"Each Patriarch is almost like a mini pope, holding virtually total authority over his respective church.
As others have pointed out by now, this is incorrect.
I have not met an Orthodox who does not hold the Catholic Church to be apostolic and therefore authentic.
Ugh, that’s a big can of worms. Suffice it to say, this apologist has obviously never picked the mind of an Athonite monk as to what he thinks of “ecumenism.”
It is most important to bring into a discussion with regards to Peter’s unique authority. They may counter you and point to Mt 18, where Jesus gives all the Apostles the power to bind and loose, but drawing the distinction between the two events is critical. In Mt 16, Peter alone is given the keys, a symbol drawn directly from Isaiah 22, where Shebna was removed as Master of the Palace and the keys were given to Elikiah, and to his descendants for all posterity. Compare the language of the two instances and you will see how Jesus modeled his own handing on of the keys after this very incident.
I’d like to know the roots of this exegesis - which of the Fathers is it drawn from?
In his first and second homilies on the Gospel of St.John, St.John Chrysostom is pretty clear that he understood the “keys” to be the same as the power of “binding and loosening”,
and that he understood St.John the Apostle (at least) as also standing “upon the Rock”, alluding to the imagery of the 16th chapter of St.Matthew’s Gospel.
What St.Peter is, is “the first” as the Scriptures themselves call him. Neither he nor the rest of the Apostles actually received the gifts promised to them at the time of the promise. So the significance is, that St.Peter was the first of the Apostles to be promised the Priesthood. He would also be the first to preach the Gospel. He is the “type” of the Priesthood in general, and that is generally the tone one will see in the treatments of St.Peter.
Often through simple assumption, things are read into these Patristic teachings on the person and significance of St.Peter which are not in the documents themselves. All praise of St.Peter becomes something to be weighed in terms of “power”, and then for whatever reason applied uniquely to the Bishop of Rome. This of course completely ignores the startling fact that it was not St.Peter who presided over the ancient Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, but St.James the Brother-of-the-Lord. It was he who issued the sentence and formula on behalf of the assembled Apostles, Hierarchs, and Clergy. Interestingly, what influence St.Peter had was charismatic, not as one “Lording it over” another - as our Lord says, it is the Heathens who seek this kind of thing, it’s not of the Gospel (even if sinful Christians so often do such things anyway.) The model presented by Christ for the Apostles, and in turn for their successors (the Bishops) is fraternal. Bishops are not
as Presbyters to other Bishops, or a singular “super Bishop” of some kind. Even St.James’ is not presumptuous while presiding over that primitive Council - he writes in the name of those assembled, declaring “it is good to us and the Holy Spirit…”
We hold that the Papacy is the critical seat of unity for the Church that Christ built (he only built one) and therefore the Orthodox are the scismatics. The day we work out this issue we will likely restore the unity that Christ desired for His Church. Our present Pope has made it a priority for his papacy, to unify the “lungs” of the Body of Christ."
This notion of the Papacy you present simply isn’t the one that was accepted throughout Christendom - it was very provincial, and shows a very clear pattern of evolution…development to the point that the end product would be utterly unrecognizable to all of it’s early ancestors. The Orthodox cannot accept this, or any of the other innovations distinctive of Catholicism, whether in liturgical matters or in matters of doctrine. This is the source of division between Rome and it’s followers and the Orthodox Church of Christ. Since the 11th century, unfortunately, the differences have multiplied, with Rome in all cases being the agent of change.
I mean 