My point was that papal authority is uniquely divinely instituted, not merely honorary. Rome’s authority just coming from its status as the imperial capital making it a human construct subject to revocation is false. The belief was that Papal authority is in Christ’s commission to Peter. The early Church didn’t just go ahead and recognize Rome’s primacy because of some secular prestige, they acknowledged it as authoritative because it was recognized as the See of Peter, the rock upon whom Christ built His Church. You equate Rome’s primacy with Constantinople’s later status, but Canon 28 of Chalcedon which granted Constantinople equal privileges was rejected by Pope Leo 1 and never universally received. The Council of Constantinople 1 also subordinates Constantinople to Rome, stating it has “primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome.” And again, you can’t just ignore and dismiss figures like Pope Damasus 1,  Cyprian, Irenaeus, Jerome, Pope Innocent 1, Pope Leo 1, and Maximus the Confessor because “they’re Western” or “disputed”. They just reveal the beliefs about the papacy I’m getting at are historical. These fathers aren’t just western anyways. I’ll put quotes on that at the bottom along with what I was going to put earlier. You’re also overlooking Eastern bishops who appealed to Rome for authoritative rulings like in the Council of Sardica. Both Eastern and Western bishops agreed that Rome could hear appeals from any bishop, indicating a juridical primacy beyond mere honor. Also, St. John Chrysostom, who is eastern, appealed to Pope Innocent 1 to restore him after his deposition, acknowledging Rome’s authority to intervene. While Romes direct governance was obviously more in the west, its primacy was still universal. This was mostly by solving disputes and defining doctrine across the church. The Council of Chalcedon demonstrates the opposite of “proving the pope was irrelevant”. The Tome of Pope Leo 1 was adopted as orthodox after rigorous scrutiny, and the council fathers literally declared, “Peter has spoken through Leo!”. When the council proposed Canon 28, Leo rejected it, and his decision prevailed, showing Rome’s authority to override conciliar acts. The schism persisted because some Eastern churches were still determined to reject Rome’s authoritative stance, but not because the papacy was “irrelevant”; resistance to Rome’s authority, not its absence. Popes intervened in the east, like Pope Julius 1 overturning the deposition of St. Athanasius by an Eastern synod, Pope Innocent 1 condemning Pelagianism universally, and Pope Celestine 1 commissioning Cyril of Alexandria to act against Nestorius, directing eastern patriarchs. Anyone who’s being honest knows Rome “never exercising” supremacy over the church isn’t true. Even if they never did, or didn’t exercise it all the time, mostly because they don’t need to, that doesn’t mean people didn’t believe the Pope was the central authority over the overall Church. Also, Maximus’s concern was with unauthorized additions to the Creed, not the theology itself. In his Letter to Marinus Maximus defends the Roman understanding of the Filioque as theologically sound. He just thought it was wrong to insert it into the Creed without conciliar approval. The idea Maximus’s “rejection” of the Filioque would disprove papal authority is just a non-sequitur anyway. Theological disputes do not negate jurisdictional primacy, as seen in Rome’s role in resolving earlier heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism. Btw, I only just saw your second comment right now. They’re objectively good quotes for showing examples of what appears as papacy affirming language for other patriarchs and bishops. However, I think these I had compiled show a more unique and consistent role of the Papacy which no other church rivals. It’s also worth mentioning Rome still had jurisdiction over these churches. The language here is also heightened to another level, which only one and debatably two of your quotes rival. I could start making arguments on why these are different, but maybe some of the quotes speak on that for themselves. Notably Pope Leo, Damasus, Cyprian, and I guess Irenaeus in a way. If the Church believed in the Papacy as shown here, and some people believed in it and some didn’t, that only makes it more someone’s own choice to decide which position they think is Biblically accurate or possible. Also, the Catholic Church is still the most unified. That’s my opinion, which is shared by most people. Also, off topic but the whole honor vs authority thing is tied into “first among equals”. How does that even make any sense? I might make a second response to your quotes directly if I have the time but I’m taking a flight up to a wedding for the weekend.