apostles (and, later, bishops) may be…

 

[josie_L]

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand The passage in Matthew seems to be specifically about Peter receiving his position of primacy, whatever the relationship of the other Apostles (and, later, bishops) may be…

Although, Marduk is not here to respond, I’ve already had this discussion with him before, if it will help clarify things, Marduk does believes that this passage refers to Peter’s primacy, but he believes (as do I) that once Peter “received” the keys, those in communion with him, i.e., the apostles, had access to the keys as well.

p.s. Christ gives the keys to Peter, Peter in turn shares the keys/power of the keys with those in communion with him, i.e., the bishops of the church!

 

[GaryTaylor]

II don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand The passage in Matthew seems to be specifically about Peter receiving his position of primacy, whatever the relationship of the other Apostles (and, later, bishops) may be…

The see of St Peter isn’t held by the Antioch and Alexandrian patriarch’s in history and patristic writing. This cannot be supported. Peter and Paul perished in Rome, sealing their fate and the Church. Still both mentioned in ordination at Rome today and historically. The two most glorious apostles the “keybearer of the Church” and the “Doctor of the Gentiles.” This is why the Saint speaks of Romes more superior power and principalities. Its not only earthly but divine.

No one anywhere is literally given the Keys in transmitted communication but St Peter. St Peter and St Paul perished in Rome, not Antioch or Alexandria.

No where anywhere in scripture are all NOT IN COMMUNION with St Peter who “for sure” is the spokesman and chosen of the Apostles. In fact its discerned Biblically and historically who is outside the Church by not being in communion with the Apostles in scripture and St Peters Chair in history.

No other Church is spoken of historically in any degree of validity who is not in communion with Rome. Not is communion with Rome is outside the Church. The harshest words were leveled at those not in communion with Rome, this is how heretics were known. No other way.

So the succession to the Chair of Rome is only the Bishop of Rome, no other not in Rome or anywhere else is the successor to Peters See but those elected through the Holy Spirit. Thus the Key remains deposited IN THE CHURCH with those in COMMUNION with the Church.

When you leave you do not have the Key because you are not in the Church in communion with Rome.

Judas did NOT have the Key anymore.

Peter is the Rock the Church is Divinely instituted on. Peter alone is given the Key. The Key is clearly defined in Isaiah. Peter is chosen first, Peter is spokesman. Peter speaks at Pentecost. Peter is mentioned more that any Apostle Biblically. Peter and Paul perish in Rome in which the clear teaching is the ground was purified by the Blood of the Martyrs. Such was the case in Rome?

Peter sent Mark to Antioch, Peter established Antioch and then left. Paul acknowledged Rome was Peters See, had they not perished there its very plausible they would have continued elsewhere. That’s not what occurred as Divine providence thought otherwise.

The argument in Rome is pretty solid. I can’t see anyway around all this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The point that all have Peters Faith and are Peter and unity is exemplified only by the ecumenical councils cannot be sustained. All are individual Church’s only responsible to themselves and the ecumenical councils simply isn’t reality

You see in this line of thinking proposed often, the claim from the EO for example is there are only 7-ecuemical councils and this authority trumps all.

Think about that.

This means the Councils Rome accepts are not all ecumenical.

The Oriental Orthodox never affirmed the last 4 Councils of the 7.

Assyrian Church never affirmed even the Ephesus Council.

Through process of elimination its not hard to see the folly of this thinking.