But how it can be that the Pope is ther first among the Patriarchs, if in the first great Christian Council were present more than 250 bishops form all Asia and Africa and the Pope send only two priests?
Please, we must analyse historically the presence of the first bishops of the Christian Church and their acts.
In the time of Ignatius the Iluminator, of Antioch, the Church was being yet organized and there were many bishops acting locally.
It is with the first three great councils that Antioch and Alexandria gain importance in Christian history.
Rome appears later in the roll of history, and no confusion must be made in respect of the great thinkers fathers of the Church.
Nowadays due to religious persecutions and the dizimation of the Church in the Middle East, Asia Minor and North Africa, and even Ethiopia, Rome gains importance due to its liberty of action in the west world.
Please analise all the trouble that we had in the Middle East and Asia Minor and compare nowadays our churches - Orthodox Church of Antioch or of Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox) in the establishment of new communities in the West World such as in Europe, USA, Canada, and even Latin America, and we will understand that the first are those who suffered, were martirized, persecuted and by themselves returned and had a great revival; and are also recognized by the university masters as the eldest christians and that must thus be respected.
The above affirmation that the Pope is the first among the Patriachs, is obviously of a converted Byzantine Orthodox into Catholic, what was common in the past times.
Please remember what John Paul II said in his visit to Syria, to our Patriarch, His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakai I, Iwas - This is the real Patriarch of Antioch! The real first throne of christendom (my complement)
The Church of Antioch is the only one that apears in the New Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles. Rome only received a letter from Paul, and afterwards, Paul the Architec of the Christian Church was killed there, as was also Ignatius of Antioch and many other Christians that were imprisioned all over the Roman Empire.
Now what we can say of Antioch, with Ignatius; or Adai in Irak..... We must never forget that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ spoke our language, the Holy Language that only our Church uses till our days.
Why the Son of God didn't choose to speak the language of the Jews? Remember that Peter was accused because he spoke like Jesus, the Aramaic Language, and thus he denied Christ three times. Peter didn't speak like the Jews, he was a Galilean...
Well Jesus could choose the Greek Language that was also well used in that times, and was cultuated as the language of the learned men - The Great Library of Alexandria - Musêion - yet existed in those times.
Why dind't He choose the Latin Language and appeared in Rome so that he could establish his Church directly in Rome?
Why didn't He choose to appear in India or China where great civilizations already existed?
Why humbly He was born in Bethlhem - Ephrata?
Really we need study our history, the Mesopotamian Antiquity where many people already waited the comming of the Saviour in many different ancient religions...
About this last topic I sugest that our learned men and priests read the books of Malfono Abrohom Gabriel Sowmy that already some of them ar scanned in the site http://www.siriacaort-santamaria.org.br
Evangelist Deacon of the
Syrian Orthodox Church in São Paulo - Brasil