I frequently read from Orthodox authors that they believe the See of Rome to have had a "primacy of honor", but not supremacy or universal jurisdiction. I would like to know what is meant by the phrase "primacy of honor" in everyone's understanding. God bless,It basically means primacy of nothing.
jUdging from all the excuses we get from ya'll on how your supreme pontiffs handle (or don't) the pedophile scandal, the liturgical abuses, dissidents, the suppression of your Easterns traditions, I guess so..
Ultramontanists always have this equation in the back of their mind primacy=dictatorship.
For the OP, it's like the primacy of the speaker of the US house, or the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system.
An aspect of that I saw yesterday: watching the Borgias, the cardinals, knowing how Pope Alexander had bought the office, try to find a way to annull his election and get rid of him. So, of course, being good legalists, they consult the canon expert, who says that a pope can be removed from office for notorious and public fornication (supposedly not technically a violation of the vow of chastity, as that only applies to clerics who soil themselves by marryinig the woman, but I digress). Interesting (given the position in the Corban factories for the time frame to examin a marriage for annullment is only at the time of marriage) they don't look at the mistress he was openly living with when he was elected, but an affair he started afterwards. Anyways, I don't thnk that such a canon was on the books (but I can be wrong on that) but it isn't on it now. Fact is, there is no way to remove the sovereign of the Vatican. None. As Pastor Aeternus teaches, he is judged by no one. So, unlike a Speaker or a Prime Minister (or an Orthodox Patriarch) there is no way to remove one once in office when he abuses the office. By definition, the pope cannot be a heretic, according to the Ultramontanists, because he cannot be removed.