How Many Petrine Sees?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phillip_Rolfes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Phillip_Rolfes

Guest
Continuing the discussion from Pope Francis gives away relics of St. Peter to Orthodox patriarch:

This is meant to continue a discussion from another thread that was off the topic of the thread itself. I wanted to move it to the Eastern Catholic subforum because I know how dear the Eastern Patriarchates are to us. The discussion is centered on the question: How many Petrine Sees are recognized as Petrine by the Church?

From an article on Papal Primacy from Catholic Answers:

“Alexandria was regarded as a Petrine see because it was founded by Peter’s protégé, Mark, and Peter himself had been the first bishop of Antioch, before moving to Rome.”


So it seems the Church Universal (not just the Roman Church in her liturgy) actually recognizes three Petrine Sees: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.
 
I’ll add that in the traditional rankings, Alexandria, not Antioch, ranks second after Rome. This would be very odd if Rome and Antioch were the only two Petrine sees.

Of course, Rome and Antioch are unique in that St Peter personally served as bishops of those two churches. Alexandria ranks as a Petrine see, but the popes of Alexandria have only ever used, to my knowledge, the title “successor of St Mark”, not “successor of St Peter”.
 
I didn’t know that Alexandria was ranked immediately after Rome. I thought Constantinople was…?

Do you happen to have an official document that lists the three Petrine Sees? I’ve read about them time and again when I was working at Eastern Christian Publications, and all through my studies on Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I can’t for the life of me recall whether or not the three Petrine Sees were mentioned in any official capacity.
 
Sorry, I meant in the early church before the Byzantine pentarchy and the elevation of Constantinople, Alexandria ranked second. It later got bumped to third, but still outranked Antioch.

I don’t have a source off hand, but I know Pope St Gregory the Great writes about the three Petrine sees. Maybe I can find that later.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I didn’t know that Alexandria was ranked immediately after Rome. I thought Constantinople was…?

Do you happen to have an official document that lists the three Petrine Sees? I’ve read about them time and again when I was working at Eastern Christian Publications, and all through my studies on Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I can’t for the life of me recall whether or not the three Petrine Sees were mentioned in any official capacity.
Click to expand...
Directory for the Ad Limina Visit, Bernardin Card. Gantin, Prefect, Congregation for Bishops, 1988
Theological Notes, 1. The “perichoresis” (mutual indwelling) betwen the Church Universal and the local Church and its Petrine Center in the Eucharistic Liturgy:
The theological nucleus of this model was the Petrine idea, here interpreted in the tradition of the three Petrine Sees (Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome), of the See of St. Mark (Alexandria), inserted into the Petrine tradition by way of the connection between St. Peter and his interpreter in the Greek world, and of the See of the brother of St. Peter, Andrew (Constantinople). It is evident that the historical basis of this construction is very weak as far as Alexandria and Constantinople are concerned. What is important is that with this structure the East too has maintained the idea of a Petrine foundation of unity and of the concreteness of the unity and universality of the Church in the succession of St. Peter.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...bishops_doc_19880629_visita-ad-limina_en.html
 
Last edited:
So, please correct me if I’m misunderstanding this, the document is stating that Jerusalem and not Alexandria is the third Petrine See? Alexandria is considered “Petrine” by the Church because of St. Mark’s close affiliation with St. Peter?
 
Thanks, TWF. This is most fascinating to me. I’d not realized that Pope St. Gregory the Great had mentioned the three Petrine Sees.
 
St. Gregory talks of the three places in this letter to the Bishop of Alexandria:

Book VII, Letter 40

What St. Gregory is referring to here by “three places” is the principle of the three original patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in that order of primacy, which directly governed the three regions of the universal Church (the three regions of the known world: Europe, Africa, and Asia, respectively), with Rome being the final court of appeal (which is why these Patriarchs were turning to Rome, why Rome was telling them what to do in this case, and why they later submitted to Rome certain synodical acts and patriarchal judgments—see Book VII, Letter 34 and Book VIII, Letter 30 for examples; also see Book IX Letter 59 where St. Gregory says all bishops are subject to his See but they should be treated as equals when there is no cause not to).

