Also, I forgot to mention it in my essay but Rome claims a divinely authored authority the East claims that importance is given as a result of political expediency. Rome first because its the great city! Constantinople because it is the "new" Rome! Then Alexandria because it's highly culturally and philosophically significant! Then Antioch because that's where they first called them Christians! Then Jerusalem the glorious mother church where Christ died!Which one sounds like the Church God would create? A divinely instituted ecclesiology to last through the ages or An ecclesiology based on the political situation at the time... Does it not make more sense that the East used the political argument solely because it would bump them up on the list of importance? Keeping in mind that Rome never accepted the Canons that created the Patriarchate of Constantinople until very recently. When it was first proposed, and for most of history, the roman Church rejected it. It did not exist from the beginning. My whole spiel about the hologram can be seen like this. The priest stands in persona Christi for his parish, the bishop stands in persona Christi for his Diocese, the Patriarch stands in persona Christi for his autocephalous Church, who stands in persona Christi for the world? To reject the need for such a man would be to reject the need for all of them and thus it should all be conciliar all the way down with simply a council of laymen to lead the parish, diocese, and autocephalous churches. Their authority, and necessity, comes from the same source as the authority and necessity of a Universal Bishop. You can't have one without the other, things break down.