You are not refuting the concept of Primacy, for you acknowledge it is there. You are rejecting the definition of Infallibility which was not defined until 1870. Primacy is a necessary condition for infallibility.
One of the posters cited a work by Pelikan from 1959. Pelikans more recent work seems in contradiction to the works you cited. There there are clear examples of the Primacy of the Church of Rome in the late 1st and 2nd century. As Pelikan freely acknowledges in his work [The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: 100AD to 600AD] that the Church of Rome was chief among the churches in authority and prestige [p. 118].
In volume 2 of Pelikan’s work [The Spirit of Eastern Christendom], he starts out by stating the schism of Western and Eastern Christianity was one of the greatest calamtities in the history of the Church [I agree] and it seriously undermined the powers of resistance in the Christian East against the advances of Islam and on the other hand, it hastened the centralization of Western Christendom which resulted in many abuses and provoked widespread discontent so that the Reformation itself, which split Western Christendom into two hostile camps, was one of its consequences. [I tend to agree with his analysis here].
He then goes on to discuss the Orthodoxy of Old Rome starting out by saying dominating the discussion between East and West was the massive fact of Rome’s spotless [or nearly spotless] record for doctrinal orthodoxy. The Pope’s made use of this record quoting the Petrine text [Mt 16:18-19; John 21-15-17] and Pope Agatho would rely on Peter’s protection, etc. Pelikan then states that the positive evidence of history was certainly cognent and Pelikan cites his earlier work in Volume 1 noting that the East had to admit that Pope Leo [Church of Rome] had been hailed as the “pillar of Orthodoxy” and had been remembered ever since [p. 148 of Volume 2].
Pelikan continues on and notes that Rome had been on the side that emerged victorious from one controversy to another, and eventually it became clear that the side Rome chose would be the one that would emerge victorious. Pelikan continues on by referring to the two issues discussed earlier in this work [Volume 2] and states that in the two dogmatic issues that we have discussed thus far, the person o Christ and the use of images in the Church, the orthodoxy of Rome was a prominent element, in the first of these perhaps the decisive element, so that when the relation of East and West itself became a matter o debate, the Latin Case could draw from the record established in the early centuries and the immediate past [p. 150].
Pelikan goes into the Monothelite issue and notes that even though Pope Honorius was said to have fostered it by his negligence [he never defined it, he said nothing in reality], what Rome had sad in local councils in 649 and 680 became the orthodox definition stated at Constantinopile in 681 and states Peter was still speaking thru the Pope.
So in this somewhat long post, there is clear evidence for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Now, what does that Primacy entail and how it has been exercised in the past and how it could be exercised in the future is I think an interesting question. Pope Benedict in Principles of Catholic Theology (1987, p.217) notes that when Patrirach Athenagoros met the Pope in 1963 in Phanar by stating “Against all expectations, the Bishop of Rome is among us, first among us in honor, he who presides in love [Ignatnius of Antioch, epistle to the Romans ). It is clear, Pope Benedict writes [then Cardinal Ratziner] that the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Church or acknowledge the primacy of the West. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank, of the equal Bishops in the Church and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archariac confession, which has nothing to do with jurisdiction, but does confess a primacy of honor and love might be a formula that recognizes the place of the Church of Rome in the Universal Church.
As then Cardinal Ratzinger noted, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the Doctrine of Primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium (p.199). Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea is clear Rome has the First place among the Great Apostolic Sees, with Antioch and Alexandria 2 and 3rd. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon puts Rome 1st again. Rome does not accept canon 28, because Constantinopile put itself ahead of Antioch and Alexandria, which have more ancient claims in Apostolic origin and tradition.
So, in closing, the Primacy of Peter as First among the Apostles and thus the Church of Rome has a basis in history and is supported by NT Text, Church Fathers, and the Councils of the Church, as Pelikan noted in his work. However, how that Primacy is exercised, it seems, is still something that can be adapted, while still holding to the Doctrine of Primacy. Even then Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that as I noted above. So a model where the Pope is the only Bishop that can call a council or if it is called by Other Bishops, the Pope approves their request, and when a council is convoked, the Pope presides over the Council appears, if I am reading Pope Benedict correctly, a model for the Doctrine of the Primacy that would be able to help heal the schism of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.
“One of the posters cited a work by Pelikan from 1959. Pelikans more recent work seems in contradiction to the works you cited. There there are clear examples of the Primacy of the Church of Rome in the late 1st and 2nd century.”
On the contrary, it’s hard to tell whether Rome even had any Bishops at all during the first and second centuries. I recommend checking Daniel’s post on the matter.
As for “evidence” of a Primacy of ROME in the first 2 or 3 centuries, it exists mostly in the minds of Catholics. But not in reality.
” It is clear, Pope Benedict writes [then Cardinal Ratziner] that the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Church or acknowledge the primacy of the West. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank, of the equal Bishops in the Church and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archariac confession, which has nothing to do with jurisdiction, but does confess a primacy of honor and love might be a formula that recognizes the place of the Church of Rome in the Universal Church.”
To be clear here, the East does not understand the term “primate” as being “Universal”. They understand primacy in terms of honor, and this same honor may be undone if such a church were to fall into heresy, which they also believe the Roman Catholic church to be in on a wide range of issues. Benedict is just stuck in the wet-dream Papists have of one day ruling all the churches, but that will not happen any time soon. The EOC deny Roman Catholic claims that the Primacy of Peter fell on Rome exclusively, but only honor Rome for the same reason Constantinople was to be honored, because of its place as the seat of government.
Such a view is utterly incompatible with Roman Catholic claims, which do not understand Primacy as a thing of honor, nor do they share it with other Bishops as in Antioch and Rome, nor do they base it on the importance of Rome as a city.