[PugetSoundSoldier]

I am not being deliberately argumentative. If we are to use the Bible as a guide to what a Christian is, then we should first start with the correct Bible - the ENTIRE Bible.

And I would point out that of the three primary Christian canons - the Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Protestant, only the Protestant canon matches that as followed by Christ: the original Jewish canon of the Old Testament.

But my first point remains: what is the Biblical foundation for the papacy?

[bdeaner]

only the Protestant canon matches that as followed by Christ: the original Jewish canon of the Old Testament.

Incorrect. See here:

HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND THE DEUTEROCANONICALS

[Cronos]

But my first point remains: what is the Biblical foundation for the papacy?

Sigh... ok, so what organization do you deem the proper way to steward the flock for millenia? The Pope is, remember, the Patriarch of the West. The Patriarch of the Copts, the Patriarch of the Greeks, the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church etc. all are of equal dignity to the Pope. Ditto for the Patriarchs within the Catholic Church like the Catholicos of the Syro-Malabar, the Patriarch of the Maronites etc. -- all equal in dignity and respect.

These Bishops are charged with being shepherds for Christ's flock. And that has kept their communities and Churches alive through millenia of persecution

In contrast, the congregationalist/presbyterian policy of "let's choose our own and sola scriptura" has disintegrated over the few centuries of the presbyterian movement -- there are many believers among Presbyterians and good Christians, but the organization as a whole has falled apart.

The other method, of the lutherans and Anglicans of retaining the episcopate but having no bishop as first among equals has also failed -- you see here where you have the ELCA, LCMS, etc. etc. and among the Anglicans, Gene Robinson can choose what he wants

That doesn't work either.

Finally, you have the "Born-Agains" who basically follow one guy who calls himself a pastor, then jump ship when they don't like tea being served instead of coffee.

Those organizations are not viable and have not lasted.

In contrast, the organization based on parishs --> dioceses --> primacy of one bishop HAS worked. This was based on the old Roman Empire, yes, but don't forget that the Roman Empire was the longest lasting, STABLE organization. Ditto for the method followed by the Apostolic Churchs -- the organizational form is the longest lasting

Does it stay TRUE to the teachings of Christ? Yes, I would argue -- any of the points you've brought up are debatable and HAVE been debated ad nauseum. The EO are right in calling for a council to thrash out various debating points of faith as each council has been of The Church as a whole trying to understand God -- a perfect example being the Council of Nicea which clearly stated the Christian Orthodox point of view in opposition to the Arians and Nestorians.

[Yudan]

“...what it the Biblical foundation for the Papacy?”

There’s not one. I’m Orthodox and do not subscribe to such to begin with.

I wasn’t defending the Papal Monarchy, but rather Apostolic succession is important because it represents the unadulterated passing down of the traditions of Faith since the time of the Apostles. Thessalonians 2:15.