Dear Ryan:

I am sorry to hear about your crisis in faith. I will certainly pray for you.

I would have to say first, that no one has any business "rigorously studying Orthodoxy" or any other ecclesial group or religion unless he stands firm and secure in his own faith. When one is not standing firm and secure in his own faith then he can easily be influenced, swayed, seduced, or convinced of another point-of-view contrary to the faith that one has been taught. St. Paul warns is this in several verses (e.g., Col 2:8; 2 Tim 4:3). 

I will assert that no Catholic standing firm and secure in the Catholic Faith, who fully understands the Catholic faith, can possibly be seduced by other ecclesial groups. If it happens, then something is amiss. Either the person is not as secure as he thinks and/or does not understand the Catholic faith as he ought.

One of the primary jobs of the Pope and his bishops is to protect the Faithful from these temptations by educating and training the Faithful on the Catholic Faith. In the role of shepherd, the Pope and his bishops are to protect the flock by means of persuasion, by shielding the flock from the wolves, by using the shepherd's staff to kill the wolves, and by using the staff to discipline the flock when needed.

It is in this role of shepherd that such things as, for example, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) was created. This list contains books that assert heresies, heterodoxies, and other notions that could damage the faith of those who are weak or unsure of their faith. The Pope and his bishops have the solemn duty given to them by Christ himself to shepherd to the flock. That is very specific imagery that was precisely known in the 1st Century, but virtually unknown today in our modern society, except for those on farms.

Thus, to investigate other beliefs when one is not rock solid firm and secure in his own faith is like playing with rattlesnakes.

But, that is water under the bridge in this case. So, how do I respond to your queries. Well, I think you are over thinking this, you are most certainly making rash judgments (that is, jumping to conclusions about the things you have read), misinterpreting what you have read even to the point of missing the point, and without doubt making this more complicated than it is.

This is seen in the statement that "Simply citing Matthew 16 unfortunately does not appear to be sufficient." I disagree. Matthew 16, backed up by Isaiah 22, is prima facie and definitive evidence that Jesus appointed Simon the first Prime Minister of the New Covenant. This is further evidenced by Jesus changing Simon's name to Peter. The change of names to initiate an ontological change, to indicate a change of mission that God has for a person, is common in the Bible. God did this with Abram, for example. When Abram was called his name was changed to Abraham. Names are extremely important and symbolic in the Bible. 

When Jesus commissioned Simon to be Pope he changed his name to Kepha. Kepha is Aramaic and the language that Jesus spoke. To know this make clear any ambiguity of the Greek Petros (which means "little pebble" and not rock; the feminine form, Petras, means rock). Obviously, when Matthew wrote the story in Greek he had to translate the Aramaic Kepha (which means Rock) into Greek. He could not give Simon a girl's moniker, thus he had to use the masculine form. Protestants and others not aware of this fact of language have made huge hissy-fits over the Catholic assertion about Peter due to their ignorance on this point. 

This point is completely resolved when we understand that Jesus spoke Aramaic and thus said, "Simon, thou are Kapha, and upon this Kepha I shall build my church."

Added to this is that Jesus quoted from Isaiah 22 concerning the keys to the kingdom, and that Jesus never quoted Scripture flippantly. All biblical scholars of all denominations admit that the passage in Isaiah 22 is about the succession of the office of Prime Minister, thus this must be what Jesus was talking about. The teaching of Jesus is crystal clear and unambiguous. Jesus was making Peter the first Prime Minister.

The passage in Isaiah even calls this Prime Minister the Pope. Yes, it actually does:

(Isaiah 22:20-21) And in that day it shall be, even I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will fasten your girdle on him, and I will give your authority into his hand. And he shall be a father to the people of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 

The word Pope is merely an English transliteration of the Greek, πατηρ [patēr], and the Latin, pater, both of which mean "father." Since every priest is a pope (pater/father), the Pope is called the Supreme Pontiff (the Supreme pater/father).

This biblical designation of the Prime Minister as "father' is not just any 'ol father. The Prime Minister is the "father" of all the people of Jerusalem and house of Judah, vis-a-vie, the Church.

A king has many ministers. The Prime Minister, by definition, can only be one person. The Prime Minster, sometimes called the "First Minister," is the king's representative to the people, the king's vicar, with all the rights, privileges, and delegated authority to speak for the king and to act in his stead. This is why the Prime Minister has the ultimate keys to the kingdom and authority to bind and loose above all others.

There can be no multiple Prime Ministers. There can be only one. Otherwise, there can be a conflict in teaching, and a breach of unity. Unity and authority rests upon one man who, in this case, is given special charisms above all others to exercise his office.

The other ministers are advisers to the Prime Minister, who alone makes the final decision.

There are always analogies in our ordinary lives. One analogy for the relationships between the Prime Minister and the other ministers can be found in the President of the United States. Each cabinet member is the boss of his department, but is only an adviser to the President who alone makes the decision he is to make. Same thing with the Pope and his Curia.

