Peter & Antioch?

[Classicist]

Friends,

We know that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. We know that Apostolic Succession implies specific carrying-on of the offices of the Apostles. We know St. Peter was in Rome, because of the Fathers and their written histories of the Church.

History also tells us that Peter was in Antioch, and founded the Diocese there. Why is it not a See of Peter? Why does his place of death indicate his choice for The Papal Throne?

I ask this question because of what Chrysostom said before he was Archbishop of Constantinople- “On Saint Ignatius the Martyr”, Paragraph 4:

newadvent.org/fathers/1905.htm

…this city [Antioch] was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [St. Ignatius of Antioch] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.

In other words: “Why only Rome?”

 

[Classicist]

Just for clarity: I have read all the older threads in “Apologetics” sub-forum (going back to 2005). There have been no conclusive answers yet.

Everyone seems to assume that Rome alone is “Peter’s See” just because he was there the longest, and died there. Surely there’s a better rationale than this, because it seems like a totally arbitrary reason to define Rome as His One True See. A successor is a successor, regardless of circumstances.

 

[chimo]

Friends,

We know that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. We know that Apostolic Succession implies specific carrying-on of the offices of the Apostles. We know St. Peter was in Rome, because of the Fathers and their written histories of the Church.

History also tells us that Peter was in Antioch, and founded the Diocese there. Why is it not a See of Peter? Why does his place of death indicate his choice for The Papal Throne?

I ask this question because of what Chrysostom said before he was Archbishop of Constantinople- “On Saint Ignatius the Martyr”, Paragraph 4:

newadvent.org/fathers/1905.htm

Peter is both the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Church of Rome. There can be no dispute whatsoever in this. The problem is most Catholics don’t realize Peter’s contribution in the East. It is not even mentioned in their catechisms. I suspect though the Orthodox do the same in their books and hardly mentions Peter’s contribution to have founded the Church of Rome. It is just a matter of time before both Churches to upgrade their histories and catechisms to include in both of Peter’s contributions. I am an Antiochian Orthodox Christian. We know who is our first Bishop. It was Peter. Ignatius became our second bishop after Peter left for Rome. This connection of him finding two Churches is an important link to our own fulfilment in seeing the whole Church as one big family.

 

[Nita]

Friends,

We know that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. We know that Apostolic Succession implies specific carrying-on of the offices of the Apostles. We know St. Peter was in Rome, because of the Fathers and their written histories of the Church.

History also tells us that Peter was in Antioch, and founded the Diocese there. Why is it not a See of Peter? Why does his place of death indicate his choice for The Papal Throne?

I ask this question because of what Chrysostom said before he was Archbishop of Constantinople- “On Saint Ignatius the Martyr”, Paragraph 4

:…this city [Antioch] was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here

I think your quote answers your question.

The quote speaks of St. Peter departing “from here” (Antioch) – not departing from the world. (The Catholic Church is a universal Church) The context shows that it was the local Church that needed a replacement. St. Ignatius did not replace Peter in his role as head of the universal Church, because Peter was still alive and exercising that office eve after Ignatius’s appointment. Nobody understood this as meaning there were 2 popes – both Peter and his successor in Antioch.

This is from my thinking: I am assuming that it is because Peter was functioning as head of the Church from Rome at the time he was martyred, that his successor was recognized as not only receiving the keys but also the assignment of Rome as his home base, so to speak. Thus began the tradition, and eventually the Tradition, and finally the Dogma.

Would appreciate any varifications.

 

[Classicist]

Good response, Nita.

I’ve half-resolved this myself by recalling that (although Antioch had the privilege of Peter’s residence) Antioch never actually claimed the Primacy or Supremacy across history. In Roman Catholic theology, if a bishop claims not to be infallible, it’s impossible for him to be the Pope, because that is one of the very basic requirements of a Pope. As Antioch never did make this claim, it follows that it simply is not The (or A) Successor of Peter (by our standards).

Secondly, no one ever recognized Antioch as Peter’s See in the Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, or theology - except a few residents of Antioch, out of civic pride. It’s never on the level of primacy or dignity.

 

[Nita]

I’ve half-resolved this myself by recalling that (although Antioch had the privilege of Peter’s residence) Antioch never actually claimed the Primacy or Supremacy across history. In Roman Catholic theology, if a bishop claims not to be infallible, it’s impossible for him to be the Pope, because that is one of the very basic requirements of a Pope. As Antioch never did make this claim, it follows that it simply is not The (or A) Successor of Peter (by our standards).

Secondly, no one ever recognized Antioch as Peter’s See in the Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, or theology - except a few residents of Antioch, out of civic pride. It’s never on the level of primacy or dignity.

Good points.

 

[steve_b]

Good response, Nita.

I’ve half-resolved this myself by recalling that (although Antioch had the privilege of Peter’s residence) Antioch never actually claimed the Primacy or Supremacy across history. In Roman Catholic theology, if a bishop claims not to be infallible, it’s impossible for him to be the Pope, because that is one of the very basic requirements of a Pope. As Antioch never did make this claim, it follows that it simply is not The (or A) Successor of Peter (by our standards).

Secondly, no one ever recognized Antioch as Peter’s See in the Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, or theology - except a few residents of Antioch, out of civic pride. It’s never on the level of primacy or dignity.

Also

One looks at the ancient ranking of sees

BC = before Constantinople

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   AC = after Constantinople
   
   1. • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      This ranking speaks volumes. Often we hear some argue on a “secular” level. i.e. Rome is 1st because it’s the capital of the empire. Well…that argument doesn’t fly particularly
      
      When the Capital moved to Constantinople.
      • Why didn’t Constantinople rise to #1 and Rome slip to #2? All the other sees moved down 1 slot after Constantine moved the capital. Constantinople however took 2nd place after Rome.
      • Even if one looks at this as an East West ranking of sees, and Constantinople is 1st in the East, Antioch is still behind Alexandria, and both those sees move down a slot after Constantine changed addresses
      • This tells me that even in the East, Antioch didn’t get special honor for being a temporary see of Peter.
      • It also tells me, this is not about where Peter was, it’s about where he is and continues to be both bodily remains, and through apostolic succession…Rome

 

[Classicist]

Thank you very much brother. Very helpful contribution.