Antioch

[LionHeart777]

Wasn’t Peter Bishop of Antioch as well? Could someone pls explain why Rome’s Bishop would be Peter’s successor and not both?

thanks,

Nick

 

[EphelDuath]

I believe Peter resigned as Bishop of Antioch in favor of Evodius.

 

[antgaria]

Short answer… St. Peter {and St. Paul} was martyred and buried in Rome. Both were setting up churches in places… that’s part of being Apostles, but they were martyred and buried in one place… Rome.

In another thread, you can see that the liturgy of the Church of the East has a hymn to the blessed Rome which revolves around the two saints having been buried in her.

 

[ind_kerala_pala]

The top brass or top leaders of Roman catholic church know who they are.
Recently a refrendum was held by Rome among the 5000 bishops of Catholic church. The issue was whether they believe that Roman catholic church is the only holy and universal and apostle church. The majority or 90 percent of the bishops in the catholic church opposed or said that they do not believe the Roman catholic church is the only one holy and universal church.
This is a statement from a top cardinal and major arch bishop of Syro malabar catholic church which is a part of RC. Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil says “What is the authority of Rome? From where Rome got the authority in appointing the bishops all over the world? In the first centuries, there wass a dispute between Rome and Antioch on who is the successor of APostle Peter and who is superior and head.”
The following is a statement made by Cardinal James Gibbons (1834 - 1921) who was a Great American Cardinal. “Peter went to Antioch and established the church and served as the bishop there”. In many occassions Cardinal Gibbons opposed Rome and its authority. All American presidents in that period approached Cardinal Gibbons for his advice.

 

[LionHeart777]

I understand that they were buried in Rome, but still if he resigned in Antioch, that would still leave a successor to Peter technically, in at least 2 places.

 

[JRKH]

Rome is the traditional seat of Catholicism. Therefore the Bishop of Rome is considered the successor to Peter since Peter was Bishop there when he died. In addition, from the modern perspective, Rome, or specifically the Vatican, is where the government of the Church is located. Finally I know of no instance whre a Bishop of Antioch ever challanged the Authority of the Bishop Rome.

In my opinion, it does little good to try to hammer out all of the details of historical events for which there is very little documentation surviving. Particularly ones that are “organizational” in nature.
The Church has evolved over 2000 years from a small and loosely connected group of communities into a worldwide organization with both spiritual and temporal impact. How this all evolved can make interesting reading and study for the historian but should not intrude on your search for the truth.
The Truths of the Church lie in Her teachings, in the validity of Her Apostolic Succession, and the Words of Christ to Peter.

May God continue to Inspire you in your search.

Peace
James

 

[JMJ_coder]

I understand that they were buried in Rome, but still if he resigned in Antioch, that would still leave a successor to Peter technically, in at least 2 places.

Yes, and since Saint Mark - a disciple of Saint Peter - founded the Church of Alexandria, that too is a special See. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were from the very beginning consider special Petrine Sees. But, only Rome had the prerogatives of the Papacy.

Saint Peter left Antioch, appointing Saint Evodius to succeed him there. When Saint Peter went to Rome, do you think that he left his special prerogatives in Antioch, or do you think he took them with him?

 

[mardukm]

I understand that they were buried in Rome, but still if he resigned in Antioch, that would still leave a successor to Peter technically, in at least 2 places.

That doesn’t make sense. Certainly, St. Peter appointed a bishop for Antioch, but it seems to me illogical to even talk about having an actual successor until you are about to die. Which is why the issue of St. Peter’s martyrdom in Rome is very important.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[eric_sammons]

I understand that they were buried in Rome, but still if he resigned in Antioch, that would still leave a successor to Peter technically, in at least 2 places.

In the early church, Rome was considered the See of the two great apostles Peter and Paul, because that is where they shed their blood and thus “founded” that Church. The bishop of that See was thus seen as the successor to both apostles - he followed in both Peter’s universal jurisdiction but also in Paul’s universal evangelistic efforts. This primacy was not simply based on some legal claim - i.e. Peter was bishop there so his successors in that diocese have his authority - but on the powerful truth of the great apostles’ joint martyrdom in that city.

Note that Antioch itself, although it claimed Peter as its first bishop, never claimed any universal primacy or honor for itself. It knew that this was only given to Rome.

 

[EphelDuath]

That doesn’t make sense. Certainly, St. Peter appointed a bishop for Antioch, but it seems to me illogical to even talk about having an actual successor until you are about to die.

Not at all. As I understand it: either there weren’t enough bishops initially to have a separate Bishop of Antioch, or the population of the Church became large enough to warrant a separate diocese.

We don’t call the Patriach of Antioch the “successor of Peter” because of the fact that the Bishop of Rome had far, far more authority than the Patriarchs did; though it’s not incorrect, by technicality.

 

[mardukm]

Note that Antioch itself, although it claimed Peter as its first bishop, never claimed any universal primacy or honor for itself. It knew that this was only given to Rome.

Many do not realize that the patriarchal system was not in place in the Church until probably the latter third century.

In apostolic times (when the apostles or their immediate successors were still alive), the head bishop of Apostolic Canon 34 (35 in the Greek) referred only to the bishop of Rome.

