Reflections of a stormy petrel

A couple of other points. First, while we do not actually hear of patriarchal seats until the fourth century - in third-century documents, the heads of the Antiochene and Alexandrian churches, whatever their prominence, are called simply bishops - the primacy of Rome is a feature, one way or another, since Irenaeus if not Ignatius. And second, I find it interesting that so many of the testimonies and theories in support of the primacy should come from the Antiochene area. Irenaeus came from Syria, Ignatius was himself Bishop of Antioch, Avircius and Montanus came from the central highlands of Anatolia, Paul of Samosata was again bishop of the great city. It is significant because, as you very well know, Antioch was the other foundation of St.Peter, and traced its episcopal lineage to him. But it seems that even Antioch tended to recognize, from early on, that the chrism of Peter - on whose Gospel promises all primatial claims have always been recognized - had fallen on Rome; surely because of his death there - since the Church believed from early days that the blood of martyrs not only hallowed the ground, but created a special link between the Saint and his place of death.