nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

PDN

New mega thread time!

We're sick of the board being taken over by numerous threads where the same rather tired arguments and entrenched positions keep getting rehearsed over and over again.

So, if Protestants and Roman Catholics want to debate the merits of their respective positions this is the place to do it. Any new threads started for this purpose will be locked.

It is OK, in other threads, to say "as a non-Catholic I believe this" or "as a Catholic I don't believe this". That's fine, and people can note your position. But once it moves into arguing against Protestantism or against Catholicism then this is the thread to bring it to.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Welcome back antiskeptic...........see what we caused

Indeed

we can combine it with the nature of freewill / Grace / Merit and our philosophies on predestination / predeterminism at the root of our differences....an 'epic' chat..lol...

Indeed too.

So, what would you like to do: deal with the issues raised in my post (questioning the logic behind the need of a custodian for a church Christ never left/ questioning how you escape the circularity of relying on scripture alone to tell you not to rely on scripture alone) ... or something else?

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

ISAW - If I may take you up on what you said about Sola Scriptura a few pages ago. I think more the point of Sola Scriptura, isn't just limiting yourself to the Bible, but recognising that Christian teaching given in other books must be Biblically substantiated. For example, you can read numerous other Christian writers for inspiration, but at the same time if they are not teaching the same Gospel as the one that was originally professed that is problematic. It would be my view, that the church should conform to Scripture, rather than Scripture conforming to the church.

If I am taking with StealthRolex and others have said about the church, it seems to be the interpreter of the Scripture. Which in turn means that Scripture must conform to the interpretation of the church. From my personal view, it is the other way around. The church must remain true to Scripture.

The Church does conform with Scripture Jackass. The Church put the Scriptural bible as we know it today together.....sacred scripture came out of the Church, so of course they conform....Sacred Scripture is very important.

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

The Church does conform with Scripture Jackass. The Church put the Scriptural bible as we know it today together.....sacred scripture came out of the Church, so of course they conform....Sacred Scripture is very important.

The church interprets scripture in the RCC view given by StealthRolex. The RCC has authority over the Scripture, the Scripture doesn't have authority over the RCC. If you understand what I mean. If the RCC has authority over how the Scripture is interpreted, the RCC also has authority over how the Scripture will apply to them. Church tradition and authority comes above the Scriptures if I am understanding StealthRolex correctly. The interpretation of Scripture is based on tradition.

In the Sola Scriptura point of view, as far as I am aware, it is that the Scripture has authority over the church. The church doesn't have authority over the Scripture as the Scripture is inspired by God Himself, and must be protected.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed

Indeed too.

So, what would you like to do: deal with the issues raised in my post (questioning the logic behind the need of a custodian for a church Christ never left/ questioning how you escape the circularity of relying on scripture alone to tell you not to rely on scripture alone) ... or something else?

Sure Antiskeptic, we can deal with the concept of there being a 'Church', a physical and interior one from my perspective, and how we differ and why firstly if you like.

Could you clarify the last part of your post and just let me know what your idea of 'Church' is, and also what you believe Jesus meant by it? Also, I hope you don't mind me asking but I have no idea what denomination you are? or are you non denominational?

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

The church interprets scripture in the RCC view given by StealthRolex. The RCC has authority over the Scripture, the Scripture doesn't have authority over the RCC. If you understand what I mean. If the RCC has authority over how the Scripture is interpreted, the RCC also has authority over how the Scripture will apply to them. Church tradition and authority comes above the Scriptures if I am understanding StealthRolex correctly. The interpretation of Scripture is based on tradition.

In the Sola Scriptura point of view, as far as I am aware, it is that the Scripture has authority over the church. The church doesn't have authority over the Scripture as the Scripture is inspired by God Himself, and must be protected.

Hi Jackass,

As far as I am aware, the three are intrinisically interwoven....Church, Scripture and Tradition. They all must be in agreement....There is no 'downplaying' of Scripture for the sake of the other...Sacred Scripture is extremely important...

They just have to 'fit' eachother iykwim.

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

As far as I am aware, the three are intrinisically interwoven....Church, Scripture and Tradition. They all must be in agreement....There is no 'downplaying' of Scripture for the sake of the other...Sacred Scripture is extremely important...

