"Primacy of Honor"/St. Peter & the Church in Antioch?

[ConstantineTG]

But he did transfer the capital to Constantinople, and Rome still remained first, thereby, something more than political reasoning was at influence.

But why did Rome protest in the first place if she herself believed her primacy is not rooted in the importance of the city where she is in?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Jesus lived, died, rose and ascended in Jerusalem, wouldn’t that make it the prime Church by default?

Good Point! One I never considered. I was too busy trying to figure out the importance of the Apostles and totally forgot about the One who made them important.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

My memory was simply remembering something I read that the position of honor based on an imperial city came from the East.

Good memory, you read that in the canons of at least two of the Ecumenical Councils in the 4th & 5th centuries. 3rd canon of Constantinople & 28th canon of Chalcedon. Both cities are East of Rome.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

All three churches, i.e., Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were considered Petrine sees and that is why they were given the rank they were. If the ecumenical council of Nicea followed secular influence ALONE, then by all accounts, Constantinople (then called Byzantium) should have taken precedence over Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, i.e., Constantine made it his headquarters.

Alexandria a Petrine see? St. Peter went there and established the Church in Alexandria before St. Mark? I’ve never seen that in the history. Please give some more details.

Constantine had not yet made Byzantium the capitol of Rome at the time of the Ecumenical Council in Nicea. By the time of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Constantine had made the change.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

But he did transfer the capital to Constantinople, and Rome still remained first, thereby, something more than political reasoning was at influence.

Rome had been the center of the Roman Empire for centuries prior to the change of capitol & maintained it’s prestige due to it’s long history.

 

[Sixpence]

Continuing my examination and have a quick question.

If the Primacy of Honor held by the Church in Rome and recognized from the beginning of our Church was because of St. Peter, we believe this as Catholics Why wasn’t the Church in Antioch held as Second in Honor of the Church in Rome even though she was started by St. Peter?

In 325 at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea the Church in Antioch established personally by St. Peter was not afforded 2nd in the ranking honor next to the Church in Rome as would make sense for her to be *if *the primacy of honor was really due to St. Peter & “the keys” as opposed to being based on the “imperial city”. Rather the Church in Antioch was listed in 3rd place at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea and then in later Ecumencial Councils as 4th place.

Just so happens that the order of honor given at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea followed the secular influence those cities held.

This Ecumenical Council, at the very least, gives us insight into the mindset of those early Bishops. It disturbs me that the mindset seems to match that of the Orthodox Church, not my Catholic Church’s mindset today.

So who has first place now? New York? LA? Beijing? London? Paris?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Alexandria a Petrine see? St. Peter went there and established the Church in Alexandria before St. Mark? I’ve never seen that in the history. Please give some more details. .

Yes it is considered a Petrine See, and no St Peter wasn’t there as an Apostle to establish the See. St Paul went their along with St Mark. St Mark was a student of St Peters.

Constantine had not yet made Byzantium the capitol of Rome at the time of the Ecumenical Council in Nicea. By the time of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Constantine had made the change.

Right

 

[twf]

Alexandria a Petrine see? St. Peter went there and established the Church in Alexandria before St. Mark? I’ve never seen that in the history. Please give some more details.

Constantine had not yet made Byzantium the capitol of Rome at the time of the Ecumenical Council in Nicea. By the time of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Constantine had made the change.

Pope St. Gregory the Great taught that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were indeed the three Petrine Sees - but with Rome holding primacy above the other two. St Peter was in Antioch, died in Rome, and sent his disciple, St. Mark, to Alexandria. Tradition considers all three sees Petrine.

Already in the second century, we see that Rome’s primacy was not merely for political reasons:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). St. Irenaeus

St. Irenaeus, in the year 189, cites Rome’s superior origin by virtue of Sts. Peter and Paul…not its secular influence.

Rome certainly believed likewise about herself from an early time:

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). -Pope Damasus I

 

[ConstantineTG]

Rome had been the center of the Roman Empire for centuries prior to the change of capitol & maintained it’s prestige due to it’s long history.

Jerusalem held the primacy before Rome but Jerusalem was destroyed. Rome inherited it and given that Rome wasn’t destroyed, it is highly unlikely a standing Church would give up the primacy just because a new city is named capital.

Look at the Orthodox. Even if Russia tried to call itself “Third Rome” after the Fall of Constantinople, because the Church in Constantinople wasn’t destroyed and a bishop remained in it’s seat until today, Constantinople still holds the prime rank among Orthodox Churches.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Jesus lived, died, rose and ascended in Jerusalem, wouldn’t that make it the prime Church by default?

