Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[dzheremi]

I appreciate the response, as always…I can certainly understand your point, but at what point do Orthodox Church theologins draw the line between “primacy,” which they accept, and authority? In other words, if Peter has primacy, what powers does he have? What does “privacy” even mean then?

Remember that the full context of this idea is not primacy in itself, but the “primes inter pares” situation of the early church. Perhaps a helpful example could be drawn from the other Papal Church, in Alexandria. In our Church, we have a Pope of course (currently HH Pope Tawadros II), as we were in fact the first whose Patriarch was referred to by that title. Being Pope, HH has some unique rights and responsibilities within his own Church (not over others), as he is the highest/most senior of the Bishops. By right and custom, he is the Bishop of Alexandria (cf. Pope Benedict is Bishop of Rome), and this is his territory. But he also has a unique role as the chair of the Holy Synod, leading an assembly of his brother bishops in issuing whatever it is that they’ve come together to issue (just as in the EO church, synods or councils aren’t called for nothing). This is led to some very interesting situations in history, for instance with Pope Yusab II, the Pope before HH Pope Kyrillos VI, who was deposed by the Synod. So we see that even the head of the Synod himself is not above its ruling, because he doesn’t really have more power than it does.

So, rather than looking at it as what powers he is granted, I think it is more natural for us to look at it as a somewhat different role. All bishops of the Church are equal in the sense of being bishops, but not all have the role of head of the Holy Synod (and there are likewise bishops to be secretaries of the synod or in other roles; I think the current secretary is HG Bishop Raphael). All bishops have some given territory, but not all are over the historic city at which the See was founded (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, etc).

Does primacy mean more power than the other breakaway churches in apostolic succession? If so, shouldn’t that mean that those churches should always stay in communion with Peter’s seat?

But it doesn’t mean that.

But at the same time, if Jesus established the papal office with the idea that Peter’s seat would be one of primacy, shouldn’t we all listen and adhere to that seat? How can we recognize Peter’s primacy but ignore his authority?

Christ told His apostles when there was a dispute about who was the greatest that the least among them will be great (Luke 9:46), and that it is he who serves who is the greatest (Luke 22:24). Neither of these mean that there is not real authority invested in the See of St. Peter (whether you consider that to be Rome exclusively, or Rome and Antioch), or of St. Mark (Alexandria), or of St. Andrew (Constantinople), etc. But that authority is not understood as being the ability or power to rule over another. To use another Alexandrian example from recent times (sorry, but it’s what I am most comfortable with): In recent years there has been trouble for the Church in Eritrea, and its patriarch, HH Abune Antonios, has been forcibly deposed by the government there, and a government puppet (unrecognized by the other churches of the communion) has sat in his place. As a result of this tragedy, many groups in Eritrea and Ethiopia, and in the East African/Tewahedo diaspora, have called for his reinstallation. The Tewahedo (Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox) Church, whether in Ethiopia or Eritrea, is considered rightly as a daughter of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, as it was evangelized (after the Syrian Fathers who established Christianity there) by Coptic Orthodox missionaries, and was even administered directly by the Coptic Alexandrians. It only gained autocephaly during the time of the aforementioned Pope Yusab II (hence the Ethiopians do not recognize his deposition), in the 1950s. Eritrea was not even independent herself until 1993, so it is even newer.

Given this historical reality in which the Church in East Africa is historically “Coptic” (as it was once called, and not without reason: in addition to being administered directly by Alexandria, it is said that the staggering number of anaphoras once in use by the Ethiopians originally came down to it from Alexandria, though today they have only a few, just like we do), you would think that it would be natural to appeal to the Coptic Pope to “settle” the issues in Eritrea. And yet, this is not what has happened, because the Patriarch of Alexandria has no such power over other churches, even ones that Alexandria used to run (and still has very close ties to; HH Pope Shenouda ordained HH Abune Antonios in 1994). The best that HH Pope Shenouda III could do was refuse to recognize the uncanonical deposition of HH Abune Antonios when Eritrean government lackies came seeking his approval for the deposition. HH Abune Antonios remains in indefinite detention at an undisclosed location to this very day.

I know these aren’t easy questions, but they really are the issues that keep the two largest Christian bodies in world separated from one another.

 

[jinc1019]

The one thing I loved when learning about Orthodox theology and especially on this issue is how consistent their views are to the model of the Church. I love how the theology of one thing is applied to another thing, it really speaks volumes about the truth that is contained in the teaching.

