I do get a sense that even if you do not agree with me --- perhaps at least you may have understood what I have been attempting to convey, and why, for I did intend this in good faith.
I'll raise no further objections.
BlueDragon:
In all honesty, you do post and discuss things and don’t resort to dropping “20 scripture posts” in your post and trying to make them say what you want them to say or what you think they say. And you do refrain from the polemic labels. There are some here that I just don’t even bother posting and responding with or if I do, I seldom do so.
So while I don’t always agree with you, that is correct. I have developed a good deal of respect towards you. Can’t say that for many of the FR Prots here.
You and I have been here a long time and I think most people who have read my posts and dialogued/discussed Theology, Doctrine and Scripture with me realize that I am going to look at a theological issue and scripture thru the context of if it there is a Dogmatic Teaching via a Church Council and related Creed or Papal Definition. So any passage that speaks of God in the Bible or specifically to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I am going to look at those verses in lite of Trinitarian Doctrine and the Creed and I am going to try to reinterpret said verses.
If there something in scripture that relates to a Doctrine or the meaning of a passage is not clear, I will always do my best to go back ad read the great Theologians and Church Fathers to get an insight on how those passages are interpreted and thus construct my views in light of those writings.
That is just how I operate. I am always going to read the Scriptures in light of the rule of Faith of the Catholic Church, and if something in Scripture is not definitively linked or defined to a doctrine, then read it in a manner that is not inconsistent with the Rule of Faith of the Church is it is expressed in the Creed, Liturgy, etc.
And for the record, I do get a sense of what you are trying to convey. The Primacy of the Church of Rome should be operationalized and done in the spirit of Christian Love towards the other Churches, not in a sense of Domination. I at the same time can 100% affirm the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and thus the Church of Rome [and I do] while also recognize that at times the Bishop of Rome has not acted in a manner that was an inappropriate and even incorrect use of Primacy. For example, Victor, the Bishop of Rome in 189 to 199 was incorrect to impose a Roman custom on the celebration of Pascha [Easter] given there were other legitimate expressions of it also rooted in Apostolic Tradition, as Polycarp [a pupil of the Apostle John] told Anicetus [Bishop of Rome] in circa 155AD shortly before his Polycarp’s martyrdom. There can be “complimentary” Liturgical customs and prayer traditions and devotions and disciplines in the Catholic Church that are not all Roman but these complimentary Liturgical traditions are each legitimate expressions of the Faith, just not all Roman, some have their roots in Alexandria, some Antioch, some Byzantium, etc.
For the record, I can in theory see the Primacy of Rome operationalized in manner consistent with the first 1,000 years of Christendom in a hypothetically Restored Church of Full Communion between Rome and Constantinople and constructed along these lines:
1) Rome is the First See and thus no Ecumenical Council can be called except by Rome or with Rome’s approval
2)No Council is Ecumenical unless Rome ratifies it
3) Liturgical matters and prayer devotions, disciplinary and management of the Eastern Churches rests with the Eastern Bishops. If there is a dispute on some issue within the Eastern Churches on these matters, the highest ranking Eastern Bishops should resolve the matter, if the issue can’t be resolved, then Rome can be asked to be arbitrator between the Eastern Churches in disagreement over any said issue.
So what is an example for part 3, Rome can’t impose the Rosary as a prayer tradition on the Eastern Church, for it is a Roman prayer tradition. The Stations of the Cross is a Roman Lenten Prayer Tradition, and Rome imposing it on the Eastern Churches Prayer Traditions would be inappropriate. Now, if the Eastern Churches on their own adopt the Roman style of Stations of the Cross into their Lent Liturgical season, that is different.
Sorry for the long post but I do get the sense of what you were trying to convey and I hope my post above was seen as an honest discussion to actually express some agreement with your concerns regarding misuses or inappropriate uses of the concept of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but at the same time it confirms that I do believe and accept the Primacy of the Bishop and thus Church of Rome and the necessity of being in communion with it.