Discussion on the papacy at Green Baggins

Lane Keister has started another discussion on the papacy over at Green Baggins. He says,

I have been recently contemplating the nature of the evidence concerning the claims of Rome, and asking myself this question: what is the linchpin of Romanist claims? Surely, it is the Petrine succession argument for the Popes. Without an ironshod succession from Peter to Benedict XVI, there is no sacramental magisterial authority at all. It does no good at this point to claim that the apostolic succession can be legitimated without the Papal succession, since the Papal succession is what legitimates all the rest of the succession down to the ordination of priests. If the Papal claims are void, then so are the ordinations that come from a false Papacy.

Bryan Cross and Jason Stellman are taking up the Roman cause. Turretinfan is there, as well as Bob S (RPV). For anyone who is interested, I have joined in the discussion at this point. I bring up two points (which I’ve made here in the past). First, that the “lynchpin” argument of the papacy was made by “Pope Leo the Great”, using arguments drawn first from the relationship between Jesus Jesus and Peter (and the rest of the apostles), in conjunction with Roman adoption laws, and second, that the eastern churches never accepted that argument, preferring, instead, to understand Roman “primacy” as a political primacy.