If you don't agree with the first point of the Catholic Church's "foundational arguments" for Petrine Primacy, the others don't even make sense. Jesus wasn't trying to set up a monarchical structure to govern his Church. Peter is our point man, perhaps, but not the Boss. Jesus is the head, and the Holy Spirit is the breath that supports the collective speech of ideas. The Bishop of Rome need have no more authority than any other Metropolitan Bishop who leads the Church.
The Orthodox feel offended, and wish to divide, over theoretical verbal expressions, like the "filioque," like the way the Miaphysite Churches did earlier over the nature of Christ's person. But the West can recognize whatever degree of leadership we choose to confer on the Pope, if we really want to be doctrinal conformists. The problem emerges when we forget that the Church is larger than just the Catholic Church. We need to be in agreement with a consensus of faith, accepting valid viewpoints, not just a numerical majority.
Let the Protestants demur to follow if they want because they recognize no umbrella of authoritative leadership. That is no different from the Orthodox denial of Papal authority, and no less essential in doctrine than the Miaphysite disagreement and retreat from communion. But in conscience, they should also seek to find a place within the whole consensus of communion.
The argument stands or falls upon a disagreement over a particular interpretation of Scripture, and an arrogance that assumes no need to exercise proper humility. When Jesus said, "and upon this rock I shall build my Church," He meant the verbal confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." The foundation is the Truth and the Faith, not the person who expressed it. Peter got his name only because he was the first to say it, without any hesitation. So Jesus knew he would make a good teacher. But then, ten seconds later, Peter wanted to argue with Jesus about being crucified.
I wonder how many times Jesus has wanted to tell the Popes, "Get thee behind me Satan! You are thinking as men do, not as God does." Probably every time they asserted their "designated petrine authority" to tell everyone to fall into lockstep with the "Catholic Church." The desire to be great among men was one of Jesus's pet peeves, which He denounced repeatedly. And the Orthodox Bishops have not been wholly immune to this failing either.
The Church that Jesus built needs to depend on the consensus of opinion flowing from the Holy Spirit through the approved canon of scriptures and the ecumenical councils, up until the Church split apart. We need to allow for a sectarian variety which recognizes that each branch still remains "Christian." At no point, however, can the authority of the plain meaning of Scripture be denied, especially for any self-serving usurpation of authority. Let the accretions of the Magisterium be submitted to the consensus of scriptural interpretation, in open council if necessary, so that the Holy Spirit may prune back its excessive ambitions.
Indeed, insofar as we all have gone astray in our separate ways, we should all observe the opinions of the whole Church, and seek to curb our peculiarities. Let us all lend deference and weight to the very oldest of traditions, as to the traditional deposit of the teaching of the Apostles and the faith of the Early Fathers and saints. The historical ecumenical councils are a codification of consensus, occasionally pointing out one or more irreconcilable disagreements over theoretical issues.
If the potential practical results of varied understandings lack significant differences in behavior and virtue, perhaps we should gloss over the verbal disagreement, so long as we can agree to affirm the same creeds. What we want is to develop a relationship of trust in Jesus, as one person of the Divine Trinity, who died for our sins and rose from the dead. We need a continuing growth of faith, hope and love, and to build our personal virtue by using our individual talents within the Body of Christ.
Every differing faction wants to say that their position is supported by Scripture and tradition. It seems obvious to me that there are significant logical holes in the arguments on both sides. That is why they haven't been solved in so many years. But those weren't the main points of either the Schism or the Reformation. The protesting Churches were in disagreement with the authority of the Papacy when it presumed on its hereditary right to interpret scripture to support its claims, and then insisted on infallibility. The Catholic magisterium then used that spurious authority to create dogmas that are unsupported by Scripture. These "necessary teachings" are pious and good, until they are abused and people get excluded for not taking them seriously.
There are many issues in the Church that need to be addressed. Sola Fide is just one of them, and declarations of infallible dogma are not going to solve the problems, but only make them worse. All sides have used the hiatus in unity to accumulate ideas that make fellowship more difficult. The only way we are going to reconcile the whole Body of Christ is to allow the differences and assume that we all hold to the essential points of the Gospel. We need to be humble and have a teachable spirit.
And no, we don't need universal agreement on what are the essential points, but only full submission to the necessity that everything must be in accord with the Scripture. That is the only infallible source of authority. There are other authorities, but they must bow to Scripture. The Word of God is our only safety and certainty. You support your argument, and I support mine, and we agree to remain in fellowship even if we disagree. "Love one another as I have loved you." Only in cases of poisonous heresy that threaten the whole Body do we need to "cut off the hand" or "pluck out the eye" that causes us to sin.
Finally, the question remains: Why are there so many denominations of Christianity? It's because we care about figuring out the Truth. It makes a difference in how we choose to live, and who we choose to live with. But just remember this: Differences do not make contradictions. This is just who we are as human beings. We are prideful, fractious, and self-willed, and we all have our own points of view. If you give us enough time we disagree, because we all know that the other person doesn't know everything. But if we are not allowed to have honest disagreements, it isn't an association based on freedom and understanding. Without the freedom to think for ourselves, it would become a cult.
We all have our own interpretations of the facts, even when we are agreed on what those facts are. Truth claims are based on facts, reasoning, and interpretation. The final result is a puzzle solution, called up by our own intentions and best judgment.
But we still have to remember that God does not think the way human beings think, and we don't see clearly what He is doing in every case.
