I’m sorry if you think I came across as cocky – I’m not – agitated, yes. I just cannot understand why RCs always seem to be so black and white about this. Even in the 19th century the Papacy did not have the monarchical authority it has now, so how can anyone suggest it did in the 10th century or earlier? It’s nonsensical. I admit that some Orthodox go too far the other way, but I am not one of them which is why when I get accused of doing so I get annoyed. Sorry, I’m only human. I pray for reunification but I am not optimistic and of one thing I am certain – the Great Schism will never be healed while the Papacy claims autocratic power. It is not either total authority or honour only. The truth of the matter is that the primacy of honour gave the Pope authority somewhere between these two extremes. Orthodox (despite a long history of denying all authority even to the EP) seem to be willing to accept this, why aren’t RCs? I feel the biggest stumbling block to our unity is the Papacy’s arrogant inflexibility on this issue, but then that’s what caused the Schism in the first place.
[quote:ji6smnr3]I guess I’m failing to see exactly what Peter’s primacy is exactly for. Do you see it as a Primacy of honor only?
Peter’s primacy? I don’t see a primacy of any sort for Peter. You should understand that we (and the vast majority of Church Fathers) see the Rock as Peter’s confession, not Peter (in fact, I’m told, reading the original Koine makes this pretty explicit, though my Greek’s not up to such subtleties). Papal primacy is a different matter entirely. Let me put it this way: Peter founded Antioch well before Rome, so if anyone is his successor it’s the Patriarch of Antioch. I would even dispute that Peter founded Rome at all as I’ve seen good evidence that it wasn’t until Clement that a pope was ordained by Peter, but this is irrelevant. Read the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Rome was not granted primacy because the Pope was successor to Peter but because Rome was the capital city and was honoured by Peter and Paul’s martyrdoms. The councils refer to said primacy as a custom, not a dogma, and later when Constantinople was raised to second place (not accepted by Rome until after a puppet Latin Patriarch was thrust on us, I know), this was again due to the importance of the city. I don’t believe Peter had any primacy of any sort over the Apostles, but merely believe he was a type of all the others and an example, but even if he had it would be completely irrelevant as the only thing about Peter that was even considered in Rome’s favour when primacy was granted was that he died there.