From your reply, I can see that my point is not being appreciated. Let me clarify:
It is not a matter of what can or cannot be claimed about the Roman papacy, because as you rightfully point out, anything can be used to justify anything. Rather, the point is that if you are going to point to early documents that you say show some kind of unique role of the Roman Pope in intervening in disputes in churches beyond that of Rome or outside of Roman jurisdiction, then it will be quite easy to likewise point to other early letters, such as those I made reference to from HH Pope Dionysius of Alexandria to Roman Popes Stephen and Xystus, which (by your logic) should be say something about the jurisdiction of another bishop over the bishop of Rome. So it is the idea that this proves something unique about the Roman Pope that is in doubt, not the idea that Rome may have intervened at some early stage. Clearly the Roman bishop did, but so did others against the Roman bishop when he was seen by his brother bishops as being in error.
Also, what the Roman Pope calls himself doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. There are many such titles used by many leaders in the Church (no matter which communion you believe that is), but in taking them as some kind of literal fulfillment that applies to Rome and Rome only, the RCC thus places itself at variance with every other church. Would that the Pope of Alexandria, the first Pope of the world (according to history as recorded in a Roman Pope’s letter about our 13th Pope of Alexandria, HH St. Heraclas), actually were the “Judge of the Universe”, but most Christians do not take things literally that our Fathers likewise did not take literally.
You will believe as you want to believe, and I am not here to dissuade you from it, but rather my point is that as the RCC ecclesiology is unique to it, as nothing of its type developed elsewhere even in the other Petrine sees (those of Antioch and Alexandria; and, yes, I have read the Syriac Orthodox papers on “Petrine primacy” as they see it applying uniquely to them; crucially, you will not see in them any claim that their Patriarch should have jurisdiction over any other church), so really it’s not a matter of what you can claim is the unbroken line of belief dating back to the early Church. It’s actually a matter of what you can demonstrate to have been believed and acted upon throughout the whole Church, and for that to
not be the case we need see the counterexamples of the type already presented.
As your claim is larger than that of the collegial churches (OO and EO), your evidence must be too, and simply isn’t there.
Yes, you can find early letters indicating that Roman bishop did this or that, as you can find early letters indicating that the Coptic Pope, or Antiochian bishop, or whoever else did whatever they did. The key is: How did the rest of the Church react? Did the Church stand up and rebuke HH Pope Dionysius for daring to come into the controversy concerning baptism in North Africa decidedly against Pope Stephen in favor of St. Cyprian? No. Similarly, when Rome protested certain canons of the Council of Constantinople ostensibly on Alexandria’s behalf, did Alexandria therefore appeal to Rome’s supposed infallibility or universal jurisdiction? No. Alexandria accepted the canon that Rome rejected. Later on, when Pope Leo I wrote a latter to HH Pope Dioscoros urging that Alexandria adopt Roman practices, did Alexandria bow to the Roman Pope’s supposed authority and make the requested changes? No.
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. When you talk to Orthodox about the “consistent tradition of the universal Church”, know that to determine what that is we do not only look at Rome’s actions as the sun around which the rest of the universal church revolves, but actually at each church’s prerogative as befits it according to the ancient canons of Nicaea onward, which,
yes, of course recognize Rome in a place of primacy (no Orthodox deny this), but speak of all other churches likewise, i.e., that as Rome has its prerogatives, it is right that the other ancient sees have theirs. In other words, Rome’s jurisdiction is its own, and Alexandria its own, and Antioch its own, etc. You do not find any such instance whereby these prerogatives are ceded to Rome by virtue of its claimed superior or ultimate apostolic authority, via its connection to St. Peter or for any other reason (as Antioch and Alexandria are also Petrine sees, mind you), because primacy was not, at least outside of Rome’s own self-conception, equated with
supremacy in the early Church.
Taken in isolation, anything can be used to justify anything. We are speaking of a consistent tradition in the universal Church for centuries, and in the eastern and western Catholic Church ever since.
As I see it: Peter was clearly the first among equals, or however we term it. Our Lord could not deceive when He said “Let him who is the greatest become as the least and the servant of all.” And, for this reason, the Holy Father describes himself as “Servant of the servants of God.” Peter’s role in the Gospels and in Acts was effectively as CEO of the earthly Church. Just as Judas had an office that needed to be filled, so did Peter, both by office and by role.
You will disagree. But, I do not see the Catholic position as non-scriptural, irrational, unworkable or inhuman. The Pope does not demand obedience - it is freely given to him.
)
