But far be it from me to discourage you from challenging or disrespecting their faith here; I'll leave that to one of the regulars here who is a member of the Oriental Orthodox. ... I'm just saying!
You're just saying
what, exactly?
Do you believe it is the interest of the Orthodox to plant doubts in a sincere young man who is asking a question? The question isn't even about the Oriental Orthodox communion. What a strange thing to say.
OP:
To me, the biggest single idea at the root of the Roman Catholic ecclesiological outlook is this very identification with St. Peter as the founder of their papacy. Unlike the Orthodox ecclesiology which says that all bishops are Peter (as their own popes said for centuries; look at Roman Pope Leo's letters to Eulogius of Alexandria written in the 6th century, for example), the Roman Catholic Church has a strange equivalency between St. Peter and their Pope that says (as the bishops said at Chalcedon, they proudly say without understanding) "Peter has spoken through the Pope" (then it was Leo, but no matter; they apply this to all of them). Every Pope. Even apparently somehow the ones who have been condemned by ecumenical councils that the Roman Catholics accept (e.g., Honorius). And so, they claim, since St. Peter was prince of the apostles, this means that their Pope is likewise to be deferred to in all things, just like St. Paul deferred to him by accepting his Judaizing tendencies as recorded in his espistle to the Galat...oh...wait. Huh. Nevermind.
It is telling to me that for the Orthodox Church, it is no problem to accept that the Roman Church was founded by St. Peter (and Antioch likewise, by St. Peter and St. Paul), and this is a factual statement (insofar as it is taken to be factual; I have known some EO who say that St. Peter was actually not bishop of Rome at any time, but even those don't make some kind of federal case out of it) that can be accepted without all the things that the Roman Catholic Church says follow from it (infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc). But for the Roman Catholic Church, they cannot seem to accept this at the same historical level, without these other things. It does make me wonder if it's really about "union with Peter", which they say we don't have (forgetting, I guess, the ancient provenance of Antioch and the idea of Alexandria as Petrine See via St. Mark), or if it's actually about all of these other things. On this basis, it seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church has a very dematerialized, almost cosmic ecclesiology. They do not want us to be in communion with St. Peter (i.e., with the Petrine See
s), but with their Pope, who is of course the extension of St. Peter throughout time forever, somehow to the exclusion of the Patriarch of Antioch or Egypt. Unless, of course, we are talking about the Roman Catholic-aligned Patriarchs they have set up in those places (several in Antioch alone: one for the Maronites, another for the Melkite Greek Catholics, and another still for the Syriac Catholics broken from the Syriac Orthodox Church in the 17th century).
So...what exactly seems to you like it could be right about this situation? If you do not believe in the permanent, exclusive, basically metaphysical equation of St. Peter = the Roman Pope (world without end, forever and ever, etc.), then how could it possibly be the case that the Roman Catholic Church is correct?
I would add to that that by the strictures that they have placed on their ecclesiological vision of the Church, all of our bishops are basically irrelevant. Whether you're Orthodox or Catholic (Western or any other flavor), Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedonian, black or white, red or green, paper or plastic...it doesn't matter. Many Catholics will tell you that it is the bishops (or cardinals)
plus the Pope which makes for a "Catholic" understanding or promulgation of doctrine, so as to make it sound as conciliar and not dependent on one man as they can. This is not, however, what their own documents say. From Pastor Aeternus, the dogmatic constitution of the first Vatican Council (1870), we read:
"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."
Notice that last bit, "not by consent of the Church"? And they justify this based on "the divine assistance promised to him [i.e., their Pope] in blessed Peter", according to the document itself. I point this out only to show the real life connection between their typological classification of their Pope with St. Peter, to show how far it goes and the real effect it has on their doctrine. I don't doubt that such talk would be monstrous (at best!) to any Orthodox Christian. If it is not by the consent of the Church, then why even have other bishops? Why have councils? What is the point of all of Christian history and faith? What exactly is the Church in the first place?
Again, what about this set-up seems like it could be correct? Did Christ call the twelve to Him, or one to Him and the other eleven to Peter? Or as St. Paul the Apostle asked the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:12-13), "Now I say this, that each of you says, 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
