In Church History in Plain Language, 144, Bruce Shelley writes about the "primacy" that certain bishops enjoyed in the early church:
The Council of Nicaea recognized the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome as preeminent in their own areas. Jerusalem was granted an honorary primacy.
It seems that Jerusalem's "primacy" was somehow different from that of the other three cities mentioned here. I'd like to know, practically speaking, what was different. Was Jerusalem's bishop "preeminent in [his] own area" in a way similar to the others? Or was it a "primacy in name only," which for practical purposes meant that he was expected to submit to the bishops in nearby Alexandria or Antioch?
An answer that complements its analysis with an example or two of how these bishops and churches interacted in the fourth and fifth centuries would be especially interesting.