Did Peter establish The Church "at" Antioch?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. Read Acts, and Galatians.

Your church dedicated a whole feast to this fact on February 22.

Your three bishops of Antioch (and presumably the fourth Vatican II did away with) all claim to succeed Peter
 
Didn’t Peter establish the church at Antioch then leave it in the hands of another, a successor, there when he went to Rome? So what is the big deal? Paul did the same thing; he established churches and left them to successors. He also was in Rome but wasn’t the bishop of Rome.

Peter ended up at Rome where he was bishop until he died. His ‘primacy’ didn’t remain at Antioch when he went to Rome did it?

What am I missing?
 
Yes. Read Acts, and Galatians.

Your church dedicated a whole feast to this fact on February 22.

Your three bishops of Antioch (and presumably the fourth Vatican II did away with) all claim to succeed Peter
There you go again, pointing me to a library instead of just showing me the book.

“Where” in The Book of Acts does it state that Peter established The Catholic Church in Antioch?
 
Didn’t Peter establish the church at Antioch then leave it in the hands of another, a successor, there when he went to Rome? So what is the big deal? Paul did the same thing; he established churches and left them to successors. He also was in Rome but wasn’t the bishop of Rome.

Peter ended up at Rome where he was bishop until he died. His ‘primacy’ didn’t remain at Antioch when he went to Rome did it?

What am I missing?
“Some” Christians believe that Peter is the creator of their Church and state that Peter established The Catholic Church (not “a” Catholic Church) in Antioch and that he ruled The Church from Antioch.

I was just hoping to see if they had some historical proof or maybe even if they could quote one of The Church Fathers as stating this.
His ‘primacy’ didn’t remain at Antioch
That brought about a point. If “where” Peter preached is how one measures “where” The Catholic Church was headquartered, then wouldn’t Jeruselum be the headquarters and “not” Antioch (Turkey)?

Isn’t it in Jeruselum where Peter “first” preached post-ressrurection?
 
Peter ended up at Rome where he was bishop until he died. His ‘primacy’ didn’t remain at Antioch when he went to Rome did it?

What am I missing?
Actually it did.

Primacy is functional throughout the church, at every level there is a protocol routinely followed. Antioch is one of the five core Primatial Sees.

Primacy does not mean what most Roman Catholics interpret it to mean today. The bishopric of Rome came later, and was not an office of control over the other patriarchal churches. What is called primacy by Roman Catholics today is something new, which is best described as Supremacy. The early church did not know anything about this.

This would be abundantly clear if the average Roman Catholic referenced the ancient canons of the church, or read the seven Ecumenical Councils.

It’s not the fault of the average Roman Catholic, I think, because they are not taught these things. So misconceptions abound.

Michael
 
That brought about a point. If “where” Peter preached is how one measures “where” The Catholic Church was headquartered, then wouldn’t Jeruselum be the headquarters and “not” Antioch (Turkey)?
It has not been established that where Peter preached has anything to do with it.
Isn’t it in Jeruselum where Peter “first” preached post-ressrurection?
As it happens, Jerusalem is also a Patriarchal See.

🙂
 
Actually it did.

Primacy is functional throughout the church, at every level there is a protocol routinely followed. Antioch is one of the five core Primatial Sees.

Primacy does not mean what most Roman Catholics interpret it to mean today. The bishopric of Rome came later, and was not an office of control over the other patriarchal churches. What is called primacy by Roman Catholics today is something new, which is best described as Supremacy. The early church did not know anything about this.

This would be abundantly clear if the average Roman Catholic referenced the ancient canons of the church, or read the seven Ecumenical Councils.

It’s not the fault of the average Roman Catholic, I think, because they are not taught these things. So misconceptions abound.

Michael
Then primacy is not the term I mean. Westerners use the word in a different sense I think.

I mean,Jesus gave Peter the keys and told him to feed my sheep. This office (maybe a better term?) of key-keeper and chief shepherd attached to the person of Peter wherever he went. After Peter became what westerners would call bishop of Rome, his successor in Antioch would still have looked to Peter as first among the apostles, wouldn’t he?
 
Then primacy is not the term I mean. Westerners use the word in a different sense I think.

I mean,Jesus gave Peter the keys and told him to feed my sheep. This office (maybe a better term?) of key-keeper and chief shepherd attached to the person of Peter wherever he went. After Peter became what westerners would call bishop of Rome, his successor in Antioch would still have looked to Peter as first among the apostles, wouldn’t he?
Of course.

That’s what I’m trying to get at.

What proof is there that The Church was headquarters at Antioch and/or that only a Church that comes from Antioch is the true Catholic Church?
 