All analogies fall short in some way. Where this one breaks down is that each bishop gets his authority directly from God and not from the Pope. But, each bishop has a duty and solemn obligation to remain in communion with the Pope and to uphold all Church teachings. If there is a disagreement, then the bishop must defer to the official Church teaching always remain in communion with the Pope. The Pope is the point of unity and ultimate authority in the universal Church. No matter what the issue, the Orthodox have violated this mandate from God. They have ceased to remain in communion with God's Prime Minister.

The bottomline is that Matthew 16, backed by Isaiah 22 and God's economy concerning names proves that Jesus established a Universal Pastor, a Universal Prime Minister, who has, by definition, primacy. This is not only true biblically, but also logically. Such a hierarchy, established by God, is the only way to guarantee absolute consistency and integrity of dogma and definitive doctrine. We can easily see the results when this economy is ignored — over 32,000 non-Catholic ecclesial groups out there.

As the silly advertisements say, "But wait, there is more."

Peter was not the first pope. He was the first pope of the New Covenant. Moses and his successors were the Popes of the Mosaic covenant. Jesus even mentions this in Matthew 23:2 when he tells the disciples not to follow the behavior of the Pharisees because they were hypocrites, but when they sit in the Chair of Moses they are to be obeyed. Jesus identified a single chair of authority, not many chairs.

Abraham was a Pope also. God has always had a Prime Minister on this planet from Adam to Peter and his successors. The idea is not new. Jesus merely continued His Father's economy held since the beginning of the human race to appoint a Pope to sit on a single chair of authority over a respective covenant.

"But wait, there is more."

Some assert that the Popes did not have any true "papal authority" over the universal Church in the early Church. Wrong. We have extant letters from Pope Clement I chastising and asserting authority over the troublesome Church in Corinth. Since Corinth was not in the the Diocese of Rome, the Bishop of Rome could not assert such authority over a community in another diocese. Only a Pope has universal authority in all dioceses.

Again, this is sufficient. This is a case closed. Nothing more needs to be said. The True Church in the fullness of the faith resides in those bishops and faithful in union with the Vicar of Christ, the Prime Minister, the Pope. Where the Pope is, there is the Church.

There has been doubts and challenges to Papal primacy from time to time. But, anytime a group picked up its toys and left Mother Church under the Pope that was an act of pride and arrogance that splintered and divided the Church. St. Paul condemns this in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 ~

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

This reminds me of teenagers running away from home and then bad-mouthing their parents to justify their actions. This analogy is especially true with regard to Protestants, but also applies to the Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and all the other silly groups who have left communion with the Pope.

Since God has always established a single chair of authority, we must accept that or suffer the pains of the sins of pride, arrogance, and rebellion.

Whether the Pope is good, bad, or ugly, regardless of how the papacy developed, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that God intended any other economy.

The main contributor to the schism between East and West distilled to its essential cause was that the East disagreed with Rome and decided to act in pride instead of humility and obedience. The unity held in the person of the Pope for 1000 years up to that point of the Great Eastern Schism was irreparably broken. This violates God's clear economy for His Church, and it violates the infallible teachings of St. Paul on the matters of unity and division. That is the case with all those who leave the communion with the Pope.

Even when Popes do things that are improper, we must remain in communion with the Pope. It is a striking contrast between the pride and rebellion of schismatics and the profound humility and obedience of St. Padre Pio. Padre Pio, who had a mission and special charism from God for the Sacrament of Confession, was for a time barred from hearing confessions. This was unjust and wrong. What did Padre Pio do? Did he leave Peter and go to the Orthodox or some other group? No. He remained loyal and obedient. This is true for all the saints.

Even when saints disagreed with the Pope, they never left the Catholic Church. Even when Popes were corrupt, they did not leave the Catholic Church. There is but one chair of authority and one man who sits in that chair.

The charism of the Pope, his authority, and his See, however, do not reside in a chair (that is just a symbol of authority), nor does it reside in a diocese. It does not matter what diocese the Pope establishes his See. The See of Peter ontologically and physically is wherever the Pope resides.

Peter's see in Antioch was temporary. To suggest that the successors to the bishopric of Peter's former dioceses has any claim to the papal power or authority in any way, or has any special status because they reign over Peter's former diocese, is utter nonsense, if that is what is implied in the quote you posted. When Peter moved his see to Rome, the succeeding bishops of Antioch become ordinary bishops like any other bishop of any other diocese. 

If the Pope decided that Des Moines, Iowa was to be the location of a new Vatican and he was to be the Bishop of Des Moines, then Des Moines, instead of Rome, is where the See of Peter will be. It matters not what diocese the See of Peter resides since the See, the authority, and the charism reside in a man, not a diocese. There was a time the Pope's resided in France. That was were they held their See. St. Catherine convinced them to return to Rome, since that is the traditional location for the See of Peter, since that is where Peter permanent parked his See. But, the move to France by these Popes did not invalidate the papacy or their See. The See goes where the person of the Pope goes.