There are two things to look at, the model of the Trinity, and the model of the Eucharist.

The Trinitarian model teaches us that there is One God in Three Persons. Each Person is equally God to another, no one is more God or less God, all are the same One God. But they have an order to them that the Son and the Holy Spirit submits to the Father, not because of authority or power, but becaues of love. This should be the case with our bishops. Each bishop must have equal power and authority, and those chosen to head a group of Churches isn’t necessarily more authoritative, but the other bishops defer and submit to him out of love. He doesn’t rule them, but leads them in love. That is why Jesus told the Apostles that whomever wants to be the greatest needs to be the servant of all. Every Archbishop/Metropolitan, every Patriarch, should be a servant of those whom they lead.

The other is the Eucharistic model of the Church, that each Church is in itself the fullness of the Kingdom of God. So the Church in Antioch is the fullness of the Church, the Church in Moscow is the fullness of the Church, the Church in Ottawa, Canada is the fullness of the Church. Each bishop has with him the fullness of the Church, this is why St. Ignatius of Antioch said that wherever the bishop is and the people are gathered around him and the Eucharist is there, there is the Church. So each bishop represents the fullness of the Church. The oneness of the Church is in their communion with one another and in Christ, and this is the exact same way how we all are one with Christ. That is why no one Church can be above the other Churches, it either means that there is more Church in that Church, or the other Church are somewhat defective and thus having lesser dignity.

That is the problem, Primacy isn’t about power or authority.

And history has proven that there were times when other bishops have opposed the Pope. This concept of the unopposable Pope only came about at the turn of the First Millennium when the Pope wanted to assert his authority over the temporal rulers of Western Europe.

First I want to say, thank you for the detailed response and the succinct, intelligent, and beautiful recitation of the Orthodox faith. I read some other, and more official, views of the Orthodox Church online after asking this question and I found this answer to be quite informative as well: orthodoxanswers.org/answer/72/

This too was particularly good: orthodoxanswers.org/answer/813/

Both sites mention much of what you are referring to in your post…Things I have never heard before but have struck me as more than interesting. Very, very important information. Again, I appreciate your tremendous response.

 

[jinc1019]

Remember that the full context of this idea is not primacy in itself, but the “primes inter pares” situation of the early church. Perhaps a helpful example could be drawn from the other Papal Church, in Alexandria. In our Church, we have a Pope of course (currently HH Pope Tawadros II), as we were in fact the first whose Patriarch was referred to by that title. Being Pope, HH has some unique rights and responsibilities within his own Church (not over others), as he is the highest/most senior of the Bishops. By right and custom, he is the Bishop of Alexandria (cf. Pope Benedict is Bishop of Rome), and this is his territory. But he also has a unique role as the chair of the Holy Synod, leading an assembly of his brother bishops in issuing whatever it is that they’ve come together to issue (just as in the EO church, synods or councils aren’t called for nothing). This is led to some very interesting situations in history, for instance with Pope Yusab II, the Pope before HH Pope Kyrillos VI, who was deposed by the Synod. So we see that even the head of the Synod himself is not above its ruling, because he doesn’t really have more power than it does.

So, rather than looking at it as what powers he is granted, I think it is more natural for us to look at it as a somewhat different role. All bishops of the Church are equal in the sense of being bishops, but not all have the role of head of the Holy Synod (and there are likewise bishops to be secretaries of the synod or in other roles; I think the current secretary is HG Bishop Raphael). All bishops have some given territory, but not all are over the historic city at which the See was founded (Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, etc).

But it doesn’t mean that.

Christ told His apostles when there was a dispute about who was the greatest that the least among them will be great (Luke 9:46), and that it is he who serves who is the greatest (Luke 22:24). Neither of these mean that there is not real authority invested in the See of St. Peter (whether you consider that to be Rome exclusively, or Rome and Antioch), or of St. Mark (Alexandria), or of St. Andrew (Constantinople), etc. But that authority is not understood as being the ability or power to rule over another. To use another Alexandrian example from recent times (sorry, but it’s what I am most comfortable with): In recent years there has been trouble for the Church in Eritrea, and its patriarch, HH Abune Antonios, has been forcibly deposed by the government there, and a government puppet (unrecognized by the other churches of the communion) has sat in his place. As a result of this tragedy, many groups in Eritrea and Ethiopia, and in the East African/Tewahedo diaspora, have called for his reinstallation. The Tewahedo (Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox) Church, whether in Ethiopia or Eritrea, is considered rightly as a daughter of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, as it was evangelized (after the Syrian Fathers who established Christianity there) by Coptic Orthodox missionaries, and was even administered directly by the Coptic Alexandrians. It only gained autocephaly during the time of the aforementioned Pope Yusab II (hence the Ethiopians do not recognize his deposition), in the 1950s. Eritrea was not even independent herself until 1993, so it is even newer.

