> I see the tradeoffs of both. If I were to take a natural example as a model, I'd look at most of the higher animals and find they universally share in having developed central nervous systems, featuring something like brains in all cases. These bodies of trillions of cells are controlled in some respects by autonomous systems within the brain lacking consciousness (automatic functions), but the motion of the whole organism (its life history, if you will) comes from the conscious subjectivity which leads those bodies as the "I". This appears to be a feature of all higher life. We see processes I take as analogous to the Orthodox 'lack of Ecumene' as something characteristic of bacterial colonies which rely on quorum sensing (the diffusion of non-targeted messages by natural processes) to move together, as opposed to one brain. Excellent analogy with the quorum-sense. I’d argue though the Orthodox *still* have central “brain structures”, since they’re built around Bishops who have and delegate magisterial authority within their own diocese. But certainly, on the level of Local Churches (meaning, not the Church-next-door, but rather one of the fifteen-or-so Autocephalus Archdioceses), the quorum-sense between their respective liaisons, and even individual members going about their daily lives. I might not have been clear what I mean that there’s no Ecumene - I’m referring to the intact, functioning Christian Empire. What characterized the Early Medieval Period was the fact that the Christian Empire was basically ruling the world. While I can’t prove it yet, I suspect many of the foundational correspondences relied upon by Papal claims to establish Supremacy, are documents that were written under the *assumption* of the fully-functional Empire. I suspect this has an effect on the way they perceived their relationship with Rome, and the Church in Rome, and her Bishop. I suspect there was a heavy, implied sense of *suzerainty* and loyalty which *had to be maintained* in all correspondences, or else it would come across as potentially *seditious*. I’m not sure what the name is for this phenomenon. But it’s a real phenomenon. As a parallel in contemporary American writings, Republicans often make sure to affirm the Holocaust Narrative, and talk about how evil Hitler was, in order to deflect any doubt about their loyalty to the regime. They really don’t want to be accused of being “racist”, so they bring these things up all the time like a pinch of incense to Caesar. Anyway, I suspect a lot of Papal Claims are based on documents written under the assumption of a very real, very powerful Empire, and people *really* didn’t want to come across as disloyal. There’d be strong incentive to make it *look like* the thought of rebelling hadn’t even entered their mind. That’s what I’m talking about when I bring up the Ecumene. As it began to disintegrate, you started hearing more and more “seditious” literature. By the time of the Schism, that threat had long since been replaced by other, far more pressing matters. @PS EDIT: just to clarify, I’m not accusing them of insincerity. I’m merely pointing out an essential and unavoidable *reality* about governance. It may have come across as overly cynical.