So the filioque was basically adopted by the Pope because he owed Henry II of Germany a favor?
So Constantinople wanted to be take the Alexandria's Apostolic place because she was the Emperor's city?
Is there any good argument AGAINST Petrine/Papal supremacy? Something that isn't obvious Protestant/Orthodox wankery?
Even if you throw them the bone that "Upon this rock I will build my Church" refers not to Peter, but to the faith he demonstrates, it's borne out through the whole of Scripture that Peter is the leader of the Apostles. It's Peter who keeps them together after the Crucifixion and during the Resurrection. Peter is clearly the Apostle that Jesus pays the most attention to, and who he takes the most pains to make sure he understands. It's Peter who decides, totally unilaterally, that the Gentiles can be baptized and brought into the Church. When Paul has a problem with the infant Church, he doesn't talk to Luke or Matthew, he talks to Peter. Peter is clearly the one in charge of everything, and it's not a difficult jump from that to the bishops who succeeded Peter having unique authority. It's a logical extension of the idea of Apostolic Succession.
You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.
Jewish priests appointed more priests. Jesus was the Highest High Priest and appointed his followers priests.
Jews were all about that succession.
you have been shilling trannies for the past 3 weeks. FOR FrEE
>pic: choose one, leave one