Given this historical reality in which the Church in East Africa is historically “Coptic” (as it was once called, and not without reason: in addition to being administered directly by Alexandria, it is said that the staggering number of anaphoras once in use by the Ethiopians originally came down to it from Alexandria, though today they have only a few, just like we do), you would think that it would be natural to appeal to the Coptic Pope to “settle” the issues in Eritrea. And yet, this is not what has happened, because the Patriarch of Alexandria has no such power over other churches, even ones that Alexandria used to run (and still has very close ties to; HH Pope Shenouda ordained HH Abune Antonios in 1994). The best that HH Pope Shenouda III could do was refuse to recognize the uncanonical deposition of HH Abune Antonios when Eritrean government lackies came seeking his approval for the deposition. HH Abune Antonios remains in indefinite detention at an undisclosed location to this very day.

I know these aren’t easy questions, but they really are the issues that keep the two largest Christian bodies in world separated from one another.

Another excellent answer…You Orthodox Christians really know your stuff!

I greatly appreciate the time you took to answer this question as well as the previous poster. I think you both raise very similar, nearly identical, important points about how to view the Church and how authority exists. You made several excellent points…and I will certainly consider them very closely.

 

[jinc1019]

I was wondering if an Orthodox member could answer this question for me as well, as it does relate closely to this subject of papal authority and infallibility. On OrthodoxAnswers.com, one of the responses to a question about papal authority read like this:

"All bishops are successors to the Apostles, generally. St. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, and some later accounts place him as first bishop of Rome. Linus, a convert of St. Paul, is the first bishop of Rome recorded at the time of his ministry, and he served in this role early enough to make it difficult to put Peter there before him.

However, some do, and some don’t, believe Peter was there first. What is more interesting is that the words which are commonly used to support Rome as the seat of the Church - the “keys to the Kingdom” for instance - our Lord actually spoke to the assembled company of disciples with no reference to Peter or any other individual; and, when the disciples quarreled about who would be first, Jesus rebuked them for their ambition and repeated to them that they must not seek position, but to serve one another. This was played out quite early, as in the book of Acts the Apostles took counsel together, presided by James (ch. 15), to decide how to teach the new gentile converts, and it was while they were at worship that the Holy Spirit spoke to them as a group to separate Paul and Barnabas for their first mission journey."

Can someone please, please explain the bolded statement? What part of scripture is he referencing here? Is it a combination of passages? I don’t understand when he says that the “keys to the Kingdom” were spoken to the whole group of disciples. Didn’t this only happen when talking to Peter?

 

[jinc1019]

Also, as a separate and broader question: Why do the Orthodox believe all bishops are successors of Peter? I keep seeing that argument alluded to over and over again.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Also, as a separate and broader question: Why do the Orthodox believe all bishops are successors of Peter? I keep seeing that argument alluded to over and over again.

Again because of the Eucharistic model. Christ built His Church on Peter, if every Church is the fullness of the Kingdom, then every bishop is Peter, in a sense.

 

[ConstantineTG]

First I want to say, thank you for the detailed response and the succinct, intelligent, and beautiful recitation of the Orthodox faith. I read some other, and more official, views of the Orthodox Church online after asking this question and I found this answer to be quite informative as well: orthodoxanswers.org/answer/72/

This too was particularly good: orthodoxanswers.org/answer/813/

Both sites mention much of what you are referring to in your post…Things I have never heard before but have struck me as more than interesting. Very, very important information. Again, I appreciate your tremendous response.

This concept has captivated me as well and it does make perfect sense. Why should the model of the Church be any different than the Holy Trinity or the Eucharist?

 

[jinc1019]

This concept has captivated me as well and it does make perfect sense. Why should the model of the Church be any different than the Holy Trinity or the Eucharist?