They just have to 'fit' eachother iykwim.

I would consider the church to be the custodian of Scriptural truth, tradition to be the implementation of that truth in services, both of the previous are distinctly fallible. The Scripture is the inspired word of God given to prophets and Apostles. I would consider this to be infallible. Without the Scripture, we are lost. The church wouldn't be able to justify its existence without it.

Tradition can become self-serving, indeed the church can become self-serving if it warps Scriptural truth to fit its own agenda.

I am referring to the Christian church as a whole in this situation.

This is why I would regard the personal interpretation of Scripture to be important. With one authority telling people how to read the Scripture, yes it does provide much more cohesion, but it is a huge risk, as it allows the authority to potentially do what is outside it's authority. If people interpret the Scriptures for themselves, they can check to see if their church is conforming to the Scriptures on a regular basis but at the risk of conflict.

I think this is a difference in epistemology.

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

I would consider the church to be the custodian of Scriptural truth, tradition to be the implementation of that truth in services, both of the previous are distinctly fallible. The Scripture is the inspired word of God given to prophets and Apostles. I would consider this to be infallible. Without the Scripture, we are lost. The church wouldn't be able to justify its existence without it.

Yes, I would go along with that, I believe the Church is the custodian of Scriptural truth.

Tradition can become self-serving, indeed the church can become self-serving if it warps Scriptural truth to fit its own agenda.

I am referring to the Christian church as a whole in this situation.

Totally agree.

This is why I would regard the personal interpretation of Scripture to be important. With one authority telling people how to read the Scripture, yes it does provide much more cohesion, but it is a huge risk, as it allows the authority to potentially do what is outside it's authority. If people interpret the Scriptures for themselves, they can check to see if their church is conforming to the Scriptures on a regular basis but at the risk of conflict.

Catholics are encouraged to read the bible too, every night, and to study....and when we need clarity, we go to the Church. ( Perhaps much like one may go to their pastor? ) There are certain areas of Scripture that may be more contentious that the Church clearly guides us on interpretation, the evidence for which is found in other Scriptural passages, tradition and history, so as to satisfy ourselves. Catholics generally believe that one can use Scripture to interpret Scripture...

I think most people try to read scripture through eyes of faith, no matter what branch of Christianity they are..

I, personally, just happen to believe, along with many others, that there is a Church with apostolic authority, blessed with interpreting scripture more fully, the centre of which is found at Rome. I don't think it makes me better than anybody else, or less, it's my choice iykwim to immerse myself in the mines of information available to satisfy myself as to the authenticity of a particular teaching...

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

I, personally, just happen to believe, along with many others, that there is a Church with apostolic authority, blessed with interpreting scripture more fully, the centre of which is found at Rome. I don't think it makes me better than anybody else, or less, it's my choice iykwim to immerse myself in the mines of information available to satisfy myself as to the authenticity of a particular teaching...

Indeed, it is your choice. I think you're pretty well grounded. I'd be interested to see what some of the others have to say. Others who regard that the RCC has the only legitimate interpretation to the Scriptures for example.

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

I, personally, just happen to believe, along with many others, that there is a Church with apostolic authority, blessed with interpreting scripture more fully, the centre of which is found at Rome. I don't think it makes me better than anybody else, or less, it's my choice iykwim to immerse myself in the mines of information available to satisfy myself as to the authenticity of a particular teaching...

I think in the context of this thread, I'd ask, what convinces you that the Roman church is apostolic? Also, what convinces you, that they ALONE are apostolic and all others inferior? Also, if your concience and your scriptural reading told you that the RCC was in error in some way, would you simply accept that you are wrong and tow the RC line?

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Sure Antiskeptic, we can deal with the concept of there being a 'Church', a physical and interior one from my perspective, and how we differ and why firstly if you like.

Okay. I'm particularily interested in the condundrums faced though.

Could you clarify the last part of your post and just let me know what your idea of 'Church' is, and also what you believe Jesus meant by it?

To me, the church of Christ is simply the collective of those who happen to be 'in Christ' - whatever their denomination. In so far as one can speak of an institution, that institution is utterly spiritual in nature.

