A thought-provoking comment from our friend Father Patrick:
The universal jurisdiction of Rome for appeals I believe is one of the core aspects of its Petrine role in the Church. I would expect to see appeals to Rome from all over the Church, West and East. This should not be very common though because most matters would be dealt within Metropolitan jurisdictions but the right of appeal to Rome remains open for difficult cases. This seems to fit the evidence from the early Church. Once Constantinople becomes established in the East and shares in Rome’s prerogatives then naturally appeals from Eastern Churches would be heard in New Rome rather than the more distant Old Rome, thus seeing a decline in Eastern cases in the West. However, the West still holds the preeminence in manifesting the unity of the Church, and in appeals, and it is not surprising to see in some issues that Rome is appealed to from the East.
All this evidence does not though prove that Rome had any ordinary jurisdiction within Bishoprics or Metropolises. Thus, the Pope could not appoint Bishops directly of right in Eastern Metropolises or even Priests in another Diocese, although he may send appropriate candidates in case of a dispute that was appealed to Rome. Even in the West, I don’t think he had any internal jurisdiction as such. Is there evidence of this other than as a result of an appeal? Could he by right enter another Metropolis and consecrate a Bishop, especially unilaterally without at least the consent of the other Bishops, as the Metropolitan would need? Could he ordain a Priest in another diocese without the consent of the governing Bishop? These are areas where Orthodox ecclesiology could diverge from Roman Catholic ecclesiology, if the Pope could do these things by right outside the context of his appellate jurisdiction.
On this thread, it would seem that it is entirely appropriate to see St Peter as the Prince of Apostles and speak of him alone in this matter, and of course speak of Petrine Sees rather than Petrine and Pauline Sees. This would reflect that the unity of the Church can be manifest in one See. However, this does not limit St Paul from having the same Princedom and authority as St Peter, also as Prince of the Apostles and Apostle to the Gentiles. He was also present in Antioch and Rome, and St Mark also worked as his disciple, so he is also connected with the Traditional Petrine Sees. He is not named as the one Prince as is St Peter to recognise that the Church is one but he is celebrated with St Peter as being equal with him. This fits with an Orthodox understanding of Roman Primacy that can at once recognises the special place of Rome as the head of the Churches without excluding Constantinople from sharing the same rights etc. This is reflected in the Canons regarding Constantinople.
I think that more evidence still needs to come forward that Old Rome has a jurisdiction that New Rome cannot have equally and show the Canons regarding New Rome to have been false or at least to be assuming something that they did not make explicit, which would be strange when they were giving equal privileges not to be careful to ensure this was not open to obvious misinterpretation if they did to really mean this. Perhaps someone has a good argument on this matter. This would also carry a fundamental split in ecclesiology between East and West right back to the second Ecumenical Council. Certainly some of St Leo’s criticisms of Canon 28 may support this and it was not obviously healed before 1054 (as a symbolic date in the rift.) From what I can see the Eastern Churches don’t seem to have understood the present Papal claims from early on and it wasn’t a matter of a sudden rejection of Tradition in the Schism but something that was never understood as part of the Tradition. I am less sure of the Western thinking in these times but equally the sense of maintaining the Tradition rather than a recent, reasoned innovation could have been in their minds at the Schism.
Is the rise of Constantinople a fundamental error of ecclesiology or is it the proof that later Papal claims over extended themselves? Is St Paul’s sudden rise to Prince of the Apostles a fundamental error or a demonstration of both the singularity of St Peter’s position and also that another could share in this thus showing its symbolic value is one but its power is not exclusive?