Excellent point. I agree whole-heartedly.

 

[jinc1019]

I was wondering if an Orthodox member could answer this question for me as well, as it does relate closely to this subject of papal authority and infallibility. On OrthodoxAnswers.com, one of the responses to a question about papal authority read like this:

"All bishops are successors to the Apostles, generally. St. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, and some later accounts place him as first bishop of Rome. Linus, a convert of St. Paul, is the first bishop of Rome recorded at the time of his ministry, and he served in this role early enough to make it difficult to put Peter there before him.

However, some do, and some don’t, believe Peter was there first. What is more interesting is that the words which are commonly used to support Rome as the seat of the Church - the “keys to the Kingdom” for instance - our Lord actually spoke to the assembled company of disciples with no reference to Peter or any other individual; and, when the disciples quarreled about who would be first, Jesus rebuked them for their ambition and repeated to them that they must not seek position, but to serve one another. This was played out quite early, as in the book of Acts the Apostles took counsel together, presided by James (ch. 15), to decide how to teach the new gentile converts, and it was while they were at worship that the Holy Spirit spoke to them as a group to separate Paul and Barnabas for their first mission journey."

Can someone please, please explain the bolded statement? What part of scripture is he referencing here? Is it a combination of passages? I don’t understand when he says that the “keys to the Kingdom” were spoken to the whole group of disciples. Didn’t this only happen when talking to Peter?

Anyone know the answer to the question listed above?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was wondering if an Orthodox member could answer this question for me as well, as it does relate closely to this subject of papal authority and infallibility. On OrthodoxAnswers.com, one of the responses to a question about papal authority read like this:

"All bishops are successors to the Apostles, generally. St. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, and some later accounts place him as first bishop of Rome. Linus, a convert of St. Paul, is the first bishop of Rome recorded at the time of his ministry, and he served in this role early enough to make it difficult to put Peter there before him.

However, some do, and some don’t, believe Peter was there first. What is more interesting is that the words which are commonly used to support Rome as the seat of the Church - the “keys to the Kingdom” for instance - our Lord actually spoke to the assembled company of disciples with no reference to Peter or any other individual; and, when the disciples quarreled about who would be first, Jesus rebuked them for their ambition and repeated to them that they must not seek position, but to serve one another. This was played out quite early, as in the book of Acts the Apostles took counsel together, presided by James (ch. 15), to decide how to teach the new gentile converts, and it was while they were at worship that the Holy Spirit spoke to them as a group to separate Paul and Barnabas for their first mission journey."

Can someone please, please explain the bolded statement? What part of scripture is he referencing here? Is it a combination of passages? I don’t understand when he says that the “keys to the Kingdom” were spoken to the whole group of disciples. Didn’t this only happen when talking to Peter?

Personally I believe this is just polemics answering polemics.

 

[jinc1019]

Personally I believe this is just polemics answering polemics.

Ok. So then the idea that bishops are successors of Peter is really not meant in a literal laying on of hands kind of way, only in an indirect sense? I am still a little confused about the distinction here because the Orthodox do require literal apostolic succession as well, and obviously not every single bishop can trace their ancestry back to Peter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ok. So then the idea that bishops are successors of Peter is really not meant in a literal laying on of hands kind of way, only in an indirect sense? I am still a little confused about the distinction here because the Orthodox do require literal apostolic succession as well, and obviously not every single bishop can trace their ancestry back to Peter.

I mean the keys being interpreted as giving St. Peter and the successors of his throne some authority is just a difficult discussion. I believe that the Catholic position is polemics, and the Orthodox response is just even more polemics.

As for succession by laying of hands, well, the Apostles laid hands on many men, and these men laid hands on another group of men, and so on and so forth. That is direct Apostolic Succession that both the Catholics and Orthodox have today. Given the long history and having three bishops ordain one, I believe that today every bishop can trace back to St. Peter himself. At least for the Bishops within the Roman Empire as Bishops do travel around for ordination. I can’t say much for the Indian Christians, if there were bishops from the areas where St. Peter ordained who have ventured out to India. But at least they can be sure their ordinations are traced back to St. Thomas.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok. So then the idea that bishops are successors of Peter is really not meant in a literal laying on of hands kind of way, only in an indirect sense? I am still a little confused about the distinction here because the Orthodox do require literal apostolic succession as well, and obviously not every single bishop can trace their ancestry back to Peter.

