The following is taken from The Eternal Kingdom, by F.W. Mattox.
325 AD The Council of Nicaea exalted the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria to the position of patriarchs (or Metropolitans) and gave them charge over the Church in their respective provinces, placing all bishops under the authority of their Metropolitans. The bishop of Rome had authority over the bishops of Italy only, as the bishop of Alexandria had over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis.
341 AD Julius, bishop of Rome, wrote a council at Antiock that questioned that dispute should be settled at Rome as that is "the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter."
343 AD The Council of Sardiea agreed that the retrial of bishops should be held in Rome to "honor the memory of the Apostle Peter." The bishop of Rome was to preside or appoint arbitrators.
376 AD Damascus, bishop of Rome, hired Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin and Jerome appeals to him for a decision saying, "I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter.... for this I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built."
380 AD Theodosius I recognized the bishop of Rome as "Pontif".
381 AD One hundred and fifty bishops of the council of Constantinople gave the bishop of Constantinople the first place of honor in the church next after the bishop of Rome. This gave him control of the church in the East and exalted him over the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.
382 AD Valentinian the Emperor agrees to back up with imperial force the decisions of the bishop of Rome affecting the trial of church officials. Metropolitans had to come to Rome for trial before the Roman bishop.
417 AD The Bishop of Rome tells African bishops, "Nothing should be taken as finally settled unless it came to notice of this See, that any just pronouncement might be confirmed by all the auhority of this See, and that the other churches might from thence gather what they should teach." Notice that decrees from Rome are to take the place of Scripture in determining the Truth.
424 AD The African bishops in the Synod at Carthage rejected the interference of the bishops of Rome and reminded him that at Nicaea the Metropolitan had authority in his own district.
445 AD Valentinium III decreed in favor of the Roman bishop's having universal authority. He said, "Inasmuch as the pre-eminence of the Apostolic See is assured by the merit of St. Peter, the first of the bishops, by the leading positions of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of the holy Synod, let not presumption strive to attempt anything contrary to the authority of that See.....We decree.....that nothing shall be attempted by the .....bishops....without the authority of the venerable pope of the Eternal City."
541 AD The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the decision of the council of Constantinople (381) exalting the bishop of Constantinople. They did not accept the idea of the "chair of Peter" but said, "For to the throne of Old Rome, the Fathers gave priveleges with good reason, because it was the imperial city. And the 150 bishops, with the same consideration in view gave equal privelages to the most holy throne of New Rome." (Constantinople). They then gave the bishop of Constantinople the right to ordain the Metropolitans in the East, who had the responsibility of ordaining bishops under them.
It is interesting that some EOC attempt to deny that shared tradition. Is it because history shows a steady slide from biblical orthodoxy to manmade doctrine and structure resulting from power struggles within the church, and a continued secularization and dependence on the power of the state.
Or is it that they cannot adequately explain how the true "Church of Christ" could split in two in 1054 over whether or not to use unleavened bread at communion? How can this bastion of Truth have broken up over something that surely should have been known for sure after a thousand years of existence?
325 AD The Council of Nicaea exalted the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria to the position of patriarchs (or Metropolitans) and gave them charge over the Church in their respective provinces, placing all bishops under the authority of their Metropolitans. The bishop of Rome had authority over the bishops of Italy only, as the bishop of Alexandria had over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis.
341 AD Julius, bishop of Rome, wrote a council at Antiock that questioned that dispute should be settled at Rome as that is "the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter."
343 AD The Council of Sardiea agreed that the retrial of bishops should be held in Rome to "honor the memory of the Apostle Peter." The bishop of Rome was to preside or appoint arbitrators.
376 AD Damascus, bishop of Rome, hired Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin and Jerome appeals to him for a decision saying, "I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter.... for this I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built."
380 AD Theodosius I recognized the bishop of Rome as "Pontif".
381 AD One hundred and fifty bishops of the council of Constantinople gave the bishop of Constantinople the first place of honor in the church next after the bishop of Rome. This gave him control of the church in the East and exalted him over the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.
382 AD Valentinian the Emperor agrees to back up with imperial force the decisions of the bishop of Rome affecting the trial of church officials. Metropolitans had to come to Rome for trial before the Roman bishop.
417 AD The Bishop of Rome tells African bishops, "Nothing should be taken as finally settled unless it came to notice of this See, that any just pronouncement might be confirmed by all the auhority of this See, and that the other churches might from thence gather what they should teach." Notice that decrees from Rome are to take the place of Scripture in determining the Truth.
424 AD The African bishops in the Synod at Carthage rejected the interference of the bishops of Rome and reminded him that at Nicaea the Metropolitan had authority in his own district.
445 AD Valentinium III decreed in favor of the Roman bishop's having universal authority. He said, "Inasmuch as the pre-eminence of the Apostolic See is assured by the merit of St. Peter, the first of the bishops, by the leading positions of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of the holy Synod, let not presumption strive to attempt anything contrary to the authority of that See.....We decree.....that nothing shall be attempted by the .....bishops....without the authority of the venerable pope of the Eternal City."
541 AD The Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the decision of the council of Constantinople (381) exalting the bishop of Constantinople. They did not accept the idea of the "chair of Peter" but said, "For to the throne of Old Rome, the Fathers gave priveleges with good reason, because it was the imperial city. And the 150 bishops, with the same consideration in view gave equal privelages to the most holy throne of New Rome." (Constantinople). They then gave the bishop of Constantinople the right to ordain the Metropolitans in the East, who had the responsibility of ordaining bishops under them.
It is interesting that some EOC attempt to deny that shared tradition. Is it because history shows a steady slide from biblical orthodoxy to manmade doctrine and structure resulting from power struggles within the church, and a continued secularization and dependence on the power of the state.
Or is it that they cannot adequately explain how the true "Church of Christ" could split in two in 1054 over whether or not to use unleavened bread at communion? How can this bastion of Truth have broken up over something that surely should have been known for sure after a thousand years of existence?