This whole structure of authority flowed from Peter’s authority at Rome, with Alexandria and Antioch participating in that Petrine authority via their ties of discipleship to Petrine Rome.

This order was threatened early on by the imperial See of Constantinople trying to insert itself, first at Constantinople I and of course again by the infamous canon 28 of Chalcedon, which was denied by St. Leo the Great, who cited this same tradition of the three Petrine patriarchates. This original, Apostolic order was consistently disturbed by the theocratic government at Constantinople, which intruded into the Apostolic rights of the native bishops. In fact, the context in which the letter from St. Gregory above referencing the “universal bishop” was written was yet another example of Constantinople trying to do this very thing (the universal bishop controversy, often falsely attributed to the Catholic understanding of primacy, made the “universal bishop” the only one with ordinary authority, with all other bishops being his vicars–St. Gregory denied this to John the Faster in Constantinople and denied others to claim it for himself).

Again, Rome is always considered first and Alexandria and Antioch second and third in all the acts of Councils, etc. The three are never considered tied for first and no other See was numbered with them until politics won out later.
 
Last edited:
Phillip_Rolfes said:
So, please correct me if I’m misunderstanding this, the document is stating that Jerusalem and not Alexandria is the third Petrine See? Alexandria is considered “Petrine” by the Church because of St. Mark’s close affiliation with St. Peter?
Click to expand...
Yes. However, read this for the statement that Rome favored the Petrine Sees as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. I believe that Jerusalem was practically supplanted by Antioch.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...tuni_doc_20060322_patriarca-occidente_fr.html
 
Practically speaking, only See that ever happened to invoke Petrine Authority / Ministry and whose Bishop was referred to as “Successor of Saint Peter” was Rome, afaik. However, during Nicea, three Patriarchates were established- those were Petrine Sees, and their ranks were:
  1. Rome
  2. Alexandria
  3. Antioch
Jerusalem was province of significance, but not yet a Patriarchate. Funnily enough, when Constantinople got added to Pentarchy and skipped straight up to 2nd place, they used Rome to justify that skip, attributing even more power to Rome over Alexandria and Antioch. They were opposed by other Patriarchates at first, and even Pope of Rome did not want to accept Constantinople as 2nd See of the Church. I am not certain when did Catholic Church actually accept Constantinople as 2nd, but that might be because of Orthodox influence and Ecumenical dialogue. Truth is that without Emperor’s influence, Constantinople wouldn’t have ever went above Alexandria nor Antioch- as is the case in Oriental Orthodoxy.
 
As Genesis315 stated it was Pope Gregory the Great who spoke of three holy places [Rome, Alexandria and Antioch].

Rome always exercised supreme jurisdiction not only in the West, but also throughout the Eastern churches. For instance, read the letters of the Early Church and look at the system of appeals. An appeal is never made from a superior court to an inferior. The See of Rome from the beginning was taking appeals from the Oriental churches.

A few antiquities:

Cyprian of Carthage (c. A.D. 253):

" . . . [the heretics] dare even to set sail…to the chair of Peter and the principal Church [Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source. . . whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for errors of faith or heresy to have entrance” [Letters 59 (55), 14)].

__

Bishop of Patara [rebuking Justinian concerning the persecution of Pope Silverius] (c. A.D. 537):

“In this world there are many kings, not one, like that pope who is over the church of the whole world." [Liberatus in his Brevarium, c. 22].

__

Columbanus (c. A.D. 600):

“[Rome] the principal See of the orthodox faith” [Columbanus, Epist. ad. Bonif. Pap. p, 353, Galland, tom. xii.].

__

Maximus the Confessor (c. A.D. 650):

“…[the Apostolic See of Rome] from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman Pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him from the accusation. . . .” [Opuscula 12, Patrologia Graeca 91.141-146].

__

Mar Abdisho of Soba (c. A.D. 1318):

“To the great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid in the grave there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs” (Memra; Risha 1).

“…And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8).
 
Last edited:
I’m still learning the tools of the forum and was going to add the following to the post above… it had completely escaped my mind, but Pope Damasus also said the following at the Council of Rome:

“….Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this Rock…shall be loosed in heaven.’ …The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.’ But the second See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist… And the third See of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch…”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top