It is to be expected that believers congregate together. In so far as they do that, there is an order of business to be maintained (what constitutes proper teaching, discipline, proscribed practices, etc). Those instructions are to be gleaned from the Bible and are to take account of the spirit of instruction (if any) intended.

I see no place for a physical/political institution along the lines of the Roman Church for the reasons already mentioned: there is no firm ground given for it's establishment that isn't utterly circular.

Also, I hope you don't mind me asking but I have no idea what denomination you are? or are you non denominational?

In Christ. Nothing else. In so far as doctrine fits the expanding framework of my own walk with God I take it on board. When it's overtaken by deeper understanding, it get's jettisoned. Ideally that is: I don't suppose anyone will ever reach the end of the Bible.

lmaopml

Cheers Jackass, I would imagine it's all down to expression, but most Catholics would be pretty similar in their regard and belief as to the role the Church plays..... as the ultimate interpretation. I think the church recognises to varying degrees that some Christian denominations have held onto some important truths, but are in error at other times or misleading or irresponsible in their teachings, sometimes more serious than others.....and they try to clarify these errors with the faithful when necessary to protect and preserve the fullness of faith.

However, as the Church doesn't make a claim as to who is finally saved whether Catholic or no, it simply regards itself as the custodian instituted by Jesus himself, of ultimate truth in the Holy Spirit, and a gift to humanity, to serve humanity..

ISAW

JimiTime wrote: »

I think in the context of this thread, I'd ask, what convinces you that the Roman church is apostolic?

Eh? You might start with Peter being Bishop of Rome seat of Peter and all the other in succession since? this is recognised by those outside the Roman branch.

Also, what convinces you, that they ALONE are apostolic and all others inferior?

The Roman church does not suggest that they alone are apostolic. And those outside of the rioman branch have accepted the importance of the Chair of Peter.

Here is an orthodox view on it

http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2005/differences.htm
The Orthodox Church believed that the Pope of Rome was "first among equals" in a grouping of patriarchs of the universal Church when sitting in Council.

Also, if your concience and your scriptural reading told you that the RCC was in error in some way, would you simply accept that you are wrong and tow the RC line?

There are plenty of Roman's, clerics and lay people who opposed authority when it was wrong. One can't go against one's conscience to support a political entity. The question then is from whence is the conscience informed?

Fanny Cradock

Just to remind folks that this thead is The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread. Other topics - such as science - really don't belong here.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Not true! Burbridge himself a nobel prize winner personally explained to me how bias of not adhering to the accepted model in physics resulted in budget cuts for postgrad funding. while in theory we can all claim certain equations suggest certain interpretations and "science agrees" in practicse political and economic factors and personal bias affect budgets.

Who pays your salary? Or do you work for nothing? To assert that "all science is purely objective" in nonsense. Barely one per cent Ook maybe up to three per cent) of science is about "finding new knowledge" i.e. pure or basiic research. Most is application! Just as most religion is pastoral and not theology.

There will always be playground politics in any discipline. But science is still antagonistic towards authoritative claims at its core, which is why, even if it takes decades of arguing and pushing against the norm, theories and models are ultimately adopted based on scientific merit. And when authoritative pressures are identified in any scientific field, it is accepted as "bad".With the Curch, on the otherhand, authority is embraced. What the Pope says goes.

As for 3% research? That's certainly not my experience, and I'm in the field of theoretical/computational physics.

Weinberg is one of my favourite writers on science too and not because the is atheist as I suspect you are. Are you? He points out a lot of the political bais in science.

Yes, I'm an atheist. And yes he does. But he also goes on to say:

"It is simply a logical fallacy to go from the observation that science is a social process to the conclusion that the final product, our scientific theories, is what it is because of the social and historical forces acting in this process. A party of mountain climbers may argue over the best path to the peak, and these arguments may be conditioned by the history and social structure of the expedition, but in the end either they find a good path to the peak or they do not, and when they get there they know it."

But a relativist alternative also has flaws. Whether in morality or interpretation of the universe.

I reject both relativism and positivism. I shift between a casual realist and a nihilist.

[edit]-oops... posted this after I saw Fanny's post. Perhaps it should be moved/split?

Fanny Cradock

If you guys want a new thread then PM me the numbers of relevant posts. I think it's fair that we share the work :pac:

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

Eh? You might start with Peter being Bishop of Rome seat of Peter and all the other in succession since? this is recognised by those outside the Roman branch.

TBH, Peter being the elder in Rome is Inconsaquential to my question of the RCC being apostolic. Peter was certainly an apostle, and he had the attributes which we are told apostleship gave.

Also, the question was for Lmaopml. No offence.

ISAW

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, Peter being the elder in Rome is Inconsaquential to my question of the RCC being apostolic.

sorry but it isn't. the whole basis of the Pope is that Peter was chosen as an apostle and that he was singled out for a particular place.

Peter was certainly an apostle, and he had the attributes which we are told apostleship gave.

And the Catholic (and Orthodox and indeed even Anglican ) interpretation would be he had more then just that and was a "first among equals" at the very least.

Also, the question was for Lmaopml. No offence.

Why didn't you PM him then instead of posting it to a public thread?

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

Why didn't you PM him then instead of posting it to a public thread?

*shrugs* Because I didn't. I asked, what convinces 'you' (Lmaopml), in response to a post she made and I was looking for a personal response. Thank you for your input, but I was simply asking another poster, as was interested specifically in 'their' response. Thanks again.

ISAW

JimiTime wrote: »

*shrugs* Because I didn't. I asked, what convinces 'you' (Lmaopml), in response to a post she made and I was looking for a personal response. Thank you for your input, but I was simply asking another poster, as was interested specifically in 'their' response. Thanks again.

Ill ask you again - if you just wanted their response why did you not PM them? Why are you asking them to respond publically to a question you are only interested in for their personal opinion and personal reply? If the reply has public significance then surely others should be able to publically reply with their own opinion?

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

Ill ask you again - if you just wanted their response why did you not PM them?

i answered you. Because I simply din't. No thought process, the question was there, i hit the quote button, and away I went. No big deal is it?

If the reply has public significance then surely others should be able to publically reply with their own opinion?

I appreciate that, and of course you can respond. I was merely pointing out, for your own sake, with no offence intended, that I wasn't interest in debate with yourself on it at this moment in time. You are of course free to post on it though. You may wish to object to my methods of not using the PM function, and that is your entitlement. I'll be continuing with how I conduct myself though, and am sure will be discussing things with you at other points, if you so wish of course.

ISAW

JimiTime wrote: »

i answered you. Because I simply din't. No thought process, the question was there, i hit the quote button, and away I went. No big deal is it?

No big deal. But the deal is about

1. If you want a personal reply why don't you use a PM now
2. Why do you want a personal reply from that poster? Is the answer important or just what that poster thinks? Why is what they think more important to you?

I appreciate that, and of course you can respond. I was merely pointing out, for your own sake, with no offence intended, that I wasn't interest in debate with yourself on it at this moment in time.

That the position exists isn't a matter for debate. You may of course debate whether it is a position you agree with.

You are of course free to post on it though. You may wish to object to my methods of not using the PM function, and that is your entitlement.

Im not criticising your methods Im tryiong to understand them and to understand your motivation in directing the question to a particular person.

I'll be continuing with how I conduct myself though, and am sure will be discussing things with you at other points, if you so wish of course.

If you know me at all you know I don't proscribe to people how they should think. I perfer socratic dialogue where you pick apart the other persons post and expose it to them and get them to answer what it implies for themselves. there are inherent problems with such an approach.

Slav

ISAW wrote: »

Eh? You might start with Peter being Bishop of Rome seat of Peter and all the other in succession since? this is recognised by those outside the Roman branch.

No, not really. First mentioning of St Peter being the Bishop of Rome is a few centuries younger then St Peter himself and therefore it's not necessarily shared by everybody. For instance, in Orthodoxy it's considered that he was never a bishop of Rome; same as he was never a bishop of some other place and same as nobody among apostles was ever a bishop. Their mission is seen as ecumenical and not bound to a particular place.

The Roman church does not suggest that they alone are apostolic. And those outside of the rioman branch have accepted the importance of the Chair of Peter.

