Nope. Ultimately the split in the churches were over other points of doctrine, but chiefly it was over who had primacy within the church; The Pope in Rome (whose claim was that he was a direct descendent from Paul, empowered from his original office as one of the Apostles), or the Patriarch of Constantinople (whose claim was that he was the patriarch of the greatest city in Christiandom, as well as, perhaps, serving under the reign of an Emperor that can trace his lineage or succession of authority from the original Roman emperors).
Do you know where the Armenians fit into this? They were the first Christian country, long before the first Nicaean council, and had an established faith (with translated bibles etc) by 381 when the Nicene creed was finalised. They didn't split from the other churches until 451, which would imply their bishops should have been following one of the authorities you mentioned. I'm curious how it came down to just 2 possibilities for "God's representative on earth".
Cheers Russell C.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
