Apostolic See or Not?

[sambos671]

I’m sure there are many upon many threads on this subject pro and con. I’ve read the more resent thread on Why is Orthodox not the true church. There is a lot of opinion on both sides of the issue as there will be here. I’m hoping for a substantive dialogue to help me resolve this issue in my own mind. Catholics claim that the Apostolic See began with Peter who then passes it down to the Bishop of Rome where it has stayed ever since. The Orthodox claim (between 5 and 7 main metropolitan churches) that each of the initial churches set up by the apostles are all apostolic succession and bishops were equal in standing. Most taking an anti-catholic position argue that Victor began a schism to grant Rome greater control of the christian churches. Even reading Eusebius becomes a little confusing in this regard because he lists each of the Bishops of each major metropolitan city of the ancient world and gives their succession at the begining and it becomes more narrowed with his narrative. Then I’ve come across this information from my studies of the first 7 councils. This quote is from a discussion of the 1st council at Nicea where Arius and Alexander the bishop of Alexandria are in arguing at a synod that was called there. Arius goes and hides in Caesarea with Eusebius

Meanwhile from Alexandria, Alexander sent out the customary synodal letter to at least 70 bishops informing them of the condemnation of Arius and soliciting in return letters of communion, thus effectively excommunicating Arius. p. 53 The First Seven Ecumenical Counsils (325-787) Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis, The liturgical press, Collegeville, Minnisota 1983

It would seem to me that if it was accepted believe that the Apostolic See derived from Peter would reside in the bishop of Rome that Alexander would have simply requested Sylvester of Rome to have Arius excommunicated with his refutation of Arius’ views. This did not happen. Also I find another strange occurance at Nicea is that Ossius, Bishop of Cordoba, signed the privilaged position of signing the opinion before every other bishop. Instead of the Papal legates who were Vito and Vincent. This doesn’t seem to be activity of a church that viewed the role of Apostolic See as strongly as the Catholic Curch does today. Any commentss?

 

[YADA]

One area that I see as problematic in you OP is the idea that Peter is the sole avenue for apostolic succession …

The Catholic Church recognizes the apostolic suucession of all of the apostles and the bishops that succeeded them … as long as they remain unified … the Church is one body that is located geographically throughout the world …

Consider even how Paul addressed his leeters … he did not write to the Corinthian Church … he wrote to the Church that resides in Corinth …

Every Bishop, even today has authority for the geography of their ‘local’ church * … my bishop is responsible for all of the souls that lie in this region] … he is not free to start his own version of Christianity nor preach a different CHristian reality … as one early Chruch Father said it … “If you have left the bark of Peter can one still be assured that they are a member of the Church of Christ [Christian]? For where Peter is, there is the Church.”

Jesus established his church and instituted Peter to act as its earthy head … so the successor of Peter fulfills the apostolic succession of the role specific to Peter … the successors of he other apostles are the bishops and they descend also in apostolic succession …

So in some of these early gatherings and disputes, the local bishop had authority to act … in any ecumenical gathering it was the bishops working together with the successor of Peter who made decisions … how they worked through that is what we have a record of … though not a full record because some of the historical writings have been lost through time …

The role of the pope is to be the “Servant of the Servants of God” and a “Shephard to the Flock of Christ” … the Successor of Peter is accountable for the universal church not just to his geographic local church [the diocese of Rome] though he does that as well but his role is different …*

 

[sambos671]

You make a good point. However, it doesn’t explain why Alexander wanted the consent of 70 bishops to effectively excommunicate Arius. He just would have done it without expecting letters of communion. But you make a good point about each established church having and apostolic succession how ever the bishop of Rome claims to be the first among equals. Reminicent of the first Roman Citizen before later emperors corrupted the meaning of it.

 

[YADA]

You make a good point. However, it doesn’t explain why Alexander wanted the consent of 70 bishops to effectively excommunicate Arius. He just would have done it without expecting letters of communion. But you make a good point about each established church having and apostolic succession how ever the bishop of Rome claims to be the first among equals. Reminicent of the first Roman Citizen before later emperors corrupted the meaning of it.

Even leaders with full authority some times seek council and support … the heresy of Arius was not easily battled nor settled … So Alexander could have had many reasons for seeking this support … you want to establish that he sought this aid because he had to and yet could act independently of Rome as if Rome did not matter … it could be that he had the authority to act without Rome and yet wanted the support of the other Bishops because the matter was grave and Arius coulld have been influencing believers in the local churches of those bishops …

when we try to get into the minds of various ancient figures and why they did or did not take some action it becomes hard … no writings exist that answer the quesiton …why did you seek the the consent of these and not appeal to Rome?

And your comment of the Pope being the First Among Equals is a very good analogy for how the catholic church views the role of Pope … but it is exactly the terminology for how the Eastern Church referes to the Patriarch of Constantinople - First Among Equals …

and even the Eastern Church refers to Peter as holding a Primacy of Honor … they just don’t don;t accept that any authority comes with that Primacy of Honor …

The read the same writings as the Catholic’s do but come to a different conclusion … IMHO, they are in error but I hold them in deep respect for their authentic apostolic churches and the respect they have maintained for all of the sacraments and their spiritual life and gifts …

 

[Peter_J]

Question: Apostolic See or Not?
Answer: Apostolic Sees.

Catholic and Orthodox agree that there were several apostolic sees – Rome founded by St. Peter, Alexandria founded by St. Mark, Constantinople founded by St. Andrew, etc. (Notwithstanding the fact that when we Catholics say “the Apostolic See”, with the “the”, we mean Rome.)

Apostolic succession on the other hand, is something every bishop has, whether he’s the bishop of an Apostolic See or not.