>>566333
If his question is whether St Peter founded Rome or Antioch first, both Catholics and Orthodox agree on that - he was the first bishop of Antioch, then the first bishop of Rome, and was martyred in Rome.
Whether this gives a special and divine benefit to the Patriarch of Rome that the Patriarch of Antioch does not have, or rather that the P. of Antioch and the P. of Rome are equal regarding divine prerogatives, and if they are equal, then if they are they are equal to one another (and to the P. of Alexandria) alone or if they are equal to all bishops… well, that's a matter that the 1st millenium Church simply did not settle once and for all, or rather, it settled it not by an ecumenical council but by a violent dispute, leading to either Rome or the other Patriarchates going into apostasy depending on your perspective.
>>566336
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus is speaking about His Church, that is, the whole Church.
The special prerogative that is for Rome alone in Catholic thought is not based only on Matthew 16:18, but also on Matthew 16:19, and maybe most importantly, on John 21:15-19 and Luke 22:31-32. If Peter founding the Church of Rome and consecrating it by his blood gives the Pope a special, divine mission that was Peter's alone and was transmitted to the Bishop of Rome alone, then everything falls in place.
>Instead of arguing, just tell me what should I read; please !
- The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy
- The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate
- The findings of the International Orthodox-Catholic Joint Commission (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm), not forgetting the Church of Moscow's response to the Ravenna document, since it wasn't present at the time (https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344/)
- Go to church regularly and try to have a healthy prayer life - you can't just read yourself into the faith like that, you know. It's not healthy.
- With all this knowledge and experience, figure out who is the Church today and who is not
- Sinpost on /christian/ with your superior knowledge (pic related)
>>566341
But that's effectively a non-answer - the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Syrian Catholic Church all claim to be the historical Church of Antioch. Who is right then? One might say the Catholics are right since they have both Rome and Antioch (3 Antiochs in fact), but they were out of communion with those same Antiochian churches for a while after the schism, so what do we make of this? Either way, the current canonical Catholic Church and the current canonical Eastern Orthodox Church look way different from the pre-schism Church, so we can't simply deduct who's the Church from that (as the evident logic would then be "neither").
>>566342
>Both Cathodox churches were built on him/his faith. The schism didn't happen until 1000 years later.
Uh? No heretical church can be considered to be built upon Peter.
>read this letter to pope francis by two venerable orthodox monks
1) they're bishops, not monks. Monks are usually too busy praying to get involved with heretics, in fact, even communicating with heretics is forbidden for many of them.
2) this letter is full of historical ignorance, unfiltered hatred for even pre-schism Latin tradition, and literal memes. It's a fine 8chan sinpost, but nothing better. I'm glad the Ecumenical Patriarch gave the Church of Greece autocephaly, this way he doesn't have to treat their bullshit as if it was his anymore. But yeah, Greek bishops tend to be extremely arrogant. Did you know that the Greeks tend to treat their language as if it were holier than any other language because the NT was written in Koine? Literally pseudo-Muslims.