photo from flexibleart.net
The Eastern Orthodox claim that Rome does not possess universal jurisdiction is a later doctrinal development.
Take for example St. Maximus the Confessor, the great defender of the two wills of Christ, a resident of Constantinople, and an interpreter of Dionysius the Areopagite. He provides an example of the Byzantine doctrine of Rome's universal jurisdiction before the polemical debates of the 9th century. The quote below is from about AD 650:
How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firmand immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)How many Eastern Orthodox theologians speak about Rome like that? "She is is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents!!!" And again, "all are equally subject to her." And yet their esteemed Maximus the Confessor speaks of Rome as do only the most vigorous Ultramontanists.
Was Maximus wrong? Was he misrepresenting the Apostolic faith?