This passage in Jude does not now and never has been considered in any way primacy of the Bishop of Rome over other bishops.
And you have been exposed to the logic of whims, contents of the stomach and the direction of the wind argument which says that every time one reads a new Scriptural verse in a different fashion, then one is justified in creating new theologies, which occur on every crossroads or mallfront stores that some individual happens on and rents. We are in it for the long term in which God is eternal, not some sort of electronic gadget that has to be reinvented every couple of years.
Even some Latins are caught up in the nonsense that the Pope is some sort of dictator and should cast pronouncements around like a robed Thor. That ain’t it and it never was. The Bishop of Rome was looked at as primus inter pares and that was really that. The fact that Rome was the buttress against heresy in the first millennium kinda helped (it wasn’t until the second that the forces of heresy moved west).
I understand the logic of infallible declaration and really, the Church has always taken that tack with its declarations of doctrine, albeit normally with hundreds of years of deliberation, thought and prayer.
In the end, the Church will continue; the Faith will continue and the novelties will be cast aside in the same manner that the Subordinationists or the Arians were.
That was an excellent post Mark.
Gee, a story about legitimate authorities opposing the one man God appointed to lead his people....no similarities there....and no alternative interpretations, either.
There is no one you can pose as the object of the type that limits the type from applying to the Pope.