Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

The problem Mark, is your applying a defective understanding of the primacy of Rome in the first century. God bless,

Then correct me where I am wrong. I have provided evidence (from a saint nonetheless) to support the belief that all bishops are successors to St. Peter. I have shown that your pope holds the Orthodox view to be the historic one. In a earlier post, I brought attention to the lack of papal supremacy at Chalcedon. If my understanding is truly incorrect, then by all means, show me examples of papal supremacy being exercised in the early Church.

 

[crazzeto]

Then correct me where I am wrong. I have provided evidence (from a saint nonetheless) to support the belief that all bishops are successors to St. Peter. I have shown that your pope holds the Orthodox view to be the historic one. In a earlier post, I brought attention to the lack of papal supremacy at Chalcedon. If my understanding is truly incorrect, then by all means, show me examples of papal supremacy being exercised in the early Church.

I will let Holy Mother Church speak for her self

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

402 LG 23.
403 LG 22; cf. CD 2,9.

There is Augustine who professed "Roma locuta, causa finitas (Rome has spoken, the matter is ended) wtih respect to St. Innocent I when he commended the Bishops of Africa for referring the decreese of their councils at Carthage and Millevis in 416 AD, condeming Pelagianism.

I’m sorry Mark, your views on matters concerning the Bishop of Rome are defective. If you wish we can discuss the scriptures next, I’d be happy to share with you Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts on the profession of Peter. You’ll find he in now way, supports your views with regard to his position.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I will let Holy Mother Church speak for her self

There is Augustine who professed "Roma locuta, causa finitas (Rome has spoken, the matter is ended) wtih respect to St. Innocent I when he commended the Bishops of Africa for referring the decreese of their councils at Carthage and Millevis in 416 AD, condeming Pelagianism.

I’m sorry Mark, your views on matters concerning the Bishop of Rome are defective. If you wish we can discuss the scriptures next, I’d be happy to share with you Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts on the profession of Peter. You’ll find he in now way, supports your views with regard to his position.

Show me one Church Father who ever affirmed the exact view that the Pope “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Come on,you know exactly what I mean. Is his field strictly church history or theology?

I am not sure the two are in complete isolation. Having an education in dogmatic theology (a doctorate at that) would necessitate an understanding of the historical issues surrounding it.

Okay but that alone does not make him in expert in history-does it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I beg your pardon? When and where did I directly state the pope’s words were hogwash? Go back and read to what I was referring to.Second,the pope like all humans is entitled to his opinion and I in no shape or form need to agree.

Regardless of whether you directly referred to his words as hogwash, you stated :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And I have alway said too that “primacy of honor” that the Bishop of Rome only had in the past is hogwash and an aberration.

In light of the fact that the pope holds that exact view, you have condemned his words “hogwash”.

And in light of what the pope said and you re-directing his words, is he an expert in church history?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Ridiculous? What is more ridiculous are those who reject history and turn the blind for their novelties. If the Roman Bishop had no primacy or universal jurisdiction over others,then perhaps I should post case after case where eastern bishops took their unsolved matters to…Rome. Care to read them or is it to ridiculous

Taking cases to Rome does not imply universal jurisdiction. Have you ever heard of the concept known as arbitration?

Arbitration? That negates universal primacy? If the Bishop of Rome has NEVER possessed any universal jurisdiction as many of you claim and only of honor;then why would** any **bishop outside of his own diocese even be compellled or even remotely fathom it? Why not settle the matter in-house? If are all bishops are equals,then why travel many miles to take serious matters to Rome? Those bishops who went to Rome would have no need to go because they would know the Bishop of Rome held no authority to decide their issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So one sole matter debunks papal primacy? Does that seem like adequate proof to debunk papal primacy? Sorry,you’ll have to go a lot further than that to debunk papal primacy.

Firstly, why would I attempt to debunk papal primacy? I have already stated this was a historical reality. I oppose papal supremacy/ultramontanism.

Care to show one ECF from the early church and from the east who OPPOSED (as you do) ,REJECTED,CONDEMNED,etc papal primacy? Let us see if it is a historical reality as you claim?

