Antioch

  • Thread starter Thread starter LionHeart777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The claim that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch and served there for seven years is for the most part not challenged. However I did read somewhere, I think it was in the history of the Church by Eusebius, that this claim was incorrect. It said that the first Bishop of Antioch was a man named Peter who is one of the 70 disciples whom Christ chose, who are also sometimes called apostles. If this claim is true then Antioch isn’t even a see of St. Peter! Perhaps the reason that Antioch is listed after Alexandria is because that the claim that Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, who was ordained by Saint Peter is a claim that is far more provable. The reason that Rome was listed first in the honor of the patriarchs is because Rome was founded by both St. Peter and St. Paul, and thus deserves a double portion of honor (sort of like a birthright).
 
If it helps any, in a letter St. Gregory the Great wrote to Alexandria and Antioch addressing them as well fellow successors of the Apostle Peter.
 
In the first centuries, there was a dispute between churches of Rome and Antioch on who is superior.
 
In the first centuries, there was a dispute between churches of Rome and Antioch on who is superior.
Click to expand...
Could you please provide a reference for this? It’s the first I’ve ever heard of it. Even in the disputes between Rome and Constantinople that developed after the 4th century, it was agreed by all that Rome had primacy of honor. No one disputed that fact - only what that primacy entailed.
 
This point of dispute between Antioch and Rome, I had read in an article written by an eminent Cardinal of catholic church. Also I found that the scholars and theologians of the church knew these facts well. The problem is that in 3rd century and after that there was a great political influence on the church. For example even in that time emperor Constantine regarded he is the head of the church. Even such a statue is there in Rome showing that constantine and Apostle peter getting the key from the lord. This might be a fact why Constantine with Council of Nichea included 3 bishops as patriarchs including Rome. Also most of the bishops in the then known world were under the bishop of antioch. Constantine changed his seat to Constantinople. After that his sons divided the empire into two. Again because of the political influence, bishop of constantinople was elevated patriarch and at a time he was given the post superior of all the bishops. Most of the territories under Antioch were made under Constantinople.
Now also you can see for political gains people are utilising the church in several parts.
 
keralakottayam,

I would like to have a primary reference from the early Church regarding a supposed dispute between Rome and Antioch regarding primacy. Who exactly claimed universal primacy for Antioch, even over Rome? When? What were their reasons? Even if you only have a secondary source that references the dispute, that would be acceptable, as I could then research it myself.

Antioch was a very influential See in the early Church, and was one of the three patriarchates established, but always Rome was considered the “first See.” In my own studies I have never read that Antioch claimed primacy over Rome, so that is why I want actual references to that claim.
 
Umm…what happened to the posts by me and keralakottayam about the primacy claims of Antioch? They seem to be missing now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top