Alexandria vs Antioch

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavaradossi said:
Why then, pray tell, is Alexandria higher in order of honor than Antioch? Why is Alexandria even included in the three Petrine sees theory, since Peter had nothing to do with Alexandria directly?
Click to expand...
Your first question was my original question in starting this thread…I’m still not sure what the answer is. As to your second question…
  1. Alexandria was established by St. Mark who had been sent under and with the unique apostolic authority of St. Peter to do so
  2. The early Church’s concept of primacy was rooted in St. Peter’s primacy (as is the Catholic Church’s understanding today)…for practical reasons of Church unity and governance, the African Church required a bishop to exercise primacy, as Rome did in Europe (and for the whole world) and Antioch did in Asia, and as primacy was seen to be derived from St. Peter, Alexandria was the obvious option…
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if St. Peter himself left instructions for this arrangement - Pope St. Gregory took it for granted that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch held primacy by virtue of St. Peter… and the early Church certainly regarded these three bishops in the highest regard long before secular affairs intruded on ecclesiastical affairs (after Constantine).
 
So why is Constantinople now first among equals if it is newer then the three sees of Peter and has nothing to do with Peter?
 
GrandChurch said:
So why is Constantinople now first among equals if it is newer then the three sees of Peter and has nothing to do with Peter?
Click to expand...
Constantinople was elevated by the Greeks - Rome only reluctantly accepted its elevation much later on… it was a depature from the tradition of Petrine primacy and was strictly politically motivated (Constantinople was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire). That being said, whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…the Church has since recognized the order of the pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch) for most of its history…and if full communion was achieved between the E. Orthodox and the Catholic Church, I am sure the Patriarch of Constantinople would assume his rightful spot as first among the bishops of the East. At present, in the Catholic communion, the Patriarch of Alexandria of the Coptic Catholic Church, holds that honor.
 
twf said:
Your first question was my original question in starting this thread…I’m still not sure what the answer is. As to your second question…
  1. Alexandria was established by St. Mark who had been sent under and with the unique apostolic authority of St. Peter to do so
  2. The early Church’s concept of primacy was rooted in St. Peter’s primacy (as is the Catholic Church’s understanding today)…for practical reasons of Church unity and governance, the African Church required a bishop to exercise primacy, as Rome did in Europe (and for the whole world) and Antioch did in Asia, and as primacy was seen to be derived from St. Peter, Alexandria was the obvious option…
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if St. Peter himself left instructions for this arrangement - Pope St. Gregory took it for granted that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch held primacy by virtue of St. Peter… and the early Church certainly regarded these three bishops in the highest regard long before secular affairs intruded on ecclesiastical affairs (after Constantine).
Click to expand...
But the early church also recognized a whole lot of other sees like Ephesus and Milan as being centers of the Church. I honestly think this three Petrine sees thing is a development.
 
Cavaradossi said:
But the early church also recognized a whole lot of other sees like Ephesus and Milan as being centers of the Church. I honestly think this three Petrine sees thing is a development.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there’s any evidence that Ephesus and Milan were ever held to be the equals of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Before the Byzantine imposition of the pentarchy, the whole Church recognized these three as patriarchs (or the ancient equivalent thereof). Does not even Nicaea refer to their respective primacies as an established fact? (At least Rome and Alexandria - can’t recall if Antioch is specifically mentioned or not). I think the Oriental Orthodox will affirm that their ancient tradition has always recognized the special primacy of Alexandria in Africa and of Antioch in Asia by virtue of their Petrine origin…so it is hardly just a Latin (I.e. Pope St. Gregory) position…
 
twf said:
I don’t think there’s any evidence that Ephesus and Milan were ever held to be the equals of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Before the Byzantine imposition of the pentarchy, the whole Church recognized these three as patriarchs (or the ancient equivalent thereof). Does not even Nicaea refer to their respective primacies as an established fact? (At least Rome and Alexandria - can’t recall if Antioch is specifically mentioned or not). I think the Oriental Orthodox will affirm that their ancient tradition has always recognized the special primacy of Alexandria in Africa and of Antioch in Asia by virtue of their Petrine origin…so it is hardly just a Latin (I.e. Pope St. Gregory) position…
Click to expand...
The Canons of Nicea mention Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in that order. There is no hint that this is an order of precedence (other than Jerusalem, which it says comes after Antioch), nor is there any indication that this is a closed list.
 