Strictly speaking, the equation "Chair of Peter = Bishop of Rome" again only exists in Roman Catholicism. For the rest of churches with apostolic succession it's slightly different: "Chair of Peter = Any bishop".

ISAW wrote: »

And the Catholic (and Orthodox and indeed even Anglican ) interpretation would be he had more then just that and was a "first among equals" at the very least.

Prince of the Apostles, κορυφαῖος. But only in Roman Catholicism it's connected to a special status of one particular bishop.

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

I think in the context of this thread, I'd ask, what convinces you that the Roman church is apostolic? Also, what convinces you, that they ALONE are apostolic and all others inferior? Also, if your concience and your scriptural reading told you that the RCC was in error in some way, would you simply accept that you are wrong and tow the RC line?

antiskeptic wrote:

Okay. I'm particularily interested in the condundrums faced though.

Hi,

A lot of questions there...I'll try to do a 'nutshell' summary as opposed to biblical passages and Fathers quotes etc. ( unless you guys want to go that route ) and I am better for understanding the basis from which they are being asked, so thanks antiskeptic for explaining what way you view the Church from a non denominational viewpoint.

Yes, Roman Catholics believe that there is 'physical' Church created by Jesus when he taught the Apostles, sent the Holy Spirit, and they in turn taught others ...this we see in Sacred Scripture, and we see the word 'Church' mentioned in a physical sense too.... The bishops in the church trace their lineage back, and it's a holy order bestowed on them by the laying on of hands by another bishop. Also, from early Church history it's clear from the Fathers that they traced lines back in order to dispute any heresy and in order to keep unity among the apostolic churches. Rome playing a special role in this...prior even to the emporer Constantine!

As ISAW pointed out the RC Church does recognise apostolic authority found in other Churches - mainly the more orthodox Church's where the Sacraments are intact and holy orders are passed on...

Anyway, Jimi I don't go around seeing others as 'inferior' to me because I have set my cap at Roman Catholicism and have decided that 'to me' it makes more sense that Jesus left his physical Church with the Apostles and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to be passed on intact, and guarded against heresy or false teaching. This is 'biblical' too!

The RC Church claims Apostolic authority from the chair of Peter, and I personally happen to believe they have a point that makes sense iykwim...Especially when I compare the ancient Orthodox Church with the ancient Catholic Church, I see so many things that are so very similar it's sad they aren't in full communion with eachother as Jesus wanted...even down to the concept of purgatory and praying for the souls of the dead, also the real presence etc. Personally, I see this as a big 'sign post' that if it's the original Apostles teaching I'm looking for then these are the churches to look at.....

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, and he doesn't lie - so his teachings are intact....and where are they at? He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to his Church, meaning it's authority comes from God...

...he further follows that and says; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth.......

...meaning his Church is 'on earth, with 'rules''....

The next thing I guess to look at is the 'first among equals', as the Orthodox put it, The Apostle Peter...... and where that logically takes us...take a look at the fathers, and the role the Bishop of Rome plays, the biblical passages in connection with Peter,...and the evidence is stacking up in favour of Rome, of an Apostolic Church, and for the special role the Pope plays...

Antiskeptic, perhaps some of the above would clarify for you where I started out? ...also, sorry, but I don't know what you mean by the conundrum?

....lol

Jimi, that last part of your question is something that, if I'm honest I have often thought about, particularly being a young Catholic in modern Ireland......I'm not 'always' in line with the Church to be fair, and haven't always followed everything I should have, ( it's why I have sympathy with people who call themselves Catholic but are at a distance; I started a thread not so long back on it ) but rather than my 'conscience' not being in line, it's usually 'me' that's out of line and my conscience is bugging me to get back on track...lol...

Anyways, I'm after typing that up quick, so sorry if it's incomplete for now...but it's a rough idea from a personal viewpoint...

ISAW

Slav wrote: »

No, not really.

Ill skip the Bishop of Rome but and deal with Peter as a Bishop and the Apostolic succession
which was the point raised. He was however Bishop of Rome.

Here is an ORTHODOX view:
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1558305/posts
Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ's twelve apostles...It is possible to accept the primacy of Rome in a qualified way as part of God's purpose regarding the Church's unity and catholicity even while admitting that New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for it.

