"First Among Equals" due to St. Peter's death occurring in Rome OR due to Rome being the Imperial City?

[1Tim215Mommy]

Thanks for your patience. So why weren’t the keys passed to the first successor of Peter at Antioch?

The Orthodox recognize that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, not just St.Peter, when Jesus Christ breathed on them giving that power & the keys were handed down to each Bishop that they ordained and continue to be passed down to every Bishop.

The Patriarch of Antioch today is a true successor of St.Peter just as Linus was an authentic successor of St. Peter in Rome.

 

[Novocastrian]

The Keys to the Kingdom were given to Peter and his successors. Not to an individual diocese. That is why the “First Among Equals” followed him from Antioch to Rome.

If for some reason the Pope were to ever have the need to flee Rome to say Buenos Aries, for example, then the Pope would become the Bishop of Buenos Aries. The Keys of the Kingdom are given to the man, not to the See.
I hope this helps.

God Bless

This doesn’t seem to be the case. During the Avignon Papacy, the Popes were still absentee Bishops of Rome, not Bishops of Avignon.

 

[pnewton]

As Jesus set Peter as the foundation of the Church and not Rome, I would say the answer should be obvious. Had Peter gone to Detroit and established his succession there, then the Papacy would be in the motor city.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Orthodox recognize that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, not just St.Peter, when Jesus Christ breathed on them giving that power & the keys were handed down to each Bishop that they ordained and continue to be passed down to every Bishop.

The keys are shared through Peter. Not that anyone can make a copy of the keys .

No Peter, no keys.

The Patriarch of Antioch today (Evodius) is a true successor of St.Peter just as Pope Francis (Linus) (was) is an authentic successor of St. Peter in Rome.

Fixed.

I chuckled when I read your up to date analogy to Antioch and not up to date analogy to Rome, I was like… really…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1Tim215Mommy;11772905]The Orthodox recognize that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, not just St.Peter, when Jesus Christ breathed on them giving that power & the keys were handed down to each Bishop that they ordained and continue to be passed down to every Bishop.

That is true, when Jesus breathed on them and commissioned them to baptise all peoples, nations, tribes and tongues with the ministry of reconciliation of forgiving sin and retaining sin which is a reflection of the divine keys given them to excercise at the local level.

Jesus gives the divine keys to Peter singularly to bind and loose upon the whole earth, only after the Father in heaven revealed to Peter singularly, who Jesus is “the son of the living of God”. It is from this sign the Father gives the Son to begin to build His Church upon Peter, while all the other apostles were present in silence.

After the resurrection, before Jesus ascends into heaven, Jesus commissions Peter alone in the presence of all his apostles (minus one) to feed and tend His flock at the same time repenting from his three fold denial of Jesus.

All the New Testament as a whole gives witness to all ages that Peter is known to be the leader of the apostles and is always listed first by all the New Testament writers.

The Patriarch of Antioch today is a true successor of St.Peter just as Linus was an authentic successor of St. Peter in Rome.

That is questionable, for the fact that Antioch lost it’s light and fell into heresy. The gates of hell prevailed against this apostolic see. The bishop today can be an apostolic successor to the apostles, but has lost it’s direct apostolicity to Peter as leader of the apostles.

St.Mark also a disciple of Peter established his apostolic see in Alexandria. Who also lost it’s light to the gates of hell. But the apostolic succession to the apostles of these bishop’s are without question.

The early Church Fathers, recognized Peter’s direct apostolic successors from Rome in possession of the Keys of Heaven on earth, as being supreme and pre-eminent for all other church’s to follow.

Jesus established and consecrated only two divine offices. Peters office who confirms his brethren, and the apostles, which have unbroken apostolic succession from Peter’s chair in the bishop’s of Rome, and all apostolic successors in the validly ordained bishop’s.

Thus all apostolic successors are equal as bishop’s including the bishop’s of Rome and excercise their ministries and ordaining at the local level. Yet Jesus gave Peter alone the keys to bind and loose on earth, this divine office of Peter’s Chair which the Pope who is a bishop first among equals presides over the confirming of his brethren and feeding and tending both the sheep and the lambs in the kingdom of God on earth.

Pagan Rome persecuted and martyred the first 34+ bishop’s of Rome beginning with Peter. Rome was not a safe place for Peter’s successors to reside. How the city of Rome plays it’s significance of Peter being there originally is never political, but by divine calling, when the Vicar of Christ on earth battles the beast in Rome, when only the Vicar of Christ remains standing today, when the gates of hell came against her.