Hmmm…let’s see what the generallys accepted definition of “primacy” is worldwide:

pri·ma·cy
–noun,
  1. the state of being first in order, rank, importance, etc.
  2. Also called primateship. English Ecclesiastics. the office, rank, or dignity of a primate.
  3. Roman Catholic Church. the jurisdiction of a bishop, as a patriarch, over other bishoprics, or the supreme jurisdiction of the pope as supreme bishop.
Definition #3 is unique to the Roman catholic church, and only from modern times.
Read this: “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter;…”

Optatus
The Schism of the Donatists 2:2
A.D. 367

That’s pretty clear to me.
That is fine as far as Rome alone is concerned (it had primacy over central Italy), but that does not demonstrate the bishop of Rome had authority over Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem et al.

In fact, none of the quotes in your referenced link can support this contention of yours.

Primacy does not Supremacy make. It is operative throughout the church and it is protocol.

Even in a single parish, there will be a most senior priest in concelebration. The order of primacy determines where each one will stand in relation to the Holy Gifts. This goes for priests, deacons, subdeacons and altar servers.

In procession, the order of primacy will determine the relative position of prelates. It can also be used to determine in which order each may speak, as in Rules of Order for any assembly.

This was once true in the Roman Catholic church as well. Before 1870 the primate of the church in the USA was the Archbishop of Baltimore, and he would have chaired an assembly of those bishops by default. Since then the chair of the assembly of bishops is elected, and the Primate of the USA (Baltimore) has a very minor function. It basically means he does not call councils of the local church and does not chair them, although he once did these things by right of office.

Roman Catholics today tend to think of primacy only in terms of one office, that of the bishop of Roma, and in a sense they are correct for that church in this time, but it was not always so. What primacy means to Roman catholics of 2008 is not what it meant even two hundred years prior, and certainly not what it meant 1000 years ago.

Once, the entire western church was structured in authority very much like that in Holy Orthodoxy. In accordance with the ancient canons the bishops were chosen locally and the bishop of Rome learned about it after the fact (except in central Italy). The seven Ecumenical Councils were not called by bishops of Rome, not attended by bishops of Rome and not chaired by bishops of Rome nor their delegates. Rome was largely on the outside looking in.

Even the Celebrated Council of Elvira, which introduced the filioque into western christianity, was not called with the authority of the bishop of Rome. The filioque was introduced at Aachen over and above the objections of the then reigning Popes! The bishops of Rome were ignored by local churches when it suited them. That is how it was then, Rome’s authority to control the church extended no further than central Italy.

This began to change in important ways once the bishops of Rome began making concordats with civil authorities. The history of this transition is fascinating, well worth a few trips to your public library.

This information is historical public knowledge, and you may find this information from any reputable non-biased scholarship, pick one of your own choosing.
 
I’d like to know why we’re arguing like this? One of the things I’ve always held dear is the fact that the Catholic Church is great and universal. From what I read here, it seems there is a lot of vehemence between the Orthodox and the Roman churches. Please tell me this is not so. By virtue of our schism, I attempt to go to Mass at Roman rite churches, but understand that I may also attend Orthodox Masses if a Roman rite is not available. I cherish the fact that the Orthodox are our brothers and that we share valid holy orders and can each offer the Body and Blood of Christ.

Can someone please bring this back to earth for me so that I don’t go to bed tonight with this foul taste in my mouth?
:ehh:

You’d think we’re debating the Great Apostasy!!!
:eek:

RAR
 
Then primacy is not the term I mean. Westerners use the word in a different sense I think.
Yes, definitely.
I mean,Jesus gave Peter the keys and told him to feed my sheep. This office (maybe a better term?) of key-keeper and chief shepherd attached to the person of Peter wherever he went. After Peter became what westerners would call bishop of Rome, his successor in Antioch would still have looked to Peter as first among the apostles, wouldn’t he?
All bishops are the heirs of all the apostles. All are heirs of Paul, Peter, the Sons of Thunder, Thomas and the rest. Real bishops do shepherd their flocks, and have the authority to bind and loose, without recourse to the central office.

The church of the city of Rome was honored for many things, chief among them it’s longstanding Orthodoxy, usually attributed to it’s superior origins. No longer the case, sad to say.

The rest of that stuff is pretty much poetic license, a bit of mythology which has grown around the office of the bishop of that city.

Christ, and none other, is the head of the church.

Understanding this has worked very well for Holy Orthodoxy…so well in fact that the church has maintained the Faith for 1000 years with integrity without a Pope. Never has had one and does not require one.

…So well in fact that the Holy Orthodox church did not suffer the ravages of the Protestant Reformation, and that phenomenon stopped at the edge of Catholicism, where Orthodoxy stood, and went no further.

…So well in fact that the Roman Catholic church has made reunion with the Orthodox a top priority, and accepts Orthodox theology as valid and useful for it’s own population.