According to the third Canon of the second ecumenical council: "Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome." Thus, the Pope of Rome would still have honorary primacy before and over Constantinople

Prince of the Apostles, κορυφαῖος. But only in Roman Catholicism it's connected to a special status of one particular bishop.

Nope the Orthodox accept the status too. They accept the first seven ecumenical councils.

Slav

ISAW wrote: »

He was however Bishop of Rome.

According to the Roman tradition he was but not everybody in agreement with it pointing out to the lack of evidence and to the nature of the apostolic mission being distinct from the one of bishops.

Here is an ORTHODOX view:
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1558305/posts

Both links represent Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis who is actively involved in ecumenism (btw, not a very popular thing in Orthodoxy to put it mildly). His effort is essentially an attempt to squeeze the idea of universal primacy into the Orthodox model of ecclesiology. The result I think is a rather clumsy construction both from Orthodox and from Roman Catholic views. In any way those 2 links do not represent the view of the Orthodox Church. For a more reliable source of information I can highly recommend you a collection of essays by Fr John Meyendorff and others (unfortunately I could not find a soft copy on the Internet):

The Primacy of Peter: essays in ecclesiology and the early church (Google books preview)

This work is highly regarded among Orthodox.

Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ's twelve apostles...

Most certainly. And not just today, and you don't even need to be a scholar...

It is possible to accept the primacy of Rome in a qualified way as part of God's purpose regarding the Church's unity and catholicity even while admitting that New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for it.

Based on the connection to St Peter? It is possible, yes. It is also possible to reject it as it's not just the New Testament that does not offer significant basis for it but the early Tradition as well.

According to the third Canon of the second ecumenical council: "Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome." Thus, the Pope of Rome would still have honorary primacy before and over Constantinople

Exactly. BTW Canon 2 is also very interesting; perhaps they should be quoted together in order to have a full picture on how the Council thought the Church should be governed and how does primacy of one bishop fit into it. Anyway, in Canon 3 it's the primacy of honour (as I have already said earlier in this thread) and because it is new Rome, i.e. it's the capital status of the city that matters but not some special connections with St Peter. More on this in this essay about a similar canon of the Fourth Council:

Chalcedon Canon 28: Yesterday and Today

Nope the Orthodox accept the status too.

They accepted it prior to 1054. Moreover, the status was understood very differently (honour vs authority) and existed on a different basis (capital city vs St Peter succession).

They accept the first seven ecumenical councils.

Indeed they do. They even called them all. However they see nothing in there that would support the Roman view on Papacy.

PDN

Slav wrote: »

it's the capital status of the city that matters but not some special connections with St Peter.

Hence the designation of Moscow as "The Third Rome" after the Fall of Constantinople?

Slav

To a certain extent, yes. While in 18-19 centuries it was the Russian Church that was de facto the centre of Orthodoxy it was not reflected in diptychs: the ancient Patriarchs were still at the top of them with the Patriarch of Constantinople still being the first as it would require a new Ecumenical Council to change it.

antiskeptic

ISAW wrote:

Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ's twelve apostles...

Slav wrote:

Most certainly. And not just today, and you don't even need to be a scholar...

ISAW

Slav wrote: »

They accepted it prior to 1054. Moreover, the status was understood very differently (honour vs authority) and existed on a different basis (capital city vs St Peter succession).

Indeed they do. They even called them all. However they see nothing in there that would support the Roman view on Papacy.

this is a bit like married Priests. the point isnt about what people do today although It ultimately is. the point here is about whether at any time in history there were say married priests or there was a tradition of looking up to the Bishop of Rome or pope as having
a special place.

That tradition exists.

Here are some interesting maps and a list of early popes:

http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm

And it actually mentions a lot of issues that would suite this discussion although it goes further into relativism and nihilism for example.

ISAW

Slav wrote: »

Most certainly. And not just today, and you don't even need to be a scholar...

While this hits the nail on the head about "do as I do not as some book or theory says"
I have always had a view of Eastern Christians as scholarly. Also a lot of Protestants might have a problem with casting aside the Book and doing as you believed Jesus would do. The debate here about Protestant /Catholic is a scholarly debate but I accept it is better for people to be Holy or decent than to have any academic qualifications.