The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although
he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was
, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
Then there’s the issue of why, if the chair of Peter is given to a single super-ordinary bishop and not to all bishops, was St. Peter’s [first and longest-held] office as Bishop of Antioch subordinate to his office in Rome? As in, why, by Roman logic, would the Successor of Peter the Patriarch of Antioch not be successor of Peter as the one Vicar of Christ, the Infallible Universal Pontiff and Head of all the Church on Earth, et al, instead of the Patriarch of Rome? The answer of course is because the ONE Chair of Peter is the seat of ALL bishops, and Rome’s primacy of honor was given by the Church because of its unifying usual-orthodoxy, its traditional foundation by Sts. Peter and Paul, and because of its original political relevance in the Empire (the same political-relevance reason Constantinople was later raised in honor above even the Petrine Sees of Antioch and Alexandria); not because St. Peter happened to be last seen alive within the city limits of Roma, or because the last guy he lived to ordain a bishop happened to be Linus/Cletus/Clement. The Church of Rome as a whole was significant for many reasons, but not [because of] its particular bishop, for the Patriarch of Antioch holds the same pedigree as the Patriarch of Rome in that regard.
Oh they get pretty fringe at that point. I find its difficult to ignore the preponderance of evidence which supports the Papacy in Patristics, History, Councils and through time.
You cannot ignore the primacy, honor and priority of the Church of Rome found clearly in patristics, history and the Councils, but it’s difficult to ignore the preponderance of evidence which refutes the papacy in patristics, history and the Councils (Pope Victor rebuked by the Church instead of authoritatively considered, Pope Stephen backing down from prevailing favor of St. Cyprian’s position, the Meletian and Photian schisms where the pope of Rome’s appointment of bishop was duly and thoroughly ignored, etc. etc. etc.). I always find it curious that Roman Catholics see evidence of the modern papacy in the Councils - the Ecumenical Councils are the preeminent refutory bodies of evidence
against papal supremacy. Not one pope of Rome presided over one Ecumenical Council, and neither did any pope of Rome decide any Ecumenical Council. In fact, a pope of Rome or two was anathematized by a council or two. The Second Council of Constantinople didn’t even bother to
try to include Pope Vigilius, any of his bishops or any bishops from Italy at all for that matter, and was held explicitly
against his wishes; the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council were
forbidden by him to convene, but not one of the 152 Fathers apparently saw any authority for him to do so, because the council convened, ended and was decided completely without the pope of Rome’s presence or representation (let alone his approval) and entirely in the face of his forbidding, and Vigilius only later accepted the acts of the council in defeat. There is hardly a shred of evidence for any authority from Rome beyond honorary precedence, let alone universal ordinary authority, being recognized at any of the Ecumenical Councils. The strongest event in favor of Rome would be the Tomos of Pope St. Leo being accepted to define the Council of Chalcedon, but the Tome was put to scrutiny, compared to St. Cyril’s writings, examined for orthodoxy, disagreed with by many of the Fathers of the council, submitted to editing, etc. before it was determined to contain the faith of St. Cyril
and thus the Faith of the Church.
If there exist “ranks” apparently one is above another. The military has ranks and it means some is always above another and at the same time one can be below someone else.