The case at Chalcedon certainly doesn’t lend credibility to your ideas. Care to share any historical examples where your papal supremacy was practiced in the context of early Church affairs.

Yes. When I get home I’ll give you plenty of words and cases displaying it. Second, it has to be a reoccurring thing to make it legit? Chalecedon was called to disprove papal primacy? I have plenty of cases saying otherwise and the very words of eastern bishops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Well first tell me why he would not be given a seat?

It was a hypothetical question, though, would the reason really matter? Would anyone seriously oppose the pope on this issue (regardless of the reasons behind it)?

So if it is an opinion of the pope,no one should question it? Do you just condemned someone without hearing their case or argument? What does Pilate tell the Jewish leaders in the Passion of Christ: Do you punish your people without hearing them?

 

[Nicea325]

Show me one Church Father who ever affirmed the exact view that the Pope “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

As long you show us where they all affirmed that the pope is only an equal with honor and the church always taught that papal primacy was a novelty?
Sound fair?

 

[Cavaradossi]

As long you show us where they all affirmed that the pope is only an equal with honor and the church always taught that papal primacy was a novelty?
Sound fair?

No. As the claimant, the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence for your claim. I am making no claim at this point, only acting as a skeptic asking for evidence of your position. You present the false dichotomy that either the evidence is strong for the position of papal supremacy or the evidence is strong for the position against papal supremacy. You leave out the possibilities that both positions might have strong evidence or that neither position has strong evidence. If you are trying to convince me, then it is your job to provide evidence to do so. You can attack the soundness of my belief all you wish, but that doesn’t make your position any more persuasive.

 

[crazzeto]

Show me one Church Father who ever affirmed the exact view that the Pope “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Before I spend my time on this at all, are you willing to admit that Carl Ratziger never supported the Petrine view expressed by the EO posters here?

 

[Hesychios]

As long you show us where they all affirmed that the pope is only an equal with honor and the church always taught that papal primacy was a novelty?

You keep using this term ‘primacy’, but the papal claims have gone well beyond primacy to something else.

Primacy and Supremacy are not synonyms, but many Roman Catholics do not seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Before I spend my time on this at all, are you willing to admit that Carl Ratziger never supported the Petrine view expressed by the EO posters here?

I was not one of the people claiming that Cardinal Ratzinger supported any position one way or another, nor am I capable of speaking for my fellow Eastern Orthodox posters or recanting their opinions (which is what you seem to want me to do). Your demand that I make some sort of admission as if I were a guilty party is silly. However, I will say that I don’t personally believe that Cardinal Ratzinger holds to the Eastern view of ecclesiology. It would be utterly self-defeating for him to do so.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I will let Holy Mother Church speak for her self

And Pope Benedict no doubtably believes this. The point I am trying to reinforce is this : The pope believes that the current function of the papacy is a result of doctrinal development. He likewise believes that the Orthodox adhere to the early Church practice.

There is Augustine who professed "Roma locuta, causa finitas (Rome has spoken, the matter is ended) wtih respect to St. Innocent I when he commended the Bishops of Africa for referring the decreese of their councils at Carthage and Millevis in 416 AD, condeming Pelagianism.

That is great because St. Augustine never said that. Let’s look at the actual quote :

"…jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est" (Already two councils on this question have been sent to the apostolic see; and replies have also come from there. The case is closed).

Rome was arbiter in the dispute. If you take quotes out of context, it is easy to develop false conclusions. Interestingly enough, St. Augustine also writes :

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed”.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Arbitration? That negates universal primacy? If the Bishop of Rome has NEVER possessed any universal jurisdiction as many of you claim and only of honor;then why would** any **bishop outside of his own diocese even be compellled or even remotely fathom it? Why not settle the matter in-house? If are all bishops are equals,then why travel many miles to take serious matters to Rome? Those bishops who went to Rome would have no need to go because they would know the Bishop of Rome held no authority to decide their issues.

Because Rome was one of the most orthodox sees - often removed from the disputes of the east. The decisions of Rome were not, however, infallible. St. Augustine wrote :

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.”

