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.
The institution of papacy as understood by the Latin Church was unknown to the Church in the 5th century as evidenced by Council texts prior at that time, texts that are not disputed by Latin translations.
In short: papal primacy of honor and shared primacy of privilege with the Ecumenical Patriarch is a product of episcoapal consent of the Church based on the dignity of the location of the Roman Senate.
To an occasional reader, the location of the Roman senate may seem trivial, but it is far from that. The whole Roman state was based on two elements: the senate and the people of Rome (hence the very name of the Roman state, Senatus Populusque Romanus).
No biblical prerogative was cites as authority of elevating the Bishop of Rome above other bishops in honor, but the location of the Senate and the primal dignity of Old Rome is.
Most of the Latin claim to papal supremacy comes from what is now know as False or Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, a collection of 9th century Frankish forgeries, used as 'genuine' documents giving the popes the authority they sought.