Michael
 
From what I read here, it seems there is a lot of vehemence between the Orthodox and the Roman churches. Please tell me this is not so.
Your coreligionist Gen is going around the boards trying to pick fights with Orthodox.

CAF has ruled that Orthodox are not Catholics, according to their definition.

We love you all, and I for one especially so, but this does not really demonstrate the same love for Holy Orthodoxy that you seem to have.

I will always answer your questions truthfully, as long as I am able. I mean no offence, but if you ask me something, I will either give you the facts as I know them or my honest opinion, if that is what you want to know.

I am not here to pick fights.
 
Your coreligionist Gen is going around the boards trying to pick fights with Orthodox.

CAF has ruled that Orthodox are not Catholics, according to their definition.

We love you all, and I for one especially so, but this does not really demonstrate the same love for Holy Orthodoxy that you seem to have.

I will always answer your questions truthfully, as long as I am able. I mean no offence, but if you ask me something, I will either give you the facts as I know them or my honest opinion, if that is what you want to know.

I am not here to pick fights.
I have to admit I’m curious… I always have been about our split, but I’d better brush up on a few things before I can enter this conversation. I’ll have some questions shortly.

Thank you, RAR
 
I’d like to know why we’re arguing like this? One of the things I’ve always held dear is the fact that the Catholic Church is great and universal. From what I read here, it seems there is a lot of vehemence between the Orthodox and the Roman churches. Please tell me this is not so. By virtue of our schism, I attempt to go to Mass at Roman rite churches, but understand that I may also attend Orthodox Masses if a Roman rite is not available. I cherish the fact that the Orthodox are our brothers and that we share valid holy orders and can each offer the Body and Blood of Christ.

Can someone please bring this back to earth for me so that I don’t go to bed tonight with this foul taste in my mouth?
:ehh:

You’d think we’re debating the Great Apostasy!!!
:eek:

RAR
I’m with you a hundred percent.

It seems that “American” Orthodox Christians have a fixation on their proving how wrong we were/are.

The Russians, Greeks and Arabs (one a Princeton Theologian) I’ve dealt with over the past couple of days have all told me that the beliefs espoused here are not those of the common Orthodox Christian and have called these individual fanatics that are out of touch with the true nature of the Orthodox Church.

Again, it must be because of their “Americanism” more than of their “Orthodoxy”. Orthodox Christians from other countries don’t have the slightest qualms about Catholics, matter of fact, as long as we’re not non-Christians, they seem to “not” care about our Catholicism. They’ve shown me a lot of respect and were very content to hear of me. Very nice people indeed. True Christians.

I’m going to go to see the body of an Orthodox Saint with my girlfriend (who is Russian).

I can’t wait. I’ve always loved their services (for what little I knew about it). Hey, if The Popes have actively pursued a relationship with them, then they must be alright.

🙂
 
“Some” Christians believe that Peter is the creator of their Church and state that Peter established The Catholic Church (not “a” Catholic Church) in Antioch and that he ruled The Church from Antioch.

I was just hoping to see if they had some historical proof or maybe even if they could quote one of The Church Fathers as stating this.

That brought about a point. If “where” Peter preached is how one measures “where” The Catholic Church was headquartered, then wouldn’t Jeruselum be the headquarters and “not” Antioch (Turkey)?

Isn’t it in Jeruselum where Peter “first” preached post-ressrurection?
But Jerusalem was under St. James, and had been, according to St. Clement since after the Ascension. Acts (and Galatians) testifes to this.
 
There you go again, pointing me to a library instead of just showing me the book.

“Where” in The Book of Acts does it state that Peter established The Catholic Church in Antioch?
Well, then. Who did the sending in 11:22 (with the result in verse 26)? Peter was still in Jerusalem. Peter leaves in 12:17, St. Paul is ordained by someone in 13:3 in Antioch.

Btw, it is the successor of St. Peter at Antioch, St. Ignatius I, who coins the term “Catholic Church.”
 
The Russians, Greeks and Arabs (one a Princeton Theologian) I’ve dealt with over the past couple of days have all told me that the beliefs espoused here are not those of the common Orthodox Christian and have called these individual fanatics that are out of touch with the true nature of the Orthodox Church.
Would your nameless experts care to specify said beliefs?
Again, it must be because of their “Americanism” more than of their “Orthodoxy”. Orthodox Christians from other countries don’t have the slightest qualms about Catholics, matter of fact, as long as we’re not non-Christians, they seem to “not” care about our Catholicism. They’ve shown me a lot of respect and were very content to hear of me. Very nice people indeed. True Christians
.

Your Russian experts might explain the PoM’s policy on the Vatican then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top