Care to show one ECF from the early church and from the east who OPPOSED (as you do) ,REJECTED,CONDEMNED,etc papal primacy? Let us see if it is a historical reality as you claim?

No, because papal primacy was a reality. Papal supremacy was not. St. Cyprian writes to Pope Stephen :

“No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein."

So if it is an opinion of the pope,no one should question it? Do you just condemned someone without hearing their case or argument? What does Pilate tell the Jewish leaders in the Passion of Christ: Do you punish your people without hearing them?

I am not saying he would not be questioned. I am merely doubting that he would be openly opposed without consequence.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Show me one Church Father who ever affirmed the exact view that the Pope “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Are we to obey men before God? Or are we called to obey God before men?

Before getting to the ECF’s would Jesus Words and commands to Peter first and individually suffice while Jesus handed the keys to Peter and the power to bind and loose with the command to tend His flock in front of all the apostles present?

Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 **and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
19
**I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **

John 21:15
8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” **
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, **"Feed my sheep. **

Luke 22:31
10 11 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
**but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” **

We know Andrew is Peter’s older brother, yet Peter is always listed “First among all the apostles” recorded in the Gospels.

The last command Jesus tells Peter before ascending into heaven in front of the Apostles is;

John 21:19…,** he said to him, “Follow me.” **20
Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?”
21
**When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” **
22
**Jesus said to him, **“What if I want him to remain until I come? 12 What concern is it of yours? **You follow me.” **

Peter our first Pope was clearly infallibly under the protection of the Holy Spirit when commanded by Jesus to come to Him, and Peter walked on water in the presence of the Lord.

What manner of man born of flesh who is able to walk on water less the Lord Jesus be with him “always until the end of the age” see John 14:2.

The only divine offices that Jesus instituted were Peter’s Chair as Christ is the head of the whole Catholic Church world wide, Peter is (not the head but) Jesus Vicar world wide, the Bishops are shepherds of the Local Church guided with and by the local priest’s and deacons world wide.

The Ecumenical Patriarchs is not a divine office instituted by God nor are they apostolic, this is only an Ecclesial office. Only the Bishops holding these Ecclesiastical offices hold a divine office in their Episcopate’s (Bishopric) never the Patriarchachal office.

Peter’s Chair has unbroken apostolic succession all the way back to St.Peter himself in the Popes to today, who continue to follow Jesus, even in history when the gates came against Peter and his brethren, the gates of hell never prevailed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You keep using this term ‘primacy’, but the papal claims have gone well beyond primacy to something else.

Primacy and Supremacy are not synonyms, but many Roman Catholics do not seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

It might be useful, for those who are unfamiliar with the distinction to compare with secular methods of governance. There are four models which come to mind when thinking of issues of Supremacy and Primacy.

• Absolute Monarchy: the Pope is invested with absolute power; he is above the Magisterium, and thus, in times of disagreement, functions as the law of the land; this model is most consistent with the Ultramontanism which led to the inevitable conclusions of Vatican I.
• Presidency: the Pope serves like the president of a nation with the Magisterium acting as a legislature; in this model, a system of checks and balances exists between the Magisterium and the Pope; this is the sort of ‘supremacy’ which the more ecumenically-minded Catholic Church has put forth since Vatican II (it is worth noting that even post Vatican II, it is questionable whether such a balance currently exists of if the Pope is still superior to the council).
• Chairmanship: the Pope serves like a chairman of a board (or the speaker of the house in the US house of representatives); he is invested with certain administrative privileges, but his office is not an entity which exists separate of the collective (in other words, his office is still that of a bishop, just like the speaker of the house is still a congressman; the office does not exist as a separate entity from the body); in this model, his power is inferior to the power of the collective, and separate of his administrative powers, he is no more powerful than any other member of the council; this is what the Orthodox would refer to as ‘primacy.’
• Absolute Democracy: the Pope is just one bishop of many; he has his one vote at councils and beyond that has no special privilege other than being a respected figurehead; this view is largely inconsistent with Orthodox ecclesiology.