I’m not sure I agree.

Because consecration of new bishops, for most of the history of the Orthodox Church has required three bishops to lay on hands, and because Peter did travel a fair amount (especially in the East), it becomes very likely (though not certain) that all Bishops could eventually trace themselves back to St. Peter.

However, I don’t think this is what is meant.

In the Catholic Church the bishop of Rome is called the Successor of Peter, by virtue of his succession of the Pope before him, however there is seldom a laying on of hands by one Pope to his successor, their apostolic lineages are different, though they both will claim to be the “Successor of Peter”.
This is similar to how Bishops in the East can claim to be successors of Peter… Because the Bishops are successors to all the apostles, even without that lineage including Peter, they can claim to be a successor of Peter.

However, as Constantine said, this is mostly just a counter-argument to a common Catholic polemic, and one that is not founded on tradition. While it is true that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, the Bishop of Rome was considered to be a successor of Peter in a special way by the Early Church Fathers. They may not have held him to be infallible, but when he spoke, they listened.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I’m going to have to disagree with ConstantineTG on the “every bishop can trace his lineage back to St. Peter” idea, unless it’s meant in an indirect way (e.g., for Coptic bishops, it would be St. Peter via St. Mark, which I suppose is acceptable, but having a direct tie to St. Peter is not something upon which our eccelsiology stands or falls; apostolic succession means exactly that – the apostles, not only the apostle Peter). So for Indian Christians, St. Thomas is not some sort of consolation prize. Though the point about St. Peter’s travels is certainly not to be discarded, it is also not an absolute necessity in order for a Church to be considered apostolic. (I guess it could be sort of like how people claim that some staggeringly large percentage of humanity must be related to Genghis Khan due to the Mongol conquests…yeah, so when can I start putting down “Asian American” on university applications?)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yeah, I’m going to have to disagree with ConstantineTG on the “every bishop can trace his lineage back to St. Peter” idea, unless it’s meant in an indirect way (e.g., for Coptic bishops, it would be St. Peter via St. Mark, which I suppose is acceptable, but having a direct tie to St. Peter is not something upon which our eccelsiology stands or falls; apostolic succession means exactly that – the apostles, not only the apostle Peter). So for Indian Christians, St. Thomas is not some sort of consolation prize. Though the point about St. Peter’s travels is certainly not to be discarded, it is also not an absolute necessity in order for a Church to be considered apostolic.

I’m not saying it conclusively, I’m just saying at this point in time with this bishop ordaining that bishop, it is a spiderweb of lineage. I’m just talking about probabilities here. If you put 12 couples on an island completely isolated from the entire world for 2000 years, and none of their decendants ever get to leave that island, you will have intermarriages among those 12 that by the current generation every person can trace back their ancestry to all 12. Its not conclusive evidence, but given the time factor and how ordinations are done, it is highly likely that every bishop today can trace their ordination back to any one of the Apostles in some way, shape or form.

Also I did not say this intending to assert that Apostolic Succession is dependent on a direct line to St. Peter.

(I guess it could be sort of like how people claim that some percentage of humanity must be related to Genghis Khan due to the Mongol conquests…yeah, so when can I start putting down “Asian American” on university applications?)

Only if you were born with a Mongolian spot

 

[dzheremi]

