I'd really like to hear someone chime in who has more authority or knowledge on this.
All I really remember is the nutshell version. 500ad we had 5 patriarchs each equal, but the one from Rome was given first honor (to speak?), then Constantinople, then Antioch, then Jerusalem, then Alexandria.
After a few hundred years, the ones in Rome became more legalistic as they grew by growing more political power which was the way things were done there. This was until the point that the Patriarch (now Pope) got it in his head that since he was first among equals he was better and could boss them around.
Then some jerk cardinal tried to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople, because of a variety of reasons. Partially social, partially economic, but basically the cardinal was trying to put the patriarch in his place.
This apparently wasn't proper to do, and went against the councils as there wasn't unanimity or at least agreement from the other 3 patriarchs of the time. So the other three came in and sided with Constantinople and then excommunicated the pope of Rome in what was is 1056? This divide was rather cemented in a crusade a few hundred years later.
So from one point of view we are the best, our pope is the top, we did the deed first. The more Orthodox point of view is, you were first among EQUALS, and what you did wasn't legal. Add a sprinkling of heresy here.
Anyway I'd like to read something more authoritative. I believe another reason the Roman's say their authority is superior is because they derive theirs to Peter. Which is odd, the Romans were the ones to kill him, no?
Be the first person to like this.