It is obvious that the first and last model are out of the question when it comes to reunion. The question then, is whether the model of ‘presidency’ or ‘chairmanship’ (supremacy versus primacy) is more appropriate for the role of hierarchs within the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

You keep using this term ‘primacy’, but the papal claims have gone well beyond primacy to something else.

Primacy and Supremacy are not synonyms, but many Roman Catholics do not seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

The Oriental Tradition does not distinguish between the two either. That is why the Oriental Orthodox not in communion with Rome always refer to their Patriarchs as “Supreme.” I think the problem is that Easterns and many Latins equate “supremacy” with “absolute.” “Supremacy” only means “highest,” while “absolute” means “highest and only.”

It seems the English language itself makes this distinction. For example, no one will admit that the “Supreme Court” in the U.S. or in Australia by any means has absolute power. It just means that in relation to other juridical powers in the land, it has the highest authority. It does not mean it is the “highest and ONLY” authority.

So when Catholic canons and magisterial documents have been translated into English with the word “supreme,” I am absolutely (no pun intended) certain, despite the pretensions of Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors, that the Catholic Church means “supreme” and not “absolute.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Do you have any comments for my post #172?

Blessings,
Marduk

It might be useful, for those who are unfamiliar with the distinction to compare with secular methods of governance. There are four models which come to mind when thinking of issues of Supremacy and Primacy.

• Absolute Monarchy: the Pope is invested with absolute power; he is above the Magisterium, and thus, in times of disagreement, functions as the law of the land; this model is most consistent with the Ultramontanism which led to the inevitable conclusions of Vatican I.
• Presidency: the Pope serves like the president of a nation with the Magisterium acting as a legislature; in this model, a system of checks and balances exists between the Magisterium and the Pope; this is the sort of ‘supremacy’ which the more ecumenically-minded Catholic Church has put forth since Vatican II (it is worth noting that even post Vatican II, it is questionable whether such a balance currently exists of if the Pope is still superior to the council).
• Chairmanship: the Pope serves like a chairman of a board (or the speaker of the house in the US house of representatives); he is invested with certain administrative privileges, but his office is not an entity which exists separate of the collective (in other words, his office is still that of a bishop, just like the speaker of the house is still a congressman; the office does not exist as a separate entity from the body); in this model, his power is inferior to the power of the collective, and separate of his administrative powers, he is no more powerful than any other member of the council; this is what the Orthodox would refer to as ‘primacy.’
• Absolute Democracy: the Pope is just one bishop of many; he has his one vote at councils and beyond that has no special privilege other than being a respected figurehead; this view is largely inconsistent with Orthodox ecclesiology.

It is obvious that the first and last model are out of the question when it comes to reunion. The question then, is whether the model of ‘presidency’ or ‘chairmanship’ (supremacy versus primacy) is more appropriate for the role of hierarchs within the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are we to obey men before God? Or are we called to obey God before men?

Before getting to the ECF’s would Jesus Words and commands to Peter first and individually suffice while Jesus handed the keys to Peter and the power to bind and loose with the command to tend His flock in front of all the apostles present?

Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 **and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
19
**I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **

John 21:15
8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” **
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, **"Feed my sheep. **

Luke 22:31
10 11 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
**but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” **

We know Andrew is Peter’s older brother, yet Peter is always listed “First among all the apostles” recorded in the Gospels.

The last command Jesus tells Peter before ascending into heaven in front of the Apostles is;

John 21:19…,** he said to him, “Follow me.” **20
Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?”
21
**When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” **
22
Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? 12 What concern is it of yours? **You follow me.” **

Peter our first Pope was clearly infallibly under the protection of the Holy Spirit when commanded by Jesus to come to Him, and Peter walked on water in the presence of the Lord.

What manner of man born of flesh who is able to walk on water less the Lord Jesus be with him “always until the end of the age” see John 14:2.

The only divine offices that Jesus instituted were Peter’s Chair as Christ is the head of the whole Catholic Church world wide, Peter is (not the head but) Jesus Vicar world wide, the Bishops are shepherds of the Local Church guided with and by the local priest’s and deacons world wide.

The Ecumenical Patriarchs is not a divine office instituted by God nor are they apostolic, this is only an Ecclesial office. Only the Bishops holding these Ecclesiastical offices hold a divine office in their Episcopate’s (Bishopric) never the Patriarchachal office.

Peter’s Chair has unbroken apostolic succession all the way back to St.Peter himself in the Popes to today, who continue to follow Jesus, even in history when the gates came against Peter and his brethren, the gates of hell never prevailed.

I am not a Protestant, and I refuse to play the Protestant game of, “the holy scriptures say…” As somebody who comes from a Tradition-based Church, you should know better than to try to throw scripture around without showing quotations from the Church Fathers to support your interpretations.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8175531]It might be useful, for those who are unfamiliar with the distinction to compare with secular methods of governance. There are four models which come to mind when thinking of issues of Supremacy and Primacy.

Jesus is Supremacy, Peter is given Supremacy (the keys to the kingdom of heaven) when Peter binds on earth Jesus binds in heaven, when Peter looses on earth (not the local parish) Jesus looses in heaven.

No president or secular powers were ever given the keys individually to kingdom of heaven, except Peter.

To compare the Church upon Jesus built to a secular or worldly power is not comparing apples to apples.

Jesus did not make a governing democracy of any type as you are claiming here. Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Their are no office of presidents in the Church, unless you compare the Ecumenical Patriarch’s who governs without powers from heaven.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am not a Protestant, and I refuse to play the Protestant game of, “the holy scriptures say…” As somebody who comes from a Tradition-based Church, you should know better than to try to throw scripture around without showing quotations from the Church Fathers to support your interpretations.

If this was a closed forum for Orthodox and Catholics it would of not been necessary to reveal scripture at first, because it is common knowledge to our apostolic Traditions and your rebuke would of been valid. But this is an open forum.

Before quoting ECF’s scripture and sacred Tradition should come first. This I have obeyed the Church Councils.

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Do you have any comments for my post #172?

Blessings,
Marduk

Sure, let me take a look.

The Oriental Tradition does not distinguish between the two either. That is why the Oriental Orthodox not in communion with Rome always refer to their Patriarchs as “Supreme.” I think the problem is that Easterns and many Latins equate “supremacy” with “absolute.” “Supremacy” only means “highest,” while “absolute” means “highest and only.”

It seems the English language itself makes this distinction. For example, no one will admit that the “Supreme Court” in the U.S. or in Australia by any means has absolute power. It just means that in relation to other juridical powers in the land, it has the highest authority. It does not mean it is the “highest and ONLY” authority.

So when Catholic canons and magisterial documents have been translated into English with the word “supreme,” I am absolutely (no pun intended) certain, despite the pretensions of Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors, that the Catholic Church means “supreme” and not “absolute.”

This is an interesting thought. I will say that, after seeing the f-word (filioque, for those of you whose minds are in the gutter ) discussed ad naseum, that linguistic issues can often contribute to misunderstandings. If we talk about ‘supremacy’ as meaning ‘highest’, then that is more or less synonymous with ‘primacy.’ Either way, I think, as his eminence Kallistos Ware points out in a lecture up on youtube, that while we have agreed upon the notion that the Pope has primacy at Ravenna, we have not quite come up to an agreement of what ‘primacy’ means yet.

I think, given that there can be an agreement that the pope has primacy of a universal nature, we next have to figure out what ‘primacy’ means. That’s where my comparison between a chairman and a president would come into play. The Orthodox would rather have a chairman, and I think the Catholics would rather have the Pope be a president. In this context, it is useful to have some sort of distinguishing mark between the two models, hence the distinction that Hesychios draws between ‘primacy’ and ‘supremacy.’

 

[Cavaradossi]

If this was a closed forum for Orthodox and Catholics it would of not been necessary to reveal scripture at first, because it is common knowledge to our apostolic Traditions and your rebuke would of been valid. But this is an open forum.

Before quoting ECF’s scripture and sacred Tradition should come first. This I have obeyed the Church Councils.

Peace be with you

But the Fathers are part of the Tradition…

Peace be with you too.