I think one poster said it best here; Jesus built his Church upon Peter never Rome. Peter is a bishop of Rome first among equals, because the apostolic successor of Peter is always the bishop of Rome. Because Peter has never left Rome, because Jesus has never left Peter, thus the bishop’s of Rome as Pope as Peter’s Chair still presides at tending and feeding the flock of Jesus and Peter alone confirms his brethren.

When Satan desired to sift (Peter) him as wheat, Jesus prayed for him singularly, so although the gates of hell came against her, the gates of hell have never prevailed nor ever will. That is a promise from God to Peter. Who is the only living apostolic see that has never fallen into heresy.

Peace be with you

 

[pablope]

Thanks for the clarification. But just so i’m understanding properly, the Pope can change the primacy of the See of Rome if he so chose to? But wouldn’t because tradition. (small “t”)

So assuming the Pope moved, would the See of Rome lose primacy, and would the Bishop of Rome have to change, but the Pope would still have the keys and whoever succeeds him?

Thanks for your patience. So why weren’t the keys passed to the first successor of Peter at Antioch?

Dronald…you may want to look at the part of Church history where the papacy moved to Avignon, France for about 60 years, I think. Sorry, I do not have links but you may have to look at google for initial info.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Check this historical view:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Thanks for that site it’s excellent, I have taken Francis Dvornick’s Orthodox history with his same lense looking at pre-Constantinople Church history in light of post-Constantinople events of the Church. This approach appears to offend and set off the balances of the Orthodox schism arguments against the Popes.

Any how, as the thread stopping cat poster said. Jesus built his church upon Peter not upon Rome. The Fact is Peter’s bones are still their at the Vatican proves symbolically that Peter never left Rome, thus His apostolic successor remains in Rome. Not by any political Imperial status as Post-Constantinople Patriarch’s. The Bishop’s of Rome remain there as Pope because Peter has never left Rome.

Any how thanks for the site, very informative

Happy Lent

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Lutherans agree that the See of St Peter is first among equals and the rightful head of the Church.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Lutherans agree that the See of St Peter is first among equals and the rightful head of the Church.

Orthodox agree that St. Peter’s Roman Successor (not St. Peter’s Antiochian Successor) is First Among Equals, but that the only rightful “Head” of the Church is Jesus Christ, Himself.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Peter passing away in Rome is what makes Rome more important than Antioch? Is that correct?

Sorry, I’m new to this explanation so i’m not sure I got it right. But if that is the case, how do we know that wherever the Pope left off is the official place of the Pope?

No that is not correct. Peter being our first Pope is what made Rome important. I do believe it was very provedential that Peter ended up in Rome and that is where he died as It has become one of the most important and influential places on the Planet. I wonder how this would have turned out if His see was in constantinople. Christ is in control of all of this and as such Rome was chosen as the place for the Vicar of Christ for very obvious reasons.

Peace!

 

[ProdigalSun]

Orthodox agree that St. Peter’s Roman Successor (not St. Peter’s Antiochian Successor) is First Among Equals, but that the only rightful “Head” of the Church is Jesus Christ, Himself.

I would have to say Catholics agree with this statement that Christ is the Head of his Church but with the Caveat that Our Pope is his Vicar!

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

I would have to say Catholics agree with this statement that Christ is the Head of his Church but with the Caveat that Our Pope is his Vicar!

Yes, I understand that to be the Catholic position I used the word “only” in an attempt to differenciate.

 

[josie_L]

Actually, Rome was a diocese about as prestigious as Detroit back then. Instead, the big dioceses were Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

(and I already have an answer waiting in the wings I’d just like to know what you mean by this)

 

[josie_L]

“First Among Equals” was a title given to the Bishop of Rome early in the Church’s history. This is undisputed. But the WHY is.

What do you think & why?

Was this due to St. Peter death occurring in Rome - that somehow his death made it St. Peter’s successors in Rome more important than St. Peter’s successors in Antioch

Antioch can lay claim that their see is of Petrine origin but that is it, i.e., it would not be logical to claim that Peter is the “first among Equals” if there were two successors to the Petrine office. The title of “first among Equals” could only be given to one person, and since Peter stayed in Rome for many years and died there, it would seem that providence chose for Peter’s successors to remain in Rome. I can list a slew of evidence that corroborates this, but none more convincing than the council of Ephesus:

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices,(1) ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins:** who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod,** which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.asp

Was this due to Rome having been the Imperial City - which would explain why the Ecumenical Councils named Constantinople the new Capitol City of the Roman Empire, (previously called Byzantium - the Church founded there by St. Andrew), rather than Antioch, as second to Rome as was explained in the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon?

