Actually, this isn’t entirely accurate. There was a split that was earlier than the one between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The churches that arose from that split are called Oriental Orthodox, and they are as apostolic in origin as the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.
In the early Church, before there was any split in the apostolic churches, there arose five patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. St. Peter was the first bishop of both Rome and Antioch (that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter as to his special Petrine ministry is an argument for another time), St. Andrew founded the church in Constantinople (originally Byzantium), St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, and St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem.
According to the traditions preserved in Eusebius "The Throne [Eusebius uses this term only of Jerusalem, though he talks of Rome] of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now, the brethren who have followed him in succession there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence which both those of old times and those of our own day maintained and do maintain for holy men on account of their piety. So much as to this matter. [St. Epiphanius records that this throne is that which God promised a son of David would always sit on his throne in Jerusalem, for which:] 2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord, because he was known as a son of Joseph…“For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor [or belief, Doxa], but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”…4. But the same writer [St. Clement], in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection * imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy,…Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.xx.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.ii.html
Now if we are to trace the lines of succession to the first bishops we find that for Antioch the best claim to the succession probably goes to the Oriental Orthodox (Syrian Orthodox).
If you trace those lines (and I’m including the 4 lines that the Vatican has in Antioch, in addition to the EO and OO), they all go back to St. Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome. Rome’s man in Antioch at the time, Paulinus (follower of Patriarch Eustathius, who had been deposed for adultery. Paulinus ordained Jerome, whose letter to Pope Damasus on the matter of whom Rome recognized survives), ordained a line which died out.
Btw, it is an open secret that both EO and OO Patriarchs, both named Ignatius, have an agreement that at the death of one his synod drag their feet or refuse to elect a successor so the remaining can act as Patriarch of all Orthodox Antioch. They are in open communion with each other, as I openly participated when I was in Syria.
As for Alexandria, clearly the successor to St. Mark is the Coptic Pope, also of the Oriental Orthodox communion.
Both Popes (a title denied their Vatican counterparts, although the Church confered this title centuries before Rome took it) have implemented agreements for mutual recognition and communion (though, admittedly, not officially openly one communion yet).
The Eastern Orthodox communion probably has the best claim for Jerusalem, and it has the only claim for Constantinople. The legitimate line for the bishop of Rome is, of course, Catholic.
Actually, the EO have the only claim for Jerusalem: the Armenians and Syriac are there only on behalf of their Churches inerests in the Holy Land. The Coptics historically depend on the Syriacs there. The Armenians do have a Catholicos in Constantinople, a relic of when it was the capital, and for the same role as their bishop in Jerusalem. No competing claims.
So, it really isn’t accurate to say that Rome split off from the other apostolic churches in a way that suggests that all of those other apostolic churches are to be found in Eastern Orthodoxy. It seemed to me important to point that out.
And since all the others continue to use the original Creed without filioque, the reason why Rome split, your point was?*
