>Matthew says Peter received the keys and the ability to bind and loose, and the other apostles received the ability to bind and loose 2 chapters later.>Everyone agrees Peter was the leader of the Apostles, but disagree on whether or not Peter's successors have full doctrinal and dogmatic authority on the whole body of the church.>Peter, having founded three churches in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome has 3 successors but the papacy insists that because Peter died in Rome, only the Roman bishop is Peter's trve successor and the others were just random appointees(?)>Also Paul died in Rome too so that somehow proves the Petrine succession in Rome is extra special.>Popes have been excommunicated for being in error with the rest of the church. There have been Arian popes. Other popes have tried to wrangle other patriarchs in error.>"Peter has spoken through Leo!" Except Leo's Tome was being tested to its congruence with Cyril of Alexandria, whom everyone agreed was proclaiming the true faith>First Millennium Popes seem to have varying views on the role of the papacy, some do seem to claim the Vatican I dictatorial powers, while some speak openly against the idea of a universal bishop. Roman Catholics are ok with doctrinal development, so this point isn't really a gotcha, but it does seem like a circlejerk>The papacy used forgeries like the Donation of Constantine to claim secular dominance as well>Rome is geographically separated from the rest of the pentarchy and it seems like a logical conclusion that such isolation would result in general accretions over time, including papal supremacy vs first-among-equals. The Western Empire's collapse also gives geopolitical reasons for the HRE to push the Roman patriarch into odds with the rest of the pentarchy.It seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to defend the development of papal supremacy. It doesn't seem like a very defensible view. Can any Catholics provide a counter claim?
>>18011450>Can any Catholics provide a counter claim?Nope.When you're the riches organisation on the planet, the best thing to do is never address criticism and just pay to make critics dissapear if they get too big.
>>18011753The Catholic church isnt all that rich whatsoever, idk where you loonie troonies get this from.
In their eyes, this isn’t mental gymnastics but the same kind of development that clarified the Trinity and Christology.
>>18012501Ok, but it seems like claiming sole Petrine succession and then bringing up Paul out of nowhere and "Peter died in Rome, so his only successor is in Rome" seem like non-sequiturs. Peter's voice is heard from Leo because he's in agreement with Alexandria on Miaphysitism. It's not because, "Leo said it, therefore it is doctrine."
The key was given to Peter alone but the other apostles could bind and loose too because of the ultimate authority given to Peter but ultimately through the authority they have from Peter. Peter moved the seat of his authority to Rome and appointed another as the bishop of Antioch who would be a successor in terms of being bishop of Antioch bit Antioch became relegated to a normal episcopal see and would not have inherited the same authority as Peter did because Peter had moved his seat so that only those appointed as bishops of Rome would have the same authority. There haven’t been popes yet who were excommunicated. But there have been popes who held incorrect theological views or compromises like honorius tolerated the monothelites, or pope John xxii who believed that the beatific vision was not experienced until the final judgement. Popes aren’t meant to be perfect in every way although they should ideally be they still can make theological mistakes or make errors in governing but not officially teach these things as doctrine. Gregory I was against the idea of universal bishop as in sole bishop over the church that the patriarchs of Constantinople were trying to claim but the official position at the time was that Rome was the head of the church and the title universal bishop belonged to Rome but not as meaning sole bishop but as the head bishop of the church universal. His successor boniface iii affirmed this when he got emperor phocas to decree to affirm this.
>>18012501>but the same kind of development that clarified the Trinity and Christology.They are incorrect about that too, and for the exact same reason. The Bible already has the Trinity and all Christology. It has all of that.
