Greetings Victor,

[quote:1dhbtlmc]More of a reason to see why the doctrine of Papal supremacy would develop.[/quote:1dhbtlmc]

And see, this is precisely the problem, and one which too few Roman Catholics seem to appreciate – the “development” part.

Were Roman Catholics able to simply leave it as a practical development in Church government, that would be one thing – and while there may be it’s critics, that is the level it would be considered on; a pragmatic arrangement, with authority heavily centralized in a single Patriarchal See. Similar things have happened elsewhere, like in Carthage and Alexandria, and to a much lesser extent (arguably) Moscow.

But that is not what we’re talking about here – we’re talking about a centralized, unquestionable, “indefectable” and “infallible” figure having this alleged centralization of power; and not simply by practical arrangement, but [i:1dhbtlmc]by divine right.[/i:1dhbtlmc]

Now tell me, how exactly does something by “divine right”, being founded (allegedly) directly by God upon the person of St.Peter, “develop”? Simply put, it doesn’t.

[quote:1dhbtlmc]To say you don’t see any evidence of the Papal Supremacy in early times is forgive me for saying this, it’s ignorant!![/quote:1dhbtlmc]

Oh, oh…you’re hurting my feelskins now Victor. (kidding) Forgive the sarcasm, but isn’t hard not to (from your perspective) “call a spade a spade”? Yet, when Orthodox (including myself) do this, it’s some horridly “anti-Catholic” attack. Honestly, it strikes me all as a dodgy way of replacing a counter argument with a display of “hurt feelings” (and I can’t help but suspect in some cases, crocodile tears.)

As for “Papal Supremecy” – what books are you reading? It’s in the earliest period that one hears precisely [i:1dhbtlmc]zero[/i:1dhbtlmc] in terms of claiming anything resembling a “Petrine succession” in Rome with the byproduct of Rome’s Bishop being the “head of the Church.” The first claims to a Petrine authority of any sort don’t appear in Rome until late in the fourth century, as a reaction to the growing importance of Constantinople in ecclessiastical affairs – since Constantinople’s status and authority were being clearly defined as by the consent of Ecumenical Councils, Rome began trying to trump this on the basis of “pre-concilliar” custom and traditions, or “better” yet, the prestige of St.Peter.

[quote:1dhbtlmc]But it’s also true to say that some struggled with papal supremacy. St. Augustine was certainly one of them. But to my knowledge he never disobeyed the Pope of his time.[/quote:1dhbtlmc]

Obey, disobey…this is a very anachronistic outlook. St.Augustine was not part of some “Papal Church” as the current arrangement of the Roman Catholic hierarchy illustrates. He was a Bishop in a local community/synod of Churches which centered upon [i:1dhbtlmc]Carthage[/i:1dhbtlmc] not Rome. He spoke very kindly of St.Cyprian, a local predecessor of his who was quite clear in his right (if truth be on one’s side) to contradict the Pope when he’s in error.

St.Augustine has many great things to say about St.Peter, but I challenge you to investigage how they tie into the Pope of Rome. I think you’ll be surprised that the connection is not a strong one at all. And that is what I call the “huge blindspot” of RC apologetics – this inability to consider what the Fathers are actually saying, and not what one reads into what they have to say.