I put this is Orthodox-Catholic discussion because I couldn't think of anywhere else. In the Pentarchy (before the Schism), each patriarch had their own area, right? So why was the entire Western Church under 1 patriarch, while the Eastern churches were divided into 4. The pope had a huge area compared to the Eastern patriarchs. In other words why did the West have just 1, while the East had 4.
It wasn't that the West was so huge but rather that the metropolises in the East were.
The formal division of West-East dates from the formal divion of the Empire into the Tetrarchy. The West was divided into Italy, Illyrium (roughly the Balkans) and North Africa outside of Egypt, and Britain, Gaul, Germnay and Hispania (Iberian Peninsula), the latter comprisng the short lived break away Gallic Empire. Perhaps as attempt to bring the latter more firmly into the Empire, or a concession to reality (they were slipping away as the Barbarians overran them), the Western Empire abolished the divisions of the Tetrarchy. In the East, Alexandria and Antioch were too big and important to share a similar fate.
This is a good question, and I look forward to hearing the responses. The only thing I have to contribute is to point out that the Patriarch of Constantinople also had a fairly large jurisdiction, depending on how you understand/apply the term "barbarian lands" (4th Ecumenical Council, Canon 28).
Actually, not so large, Constantinople's revisionism of the history of c. 28 Chalcedon notwithstanding, basically the territory that the Turkish Republic controls today minus Hatay province (Antioch), and Northern Cyprus (Church of Cyprus). Originally the problem wasn't with Old Rome, but with Heracleia, which had been Byzantium's metropolis. Large parts of what is under Constantinople (Crete, Northern Greece, etc.) and what was (Greece, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania) were under Rome up until the time of St. Photios, and beyond (Crete signed for Roman at Constantinople III).
First of all, the "Pentarchy" didn't really form on a principle of dividing land, but rather on a principle of "major city/Christian center." Second, "the west" wasn't all that large during the early years of the Pentarchy. Many of the "barbarian" tribes that would later form the Western Church (franks, angles, saxons, goths, etc.) weren't yet Christian.
Or worse, Arian (the West being the place where it persisted).
I guess the pope's territory get very big when the the barbarians started converting. It's safe to say the pope's jurisdiction has grown a bit since the 4th century.
Not exactly. In theory, with the abolition of the tetrarchy divisions in the West, his territory was always large. But as the barbarians converted, reality started to match the theory. Then the Pope of the village (if not hamelt) of Rome tried to make good on the title pontifex maximus that he inherited from Romulus through the Caesars.
If I understand the Pentarchy correctly, they would represent areas where they can communicate what's going on with Christianity there. Rome didn't take over the West; he was a representative of what was going on in the West. Alexandria had all of Africa to talk about.
Actually, just the Eastern part: West of Cyrenaica (Eastern Libya today), all of Africa was under Rome.
For the EO (as opposed to the OO), Africa has been the singular success over the jurisdiction mess that plagues us elsewhere. A whole continent, and no jurisdictional questions.
Syria had areas of the Far East.
And most of the Middle East, and all of India.
And I think Constantinople had Eastern Europe/Western Asia.
Actually, no. Eastern Europe was Rome's, and most of Western Asia was Antioch's.
Jerusalem was just Jerusalem for the sake of its own respect.
Yes, it had been Antioch's.Fixed a quote tag, nothing more - Cleveland, GM