The truth of the primacy of Peter is equally true today as it was at the beginning. Doctrines do not change, you know this. They are, however, clarified over time. The teachings of Vatican I are an example of this, but in no way was the essence of Peter's primacy spoken of by the early saints changed by any doctrinal statements made before or after the Great Schism.
I’m not debating the Primacy of St. Peter; I affirm it. What I’m arguing against is papism - that is, that the Papal Church as it exists today is what Lord Jesus Christ has in mind. You’re conflating these two.
I will interpret this charitably and assume you are not trying to diminish the sanctity of the Western saints following AD 1054, because I will point out that St. Thomas Aquinas lived his entire life after the Schism, as did St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. Robert Bellarmine. The holiness of these saints is without question, and their character is defined principally by just that: holiness.
I’m not saying anything about any of them. What I’m saying is that there has been a divergence of Saints since the Schism, which is very noticeable to me - not merely because they are members of a different Communion, but because their Lives are different, and there’s a certain “character” which I perceive in the Orthodox Saints, and a different “character” in the Papal ones.
There’s more I want to say point-by-point, but time is limited so I’ll cut to the big one:
So Christ built His Church on the rock, which itself is just a type of the Church?
The Rock that Christ built His Church on is St. Peter’s Confession. For this reason, the Orthodox believe that the Communion of Faith is what determines the bounds of the Church. It is of critical importance to enter in Communion with a Bishop who Confesses the Faith of the Fathers. Whether that Bishop is in Communion with Rome is irrelevant, if Rome is not Confessing the Faith of the Fathers.
EDIT; besides, we are in Communion with Rome, for the first thousand years.
(post is archived)