I know we’re in agreement, ConstantineTG (or at least that’s how I’m reading it), I just wanted to emphasize the point against a particular way of thinking that says that since St. Peter is considered the prince of the Apostles (or is talked about in similarly glowing terms), therefore it is imperative that everything be traced back to Peter, and, perhaps as a corollary, being in communion with “Peter” in the person of the Pope of Rome is somehow the most important thing in the world. As we are all connected to St. Peter (perhaps literally, perhaps literally and figuratively; as you and others have written here, it’s not conclusive), and anyway we do not believe in Papal Petrine exclusivism (hat tip to Fr. Andrew Damick for that term), I believe that it is possible to step back and say “well, that’s not exactly how it is” without in any way tarnishing or speaking ill of St. Peter or his place in the Church or anything like that. That’s all I meant. St. Peter is great, he is beloved and honored and all that good stuff, but if it should turn out that there is no direct connection between St. Peter and a given See, the See still stands. And, perhaps more importantly from an Orthodox point of view, being in communion with Peter does not mean being in communion with Rome exclusively (even if we were take it completely literally, both OO and EO are in communion with St. Peter through our respective Antiochian churches), and certainly does not mean accepting from Rome innovations that are against the faith, such as Papal Infallibility.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Orthodox position is that the type of Peter must be proposed to all bishops of the Church (or as Pope St. Leo taught, all “the pastors” of the Church). This is so, because if primacy were not an inherent power of the episcopacy, bishops would be ordained to a fourth order upon becoming primates, and a primate of primates would have to be a fifth order, and so on and so forth. But we know that neither metropolitan bishop, nor patriarch, nor pope are any holy order above bishop, so all bishops, even the ones who recognize a head among them, possess the power of primacy inherently, because if none of them did, the primacy of a primate would not be a true primacy, and if some to were to have this power and others did not it this would imply that there is some charism not attached to the episcopal office which gives primates their primacy.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not saying it conclusively, I’m just saying at this point in time with this bishop ordaining that bishop, it is a spiderweb of lineage. I’m just talking about probabilities here. If you put 12 couples on an island completely isolated from the entire world for 2000 years, and none of their decendants ever get to leave that island, you will have intermarriages among those 12 that by the current generation every person can trace back their ancestry to all 12. Its not conclusive evidence, but given the time factor and how ordinations are done, it is highly likely that every bishop today can trace their ordination back to any one of the Apostles in some way, shape or form.

Also I did not say this intending to assert that Apostolic Succession is dependent on a direct line to St. Peter.

Only if you were born with a Mongolian spot

I agree with your point about bishops. It is very likely that virtually every bishop is a successor to Peter in the sense that you are suggesting. I don’t really see how that can be disputed. Over thousands of years, I am sure this has happened. It is also likely almost every bishop can trace their roots back to another apostle as well.

 

[jinc1019]

I know we’re in agreement, ConstantineTG (or at least that’s how I’m reading it), I just wanted to emphasize the point against a particular way of thinking that says that since St. Peter is considered the prince of the Apostles (or is talked about in similarly glowing terms), therefore it is imperative that everything be traced back to Peter, and, perhaps as a corollary, being in communion with “Peter” in the person of the Pope of Rome is somehow the most important thing in the world. As we are all connected to St. Peter (perhaps literally, perhaps literally and figuratively; as you and others have written here, it’s not conclusive), and anyway we do not believe in Papal Petrine exclusivism (hat tip to Fr. Andrew Damick for that term), I believe that it is possible to step back and say “well, that’s not exactly how it is” without in any way tarnishing or speaking ill of St. Peter or his place in the Church or anything like that. That’s all I meant. St. Peter is great, he is beloved and honored and all that good stuff, but if it should turn out that there is no direct connection between St. Peter and a given See, the See still stands. And, perhaps more importantly from an Orthodox point of view, being in communion with Peter does not mean being in communion with Rome exclusively (even if we were take it completely literally, both OO and EO are in communion with St. Peter through our respective Antiochian churches), and certainly does not mean accepting from Rome innovations that are against the faith, such as Papal Infallibility.

Great point, I am sure Constantine TG agrees. Amen on the part about papal infallibility by the way!

 

[jinc1019]

The Orthodox position is that the type of Peter must be proposed to all bishops of the Church (or as Pope St. Leo taught, all “the pastors” of the Church). This is so, because if primacy were not an inherent power of the episcopacy, bishops would be ordained to a fourth order upon becoming primates, and a primate of primates would have to be a fifth order, and so on and so forth. But we know that neither metropolitan bishop, nor patriarch, nor pope are any holy order above bishop, so all bishops, even the ones who recognize a head among them, possess the power of primacy inherently, because if none of them did, the primacy of a primate would not be a true primacy, and if some to were to have this power and others did not it this would imply that there is some charism not attached to the episcopal office which gives primates their primacy.

I have never heard the word “primacy” used so often in one paragraph, but strangely, it made absolute sense! I see your point and it is well noted. I am still just a little uncertain though about how to reconcile the Early Church’s view of the primacy of Rome with the Orthodox view I am really just learning about. It seems that the early bishops did hold Rome, at least many did, as having a great deal of authority. I know this isn’t exactly what Orthodox teach, but that is how it appears to me from the letters I have read from various Saints.

Still, I can certainly see your argument in clear terms. I am just uncertain of your conclusions.