This is where we disagree.
There is no ‘special office’ above patriarch in the universal church.
The bishop of Rome is special because he is the bishop of the city of Rome, and therefore the Metropolitan/Patriarch of that synod.
It is as the patriarch of Rome that Orthodox see his place in the church, and it is because he is bishop of the great old church of the city of Rome that he is respected. It is for this reason Orthodox patriarchs can call the Pope at Rome an ‘elder brother’.
For Orthodox, the ‘special office’ above the patriarchy is a myth propagated to attempt to justify dominance over other churches. Once the Roman Catholic church in general recognizes this and proceeds to treat other churches genuinely as sister churches, instead of potentially subordinate churches, we may have a way of sharing communion for the first time in 1000 years.
Unfortunately you bought into this. The conspiracy theory of dominance is rooted in myth. Though the plight against the forces of evil through the later centuries become a self-prepetuated evil itself in the Church wrongs. There has never been a Conspiracy to Dominate the Church, that is preposterous.
Marybeloved spoke well on this above…“While the pope’s place in western/Roman rite/latin Catholicism is similar to the patriarch’s, his special office in the universal church is most certainly different. For one, it’s origin and authority comes from the Lord himself, not canonical/ecclessiastical law. While, theoretically speaking, we may have a situation where the church may restructure the whole patriarch system and have a new church organizational system according to the needs of the church, it is impossible that we could ever do away with Peter’s office as that would be a new animal of our own creation as opposed to the church the Lord left us. At the end of the day, we must remember who the owner of the church really is, I’ve found that to be the bottom line and best guide in understanding all Catholic positions, directions and doctrine, including even ecumenism and reunion efforts-whose wishes ultimately matter? I hope that helps.”
We addressed this at length on the other thread.
Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).”
This contradicts your purposed theory. “founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul” At Rome is contingent to the intended goal, the reality of the Lords Church is established by Him on His chosen. Temporal citys are the effect not the cause.
What “superior” origin? The fact you could be fed to the Lions at any pagan event? The fact all Christian materials were confiscated? The fact they communicated in code to remain secluded as we see in Scripture. The fact the first 30 or so Bishops have gave their lives for the Church to sanctify the ground, along with many from the East and other’s unknown. The East came to the aide of the West and is greatly acknowledged as we see with Antioch, Alexandria etc, and the abundance of writings left by predominately the East with St Irenaeus, Ignatius etc.
What was Superior was the pagan controlled and influenced city under some of the most horrific temporal rulers the Roman Empire ever witnessed such as Caligula and Nero. The pious incorrect idea that the City was Christian Superior is a complete misrepresentation of Christianity. The “why” as to not having abundant writings from these early centuries is exactly this reason and the events which transpired at Alexandria. The Archaeological Christian artifacts where often deplicted on plaster because they were poor, so once uncovered if not quickly photographed, they are quickly lost. Aside from persecution and confiscation thus destruction of literature and souls, which crippled the advancement of writings from early Rome.
While I believe through time we will see more artifacts and writings uncovered and located, this is the reason as to why they are limited in this early period. We see this willed in the writings af St Ignatius of Antioch, who clearly understood he would leave this realm thus made a concious effort to leave his works behind. Here we see the magintude of the effort to will the truth foward by the Lords chosen. This was not an easy task as some might assume.
Constantine was still trying to make a united social Roman Empire by the 4th century, and his idea in doing this was to integrate the religious ideals which were compatible including pagan . “Empire” was his focus not Christianity and his thinking, goal and mark was and is to place himself among the Great Rulers of the Roman Empire. You ever really read his writtings, view the archeaological evidence left behind by him, all his statues. The tallest tower still standing in Constantinople was of Constantine. Though Constantine was removed from its top, the tower still stands. He was deplicted as a God.
The Bishop of Rome is a postion of honor because the Church was built Upon that Rock which became Peters name, and Instituted by God. The deviation of Christianity came with Constantine and Eusebius.
And this is exactly where the Churchs disagree. Petrine stands for Peter and the issue resides right here East and West. Thus the critical understanding become the first 300 years which give way to understanding more clearly the Councils and further evaluation.
Point isn’t to distract from Constantine I believe he truly converted in the end. However, we see in this also that as the Christian Empire grew under Constantine, the Church was not wavering under his proposed theology and vain attempts. The original recipe transmitted by the Lord was to remain intact despite Temporal Rule not because of it. When the two worked together to the advantage of Christianity all the better.
This becomes a confusion in what is today, as opposed to exactly how this transpired in the first 300-years.
There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”
"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…
"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.
"It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself.
NOTE; Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations." (Schmemann, page 163-164)
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2Fnum12.htm&ei=3R4dUPLLA4ar0AGS_oD4DQ&usg=AFQjCNGuCTQVzFR8PS-ksD2Y_mrGwus_Qg&sig2=wkwPBzIPhchZodeuEYqnSA