I know Latins don’t generally regard the Apostolic Canons as of apostolic origin, but the Easterns and Orientals do. So Easterns and Orientals actually have a better basis for papal primacy than even the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Not at all. As I understand it: either there weren’t enough bishops initially to have a separate Bishop of Antioch, or the population of the Church became large enough to warrant a separate diocese.

We don’t call the Patriach of Antioch the “successor of Peter” because of the fact that the Bishop of Rome had far, far more authority than the Patriarchs did; though it’s not incorrect, by technicality.

I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at. In the first and second centuries, the patriarchal system had not even been set up yet. There was only one “head bishop” at the time recognized by the Church, and that was the bishop of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Many do not realize that the patriarchal system was not in place in the Church until probably the latter third century.

In apostolic times (when the apostles or their immediate successors were still alive), the head bishop of Apostolic Canon 34 (35 in the Greek) referred only to the bishop of Rome.

I know Latins don’t generally regard the Apostolic Canons as of apostolic origin, but the Easterns and Orientals do. So Easterns and Orientals actually have a better basis for papal primacy than even the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yeah, but try convincing your average Eastern Orthodox of that.

 

[mardukm]

Yeah, but try convincing your average Eastern Orthodox of that.

Yes. It is unfortunate. If you recall, when the forum still included EO topics, several EO were even denying that there was such a thing as a head bishop! I don’t think there is as much unity in EO as EO like to think (or perhaps it is just a matter of catechesis?)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[EphelDuath]

I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at. In the first and second centuries, the patriarchal system had not even been set up yet. There was only one “head bishop” at the time recognized by the Church, and that was the bishop of Rome.

His question is, more or less, why the Pope is only Bishop of Rome if Peter was also Bishop of Antioch. My response is that Peter was not the permanent Bishop of Antioch, and the only reason he was in the first place was because either there weren’t enough bishops or the church wasn’t large enough to separate the two systems into two bishops yet.

 

[antgaria]

I understand that they were buried in Rome, but still if he resigned in Antioch, that would still leave a successor to Peter technically, in at least 2 places.

I’m not sure about the resigned in part, but as brother mardukm and others have pointed out, Rome was the final place of Peter and Paul ministry as well as where they were martyred and buried. The patriarch who from an early age was looked to for heading the church was the bishop of Rome.

As has been mentioned, Alexandria and Antioch also had petrine roots, and what can one say of Jerusalem where the Pentecost took place? But, all this is aside the point of which bishop was looked at as having succeeded Peter’s {and Paul’s} earthly ministry, and to whom falls the the task of taking care of Christ’s sheep. Our apostolic faith has from the beginning maintained the blessedness of Rome as the burial place of those two… our hymn says:

Blessed are you, O Rome, renowned city of kings,
handmaid of the heavenly Bridegroom!
For the two true preachers are laid up in you as in a harbor:
Peter, the head of the apostles,
upon whose truth our Savior built his faithful church,
and Paul the elect, apostle and builder of the churches of Christ.
By their prayers we find refuge,
that mercies and compassion may be granted our souls.

As a side note, it is rather nice seeing the importance that the early fathers placed on martyrdom and being persecuted for upholding the true faith.

 

[mardukm]

I’m not sure about the resigned in part, but as brother mardukm and others have pointed out, Rome was the final place of Peter and Paul ministry as well as where they were martyred and buried. The patriarch who from an early age was looked to for heading the church was the bishop of Rome.

As has been mentioned, Alexandria and Antioch also had petrine roots, and what can one say of Jerusalem where the Pentecost took place? But, all this is aside the point of which bishop was looked at as having succeeded Peter’s {and Paul’s} earthly ministry, and to whom falls the the task of taking care of Christ’s sheep. Our apostolic faith has from the beginning maintained the blessedness of Rome as the burial place of those two… our hymn says:

As a side note, it is rather nice seeing the importance that the early fathers placed on martyrdom and being persecuted for upholding the true faith.

Well put, as always, brother Anthony. As our Fathers have taught us, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, and what better foundation could be laid than the one watered by the very blood of the two greatest Apostles.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

I understand that they were buried in Rome, but still if he resigned in Antioch, that would still leave a successor to Peter technically, in at least 2 places.

Maybe this will help.

Popes throughout history have annointed bishops for various sees. It doesn’t follow that those bishops are then holders of the office of pope too, just because the pope ordained them.

I’m using “pope” in this case, as the one bishop, leader of the Catholic Church, successor to St Peter, in Rome, .

 

[LionHeart777]

Thanks for the info guys, wrestling now w/ Early Fathers and Geocentricism and some of those posts going on seeming brought on by an article by a guy named Salza. Thanks everyone so much for the posts, I can definately understand that the Bishop of Rome had the primacy of honor but I’m not entirely convinced of the office of the papacy but I’ll keep studying. Thanks again everyone for kind remarks and answers.

 

[EphelDuath]

Thanks for the info guys, wrestling now w/ Early Fathers and Geocentricism and some of those posts going on seeming brought on by an article by a guy named Salza.

I am a very big fan of ScriptureCatholic.com, but I have to disagree with him on the points of evolution and heliocentrism. Please remember that these two articles are entirely his own opinion; the Church has proclaimed no position on either.

Read the CA tracts on faith and science: catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp