The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

Nope, #48 wasn't missed. I just don't see what its supposed to mean; that +Peter was the first among equals of the apostles? I don't see that, but the councils have all said the pope was/is. Counting up references to one person or the other and then making assessments on their importance seems a bit pointless to me. I mean the flip side of such an analysis could result in some truly bizarre results. The only issue surrounding the pope at this point in Church history is what does that primacy mean, which may be the easy part and how is it properly exercised which is the hard part. Even the latter wouldn't likely have been much of a problem but for Vatican I.

The fact is that Rome and Orthodoxy are conducting a dialog on this matter. Both sides know that Orthodoxy's position hasn't changed one bit in 1100 years. I find it impossible to believe that neither side has anything better to do than sit around talking about positions which have gotten nowhere that long. These discussions themselves are causing a degree of dissention in both Churches and on both sides of the issue. The hierarchs must have at least some reason to believe the matter can be resolved at least far enough to call an Ecumenical Council. But the idea that the same old arguments for papal supremacy that were advanced by the vatican in Vatican I will somehow win the day is just silly. Something else is going to have to happen, some other argument advanced. I am told that Rome is not arguing Vatican I at all but rather is engaged in a discussion of how The Church really functioned east of the Adriatic before the schism, not how Rome and Constantinople wished it had worked, then and now. Once that is done, if it can get done, the facts on the ground today have to be assessed, a system outlined and then Vatican I dealt with. There are losts of pit falls along the way. It may never work, but apparently both sides think its worth the effort.

Something is up. The hierarchs wouldn't be talking if the result of those talks was what we see here on FR, especially on the Orthodox side because those hierarchs know what will happen if the Orthodox laity rejects what they have done, so it seems to me likely that the discussions have not resulted in what we have seen here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.