twf said:
I don’t think there’s any evidence that Ephesus and Milan were ever held to be the equals of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Before the Byzantine imposition of the pentarchy, the whole Church recognized these three as patriarchs (or the ancient equivalent thereof). Does not even Nicaea refer to their respective primacies as an established fact? (At least Rome and Alexandria - can’t recall if Antioch is specifically mentioned or not). I think the Oriental Orthodox will affirm that their ancient tradition has always recognized the special primacy of Alexandria in Africa and of Antioch in Asia by virtue of their Petrine origin…so it is hardly just a Latin (I.e. Pope St. Gregory) position…
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that I have not seen any church father in the first few centuries reference the there petrine sees. Pope St. Gregory is in fact the earliest one whom I have seen. This leads me to believe that it is a development.
 
Cavaradossi said:
All I am saying is that I have not seen any church father in the first few centuries reference the there petrine sees. Pope St. Gregory is in fact the earliest one whom I have seen. This leads me to believe that it is a development.
Click to expand...
But doesn’t the Oriental testimony suggest otherwise? St. Gregory is certain post-Chalcedon… the non-Chalcedonian Churches recognize the primacy of Alexandria (in the Coptic and Ethiopian traditions) and Antioch (in the Syriac tradition) by virtue of St. Peter… so some form of this tradition must have predated St. Gregory.
 
twf said:
But doesn’t the Oriental testimony suggest otherwise? St. Gregory is certain post-Chalcedon… the non-Chalcedonian Churches recognize the primacy of Alexandria (in the Coptic and Ethiopian traditions) and Antioch (in the Syriac tradition) by virtue of St. Peter… so some form of this tradition must have predated St. Gregory.
Click to expand...
They do? Source on this one?
 
John_of_Patmos said:
I see your point, but it has historical roots:

-Maronite:never seperated from Rome.
-Syriac: Broke from Rome after council of Chalcedon, chose own patriarch. Rejoined, allowed to keep patriarch.
Melkite:seperated from Rome in about 1054, rejoined in the 1700’s, I think.

Hence, 3 patriarchs. Is it nedded? No.

And technically, the Catholics have 3 popes (Rome, Alexandria (Melkite) and Antioch (also Melkite(same person), whose patriarch is pope of two places) along with the Coptic Catholic pope). The Eastern Orthodox have 2 (Greek patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, two seperate people), and the Oriental Orthodox have at least 1 (Coptic), maybe another in the Syriac Church.
Click to expand...
That explains it well.
 
twf said:
If Mardukm is reading, I’m sure he’d be happy to oblige. I don’t have anything handy…
Click to expand...
Then I’m going to have to continue to agree with Cavaradossi’s assessment on the matter for the time being. 😉
 
twf said:
If Mardukm is reading, I’m sure he’d be happy to oblige. I don’t have anything handy…
Click to expand...
Nothing needs to be said of the relation of St. Peter to Antioch.

Why does Pope St. Gregory the Great consider the See of Alexandria a Petrine See?

I will add some considerations on the relationship between St. Peter and St. Mark (and the See of Alexandria) that many may not know. Most think that the relationship of St. Mark to St. Peter is merely that St. Mark was the recorder of St. Peter’s Gospel message. But the relationship goes much deeper than that, and it is based on Coptic Tradition that predates Pope St. Gregory the Great.

Not only was St. Mark the recorder of St. Peter’s Gospel, but Coptic Tradition (as recorded in the History of the Patriarchs and the Contending of the Apostles) asserts that St. Mark actually learned the Gospel from St. Peter. Further, it was St. Peter who actually sent St. Mark to Alexandria to preach the Gospel, after St. Peter received a revelation from God that Rome and Alexandria needed the Gospel.

