“The implication, however, is there; it comes with the very idea of hierarchical leadership.”
The implication of what, Alex? Clearly not papal supremacy. That “primacy” is of the “esse” of The Church? That, I think, is what is implied.
“I do not dispute that papal supremacy is a latter historical development; it would be as anachronistic for the Fathers to discuss it as, for example, discuss the use of electricity.”
I agree.
“What I am saying is that the concept of multiple autocephalic churches that absolutely, never-ever should have a hierarchical top is a later invention also.”
Certainly that was not the case after the 2nd century and certainly isn’t the case now.
I agree that a case for papal supremacy, of the kind the Pope enjoys in the Latin Church cannot be made from these examples and apply it to the Eastern Churches, but a case for papal primacy can. Where exactly lies the difference? I wish the committee studying the 1st millennium papacy every success.
I was simply reacting to some sweeping statements made earlier, to the effect that no hint at the institution of papacy can be found in patristic literature.