I have a question about Papal primacy and it ties into our belief in apostolic succession - that all bishops (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and other churches with valid orders) are successors to the apostles.
First let me quote the gospel of Luke
"An argument arose among the disciples about which of them was the greatest. Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child and placed it by his side and said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the greatest.’” Luke 9:46-49
“Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.’” Luke 22:24-26
So given that these two passages display our Lord’s disapproval over any apostle claiming to be greater than the other, why is acceptable when any of these apostles’ successors claim to be greater than the other? Specifically, why is it acceptable for the Bishop of Rome to claim primacy over his brother bishops?
I mean no disrespect here, this question recently popped in my head and I am having a hard time figuring this one out.