If some prophesies hold true, the Pope may be exiled from Rome in the latter days and may have to go underground. An anti-pope may then reign in Rome. But, that anti-pope will not actually hold the See of Peter, as the See of Peter goes with the legitimate Pope.

By the way, a council disposing a Pope is deposing a false pope, an anti-pope. A council cannot depose a legitimate pope.

It is true that “No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops." Men did not set-up the office of Pope as the bishop of bishops, God did and those who sit in that chair, who have that office, is the bishop of bishops. God said so. Case closed.

It is interesting to note that even the Orthodox, which by the way are not universal but national and ethnic churches, admit that the Pope is a "first among equals." That is true, but they fail to admit the definition of that. A Chairman of the Board of the "first among equals", yet he is still the boss. The Prime Minister of a king, or sometimes called "First" Minister is a "first among equals" but he is still the head of government.

As for various statements from Saints, it would take a book to discuss this especially since such discussion would have to include the entire context of the writings, and the historical context, not just a few quotes. This is beyond what I can do here.

For now, this central point must be made — the opinions of saints are neither infallible nor official Church teaching. Saints can be wrong.

One excellent example of this is that the early saints did not think the soul entered the baby until "quickening". Modern pro-abortionists use this as an excuse to promote abortion in the early stages. This belief was predicated upon the state of medical knowledge at the time. 

The Church officially corrected that errant view and asserted that the soul enters the baby at the moment of conception making abortion an evil from conception onward. Those saints who taught or believes the "quickening" theory were flatly wrong.

When saints are wrong and corrected by the Church, they do not go running elsewhere. Had the Church, at the time, corrected these saints about when the baby is ensouled, they would have abandoned their views immediately and offered obedience to the Church. 

As St. Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." By "authority of the Catholic Church" St. Augustine is talking about the Pope and the Magisterium in union with him.

This also relates to the topic of the Development of Doctrine. This is a complex topic that cannot be adequately treated in a forum such as this. But, to give a simplistic explanation and analogy...

The development of doctrine does not change doctrine, it rather is the maturing of the understanding we have of the doctrine. The early Church was an infant Church. it struggled to understand the revelation of God. The understanding of these unchangeable doctrines matured over the years, and continues to mature. It is only within the charism and authority Christ has given to the Pope and his Magisterium that these maturing understandings are determined and declared. That is the job that Christ gave the Pope. That is one of the primary reasons God created a Prime Minister.

This is not unlike 5 year old asking where babies come from. We should answer truthfully, but obvious we cannot answer beyond the level of understanding of the child. As the child matures, he can begin to have a more mature understanding of the "doctrine" of reproduction. The "doctrine" has never changed, only the child's understanding of it.

The bottomline:

(Proverbs 3:5-7)  Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil. 

(2 Peter 1:20-21)  First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy (prophecy means teaching") of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This is why we have a Pope and a Magisterium in union with him. We are to obey God's appointed Vicar who, with his Magisterium, has the charism to teach, interpret, and define the faith.

St. Augustine said, "Lord, those are your best servants who wish to shape their life on Your answers rather than to shape your answers on their wishes." 

St. Teresa of Avila said, "The more we see failure in obedience, the stronger should be our suspicion of temptation."

St. Catherine of Bologna saint, "Without a doubt, obedience is more meritorious than any other penance. And what greater penance can there be than keeping one's will continually submissive and obedient?"

St. Gregory the Great said, “Obedience, is rightly placed before all other sacrifices, for in offering a victim as sacrifice, one offers a life that is not one’s own; but when one obeys one is immolating one’s own will.”

St. Bernard said, “He who is his own master is a scholar under a fool.”

Saint Ignatius of Loyola said, "We must put aside all judgment of our own, and keep the mind ever ready and prompt to obey in all things the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, our holy Mother, the hierarchical Church."

St. Francis said, "The Devil doesn’t fear austerity but holy obedience.”

St. Paul said:

(1 Cor 11:2) "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

(2 Thess 2:15) "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The tradition of the Church, from the beginning, was a hierarchy beginning with the Pope, the Prime Minster. It was not until later that sinful men decided to rebel against Christ's chosen economy and go off to start new Churches not in communion with the Pope. We can argue all day about what power the Pope had in the early Church, and whatnot, but the fact remains that Jesus appointed a Prime Minister in whom we are to be in communion. All else is vanity and pride.

I encourage you to mortify your doubts and questions and obey God's Holy Church according to God's economy, which means to remain in communion with the Pope and His Magisterium in union with him. Humble yourself before the Lord and seek not your own understanding. Stop your study of other ideas until you are firmly grounded and secure in the Catholic Faith. Immerse yourself in rigorous study of the Catholic Faith. Ask God to strengthen you in the Catholic Faith. The devil is after you to try to spoil your faith. Do not let him succeed.

We will be praying for you.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary