This will be my last post on this subject as it is very clear that neither side is going to back down. If this is how Pope Benedict sees things as well then I’m afraid his vow to end the Schism will prove to be nothing but hollow words, but so be it.
On the ‘feed my sheep’ issue, the near unanimous view of the Fathers is that this has absolutely nothing to do with Peter having authority over the other Apostles, sorry.
I’m quite familiar with Irenaeus words and I agree with them. At his time all churches were ound to agree (not submit, note) with Rome because she was the bastion of orthodoxy. Surely you can’t believe that Irenaeus was saying that then and for all time, even if Rome were to fall into heresy all Christians must agree (no, you’d rather use submit here I’m sure) or cease to be Christian? That’s purely mad. Besides which even if, for the sakes of argument Rome did have a primacy of authority by reason of the Pope’s Apostolic Succession from Peter, deserting the True faith renders said succession meaningless – you cannot have Apostolic Succession without the Apostolic Faith.
But no, wait, you believe the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. You also apparently believe this was true before 19th C (how you can understand this is beyond me, but never mind), so was it true for Honorius. Was this heretic Pope condemned by the entire Church including his successor infallible? Did all the Church have to agree with him? If so then I can only assume that the Church ceased to exist during his reign, but that violate’s Christ promise doesn’t it?