This is, btw, historically corroborated by the independent testimony of the famous Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. He had gone to Rome in delegation due to the strife between the Jews and Greeks in the time that Tradition holds Sts. Peter and Mark were in Rome. Eusebius records that Philo met with St. Peter during that time, and this meeting was the practical impetus for St. Peter to send St. Mark to Alexandria to preach the Gospel.

Btw, these ancient Coptic sources explicitly assert that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Nothing needs to be said of the relation of St. Peter to Antioch.

Why does Pope St. Gregory the Great consider the See of Alexandria a Petrine See?

I will add some considerations on the relationship between St. Peter and St. Mark (and the See of Alexandria) that many may not know. Most think that the relationship of St. Mark to St. Peter is merely that St. Mark was the recorder of St. Peter’s Gospel message. But the relationship goes much deeper than that, and it is based on Coptic Tradition that predates Pope St. Gregory the Great.

Not only was St. Mark the recorder of St. Peter’s Gospel, but Coptic Tradition (as recorded in the History of the Patriarchs and the Contending of the Apostles) asserts that St. Mark actually learned the Gospel from St. Peter. Further, it was St. Peter who actually sent St. Mark to Alexandria to preach the Gospel, after St. Peter received a revelation from God that Rome and Alexandria needed the Gospel.

This is, btw, historically corroborated by the independent testimony of the famous Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. He had gone to Rome in delegation due to the strife between the Jews and Greeks in the time that Tradition holds Sts. Peter and Mark were in Rome. Eusebius records that Philo met with St. Peter during that time, and this meeting was the practical impetus for St. Peter to send St. Mark to Alexandria to preach the Gospel.

Btw, these ancient Coptic sources explicitly assert that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
The question wasn’t whether it was considered a Petrine See, but whether that was seen as being of importance to the Coptic Church.
 
Nine_Two said:
The question wasn’t whether it was considered a Petrine See, but whether that was seen as being of importance to the Coptic Church.
Click to expand...
Are you asking whether a Tradition that states that ST PETER sent St. Mark to Alexndria because of a direct REVELATION FROM GOD was important to the Coptic Church? I would answer a definite YES. Why would it be recorded and preserved for posterity by our patristic historians otherwise?

Was the idea of Petrine headship/primacy and its maintenance in the Apostolic Succession important to the Coptic Church and the Church as a whole? The answer is YES.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Nine_Two said:
I don’t see a difference there. Alexandria was guarding its position within the Church in both cases. Whether Constantinople’s insertion was political or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Just because Alexandria was opposing the politically motivated ecclesiastical pretensions of Constantinople does not mean that Alexandria was playing the “who is greater than whom” game. I think it is rather begging the question to make that assumption.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Nine_Two said:
The Canons of Nicea mention Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in that order. There is no hint that this is an order of precedence (other than Jerusalem, which it says comes after Antioch), nor is there any indication that this is a closed list.
Click to expand...
👍 Good observation. The Nicene Canon is not concerned about precedence (the idea of precedence came later on when the State tried to impose Constantinople into the order of Patriarchates).

It should also be observed, however, that the Nicene Canon is not concerned about primacy either - for the plain fact that it was simply part of the divine constitution of the Church that was never questioned.

The Nicene Canon was created because there was strife in Alexandria on the matter of the jurisdiction of its head bishop. Though it is not directly concerned about the question either of precedence or primacy, It does make an oblique reference to the primacy of Rome in its comparison of the standard to be established to the standard that already existed in Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Are you asking whether a Tradition that states that ST PETER sent St. Mark to Alexndria because of a direct REVELATION FROM GOD was important to the Coptic Church? I would answer a definite YES. Why would it be recorded and preserved for posterity by our patristic historians otherwise?

Was the idea of Petrine headship/primacy and its maintenance in the Apostolic Succession important to the Coptic Church and the Church as a whole? The answer is YES.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
The second.
Do you have quotes from Fathers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top