Good Point! One I never considered. I was too busy trying to figure out the importance of the Apostles and totally forgot about the One who made them important.

Yes, but imagine what life would be like if the Church were “headquartered” in Jerusalem!

Get out the brooms!

http://www.thenationalherald.com/ImagesUP/MIDEAST-PALESTINE.jpg

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jerusalem held the primacy before Rome

Prove it, the Bible and Apostles Council of Jerusalem does not indicate this but in the minds of “some”. James was indeed the first bishop or patriarch of Jerusalem according to tradition. This doesn’t superceed St Peters position of Divine Institution, nor does it make Jerusalem the Primacy.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheaters.com%2Feasternfathers.html&ei=PQoYUMjZI4Gt6QH-wYHACw&usg=AFQjCNEcFVg8dqm-E3pwRBBfIURGjDBbzg&sig2=pMk2BA6vx5RxXcNOi9t_VQ

Where the link to prove your speculation?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Prove it, … Where the link to prove your speculation?

Get the brooms ready!

 

[Nicea325]

Good memory, you read that in the canons of at least two of the Ecumenical Councils in the 4th & 5th centuries. 3rd canon of Constantinople & 28th canon of Chalcedon. Both cities are East of Rome.

I knew it!

 

[Nicea325]

Jerusalem held the primacy before Rome but Jerusalem was destroyed. Rome inherited it and given that Rome wasn’t destroyed, it is highly unlikely a standing Church would give up the primacy just because a new city is named capital.

Look at the Orthodox. Even if Russia tried to call itself “Third Rome” after the Fall of Constantinople, because the Church in Constantinople wasn’t destroyed and a bishop remained in it’s seat until today, Constantinople still holds the prime rank among Orthodox Churches.

Jerusalem held the primacy before Rome? Do you have historical writings supporting such a position?

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

Prove it, the Bible and Apostles Council of Jerusalem does not indicate this but in the minds of “some”. James was indeed the first bishop or patriarch of Jerusalem according to tradition. This doesn’t superceed St Peters position of Divine Institution, nor does it make Jerusalem the Primacy.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheaters.com%2Feasternfathers.html&ei=PQoYUMjZI4Gt6QH-wYHACw&usg=AFQjCNEcFVg8dqm-E3pwRBBfIURGjDBbzg&sig2=pMk2BA6vx5RxXcNOi9t_VQ

Where the link to prove your speculation?

The Bible.

Where were the 12 headquartered before they moved about throughout the world? The decisions and leadership of the Church rested upon the 12 sitting in council in Jerusalem in the beginning.

In Acts, Peter and John went to Antioch and upon the completion of their mission, they returned to Jerusalem to give a report.

 

[Nicea325]

I am not sure. But the Roman Church protested the transferring of the captial to Constantinople. If they had something more than the prestige of their city, it wouldn’t have mattered, would it?

And prestige would be enough to protest. It is only logical to protest by moving a very ancient city to another location. I am sure the White House would protest if the capital were to be moved to another location.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Jerusalem held the primacy before Rome? Do you have historical writings supporting such a position?

God Bless

Noted in the above post. Also, we should remember that the Primacy in the early Church is viewed much differently from our current understanding of what Primacy is.

 

[Nicea325]

The Bible.

Where were the 12 headquartered before they moved about throughout the world? The decisions and leadership of the Church rested upon the 12 sitting in council in Jerusalem in the beginning.

In Acts, Peter and John went to Antioch and upon the completion of their mission, they returned to Jerusalem to give a report.

Simply because they returned to Jerusalem does not conclusively prove it had a primacy before Rome. You are forgetting how young the church was at the time when Acts was written and the first Christians were centered at Jerusalem. And whyy? Because they were Jews and Christianity was founded in first century Palestine.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Simply because they returned to Jerusalem does not conclusively prove it had a primacy before Rome. You are forgetting how young the church was at the time when Acts was written and the first Christians were centered at Jerusalem. And whyy? Because they were Jews and Christianity was founded in first century Palestine.

Again, Primacy in the first centure and unto the next few are in a different context as to what we understand Primacy to be today. Which says a lot how untraditional and unbiblical our concept of Primacy is today.

 

[Nicea325]

Noted in the above post. Also, we should remember that the Primacy in the early Church is viewed much differently from our current understanding of what Primacy is.

According to who? The current Eastern view as to what they believed was held? Many of the early fathers beg to differ with your position.