Continuing my examination and have a quick question.
If the Primacy of Honor held by the Church in Rome and recognized from the beginning of our Church was because of St. Peter, we believe this as Catholics Why wasn't the Church in Antioch held as Second in Honor of the Church in Rome even though she was started by St. Peter?
In 325 at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea the Church in Antioch established personally by St. Peter was not afforded 2nd in the ranking honor next to the Church in Rome as would make sense for her to be *if *the primacy of honor was really due to St. Peter & "the keys" as opposed to being based on the "imperial city". Rather the Church in Antioch was listed in 3rd place at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea and then in later Ecumencial Councils as 4th place. :confused:
Just so happens that the order of honor given at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea followed the secular influence those cities held.
This Ecumenical Council, at the very least, gives us insight into the mindset of those early Bishops. It disturbs me that the mindset seems to match that of the Orthodox Church, not my Catholic Church's mindset today.