There was no mention at the Council of Ephesus, which was ratified by ALL bishops present at the council, that Pope St. Celestine derived his headship because of Rome’s imperial position, on the contrary it states that Pope St. Celestine is head of the Church because he is the successor to Peter (and Rome holds this primacy in perpetuity because that is where Peter’s successors are to be found). Moreover, when canon 28 of Chalcedon was ratified it was done so by a rump element of the council, i.e., many bishops were conveniently gone at the time that this canon was proposed (only 150 bishops out of 650). It does not help that Pope St. Leo also condemned canon 28 when asked to ratify it, i.e., his reasoning for condemning it was such that he wrote:

The City of Constantinople, royal though it be, can never be raised to Apostolic rank.

Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule.** Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See**[3]; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of God’s Spirit at the Synod of Nicaea for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the Lord’s whole house.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/677/St._Leo_the_Great___Letters_60_173.html

(Epistle 114)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually, Rome was a diocese about as prestigious as Detroit back then. Instead, the big dioceses were Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

Detroit? your kidding right? Detroit Is being outpopulated by Muslims today, due to contraception, abortions practiced by Christians and the lack of Christian faith practice. Detroit may be compared to pagan Rome in size, but the early Christians faith practice in pagan Rome is a far cry from those Christians in Detroit today. You got one thing right. Both Detroit and pagan Rome out populated the Christians. Is it true, now that Muslims are holding public offices in Detroit, bankruptcy and City laws are beginning to change to fit the Islamic political scene? I hope these rumors are false?

The city of Constantinople did not exist with the other apostolic see’s until after the fourth century. So it does not compare with Pagan Rome or the Apostolic See of Peter living in Rome at the time.

Peace be with you

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Dear Sister 1Tim215Mommy,

Where does the phrase “first among equals” occur in the early Church? I have not seen this phrase used (which is not to say that it wasn’t, only that I haven’t seen it). I would also be interested to see what this is supposed to mean since it is evident that the bishops in the early Church were not all of equal rank and authority.

Also, do you agree with my suggestion from the previous thread that Canon 28 of Chalcedon does not have ecumenical status and is therefore not binding on the universal Church? This canon was never accepted in the West, nor among the “Orientals,” although in their case they ended up rejecting the council in toto. However, at least the West never accepted this and so, indisputably being part of the Catholic Church for centuries following Chalcedon, was never ratified by the entire Church. Therefore, how can it be ecumenical and binding according to what Eastern Orthodox believe (at least according to what they have told me)? In fact, the West only ever first acknowledged the second-place status of Constantinople in the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869/870 (rejected by the EO), which made no mention of any political basis for either the status of Rome or any of the other patriarchates. Furthermore, it adds,

Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs. If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

So you can see that Constantinople’s claims that ecclesiastical rank is based on political status has never been acknowledged by the West to this day.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by phil19034
The Keys to the Kingdom were given to Peter and his successors. Not to an individual diocese. That is why the “First Among Equals” followed him from Antioch to Rome.

If for some reason the Pope were to ever have the need to flee Rome to say Buenos Aries, for example, then the Pope would become the Bishop of Buenos Aries. The Keys of the Kingdom are given to the man, not to the See.
I hope this helps.

God Bless

This doesn’t seem to be the case. During the Avignon Papacy, the Popes were still absentee Bishops of Rome, not Bishops of Avignon.

Avignon is a very important example,but it needs to be interpreted with a grain of salt. For one thing, those Popes hardly had the purest motives for being in Avignon. And even if a Pope did move the seat of the papacy with pure motives, it seems unlikely that people would stop thinking of the pope as Roman given the long history. (The original move from Antioch to Rome was, of course, a very different matter.)

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Do you think that the pope could juridically move the seat of the papacy from Rome to some other location? It seems like he should be able to do that. If so, perhaps Pope Francis should make an ecumenical concession to the EO move the office of the papacy from Rome to Washington D.C. since Washington D.C. is the “Newest Rome.”

 

[Peter_J]

Do you think that the pope could juridically move the seat of the papacy from Rome to some other location?

This is just the question I was thinking of.

I would say yes from an abstract theoretical pov … But from a practical pov, No. At this point Rome is too deeply ingrained in our collective thinking.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Actually, Rome was a diocese about as prestigious as Detroit back then. Instead, the big dioceses were Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

[bibledrb]Romans 1:7-12[/bibledrb]

The Faith of the Christian community in Rome was reported all over the world!