What was the point?

[Montalban]

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? "“I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

That is, Polycarp, of Asia, also holds Apostolic authority, and his church too bears witness to Christianity

In short, you are attempting a selective quoting argument. When you see we Orthodox (who have always accepted a limited sesnse of ‘primacy’) remarking on this ‘primacy’ you quote it as if it supports your own idea of ‘primacy’. It doesn’t. The real proof is the actual operation of the early church, which I’ve mentioned time and again doesn’t seem to understand the Papacy as you wish; which must be why for the most part you ignore this part of the argument.

The examples from the church are many - Popes making statements; ruling on an issue. Instead of accepting this ruling the church meets, argues the case, and makes its own ruling, stating that the ruling is the ruling of the Council, not the Pope.

We could continue quoting from particular Church Fathers till the cows come home but it doesn’t take away from this fact. When certain Popes made rulings, they were to a point ignored, and (in the case of Pope St. Victor) rebuked (for having attempted to go beyond his jurisdiction).

You thus need to continue to ignore this point of historical context. And even your quotes miss the mark. It is in fact one of the very reasons that drew me towards Orthodoxy. The mis-use of quotes by Catholics lead me to conclude that if the evidence for the Papacy was so flimsy as to do this, then the whole argument could be thrown away.

A typical Catholic site makes many such claims
Claim: Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

Counter: As it was a See founded by an Apostle it is indeed Apostolic. It is not ‘the’ Apostolic throne, but one of many. Rome is referred to as ‘an’ Apostolic throne.
“because it was an Apostolical throne.”
Athanasius “History of the Arians” 35 quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-51.htm#P4861_1933128

 

[Montalban]

Claim: In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)
globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
What does it actually say…?
“And in those days,” it says, “Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said.” (v. 15.) Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse. (“The number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty.) Men and brethren,” he says, “this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before,” [etc.] (v. 16.) Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ’s presence with them, the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously. And he does not speak thus without a meaning. But observe how he consoles them concerning what had passed. In fact, what had happened had caused them no small consternation. For if there are many now who canvass this circumstance,what may we suppose they had to say then?
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-10.htm#P272_117779
NOT AUTHORITY

Thus each church headed by a bishop is ‘catholic’. Each person is completely ‘catholic’. Each church, headed by a bishop is completely ‘catholic’ and the whole church is ‘catholic’. This unity in diversity reflects the triune nature of God. St. Cyprian wrote on this, but is oft misused.( The term Catholic is seen in it’s proper meaning at in light of mission work to the Slavs
orthodoxinfo.com/general/soborny.aspx)

In his work on the unity of the Catholic Church, St. Cyprian wrote…
“And although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church’s] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one cflock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”
St. Cyprian “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”, 4, quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press; ), pp123-4.

This text is much quoted by Romans as proof of Petrine supremecy. However the Jesuit scholar Bévnot says…
“The whole context is against restricting the meaning to ‘the see of Rome.’ Cyrprian’s argument is based on the unicity of the origin (in Peter) of Church and authority alike. The one authority was perpetuated in the legitimate successions of the bishops, and to break with one’s bishop was to break with the one, Christ-established, authority, that is, the ‘Chair of Peter.’ Thus his argument was pertinent not only for Rome, where Novatian had broken with Cornelius (who’s ‘chair’ was Peter’s in a double sense), but also nearer home, where Feliccissimus and his faction were in revolt against himself.
However, for those who recognised the true primacy of the see of Rome, Cyrpian’s words (taken out of their context) would naturally express the necessity of communion with Rome. It is not unreasonable to suppose (until proof of the contrary is forthcoming) that such an interpretation, put upon his words at the time of the baptismal controversy, led Cyprian to revise this chapter of its final addition.”
De Unitate 4, Bevenot, quoted in Cartlton, pp124-5.
(see Addendum to see St. Cyprian’s revised text below)

 

[Montalban]

Addendum
“It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you …Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man’s, they shall be retained,” yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church is figured in the Canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord’s name, says: “One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb.” If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, has he still confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness saying: “One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God”?