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

[GaryTaylor]

Apollos and Silas have been suggested as the bishops, but we have no written record for a bishop of Corinth. Eusebius who is pretty thorough, does not mention a bishop of Corinth in the first century. St. Clement does not mention in his epistle that Corinth had a bishop when writing to them, so what are we to presume? Perhaps bishop Lucius of Cenchrea presided over the church of Corinth.

Cenchrea was the port for Corinth on the eastern side of the isthmus, and remains of the ancient harbor are visible in the water today. Paul had his hair cut here because of a vow, and then set sail from the harbor, concluding his 18-month stay in Corinth (on his second journey; Acts 18:18).

bibleplaces.com/corintharea.htm

God’s peace

Micah

Well as far as Corinth I see no further succession.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CF8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F250103.htm&ei=ZCAgUNOUGMG66wH1moE4&usg=AFQjCNE1G_Erar1ZEOzGP-Wk6R6R7ulzog&sig2=32G4JLUUK-J2BZurddj8kg

As with Eusebius are you familiar with his work in which he mentions Constantines Vision?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Apollos and Silas have been suggested as the bishops, but we have no written record for a bishop of Corinth. Eusebius who is pretty thorough, does not mention a bishop of Corinth in the first century. St. Clement does not mention in his epistle that Corinth had a bishop when writing to them, so what are we to presume? Perhaps bishop Lucius of Cenchrea presided over the church of Corinth.

Cenchrea was the port for Corinth on the eastern side of the isthmus, and remains of the ancient harbor are visible in the water today. Paul had his hair cut here because of a vow, and then set sail from the harbor, concluding his 18-month stay in Corinth (on his second journey; Acts 18:18).

bibleplaces.com/corintharea.htm

God’s peace

Micah

If there is no bishop, there is no Church. Remember that the Church exists where the bishop is. Where the bishop is, there is the Church (the original quote, Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. from newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm).

 

[josie_L]

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.

Yes, Alexandria was considered a Petrine see, in that, Mark who was a disciple of Peter’s. i.e., under his tutelage, was sent there on his behalf:

“Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches*, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. *The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

And to elucidate why Pope Damasus said this:

Pope Damasus released this decree to counter the Byzantine attempt to replace Alexandria (the Traditional 2nd See) with Constantinople at the Council of Constantinople I in 381. Because of Damasus’ decree, this attempt was withdrawn, and Alexandria’s place as the 2nd See was secured. However, when Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, embraced Monophysism in the 450’s …withdrawing both himself and the entire Alexandrian delegation from the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Byzantines made yet another attempt to replace Alexandria with Constantinople as the 2nd See.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_are_the_other_patriarchs_dependent_on_rome.htm

Even Pope Leo the Great confirms this:

And, indeed, Rome echoes this very same Tradition at the time of Theodoret, when Pope Leo writes to Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria directly, saying: "As the most blessed Peter received the Apostolic Primacy from the Lord, and the Roman church continues in his institutions, it is criminal to believe that his (Peter’s) holy disciple Mark, who was *the first to govern the church of Alexandria formed decrees by other rules of his own Traditions; since without doubt from the same source of grace was the spirit both of the disciple and of his master. (Pope Leo, T. i. Ep. ix. ad. Diosc. Ep. Alex.)

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_are_the_other_patriarchs_dependent_on_rome.htm

What you have stated about Rome has no basis, however, with regard to Constantinople, it was indeed attempted (twice) by clergy to give it greater prestige as per its imperial importance.

 

[mercytruth]

If there is no bishop, there is no Church. Remember that the Church exists where the bishop is. Where the bishop is, there is the Church (the original quote, Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. from newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm).

Tell me then, who was the bishop of Corinth when St. Clement wrote his letter to the church of Corinth?

What if Cenchrea was part of Corinth, or visa versa?

God’s peace

Micah

 

[mercytruth]

Well as far as Corinth I see no further succession.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CF8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F250103.htm&ei=ZCAgUNOUGMG66wH1moE4&usg=AFQjCNE1G_Erar1ZEOzGP-Wk6R6R7ulzog&sig2=32G4JLUUK-J2BZurddj8kg

As with Eusebius are you familiar with his work in which he mentions Constantines Vision?

True, there is no other successor listed by Eusebius.

As far as the vision and dream of Constantine reported by Eusebius one would think there is validity to it. Lactantius also reported it as a dream of Constantine’s. Both Eusebius and Lactantius had personal contact with the Emperor, and the only way it would not seem to be true, is if Emperor Constantine embellished, or made up the story.

As Constantine reports it, not only did he see the sign of the cross in the sky over the sun, but his army did likewise. Eusebius likens Constantine’s defeat of Maxemitus with the bridge collapsing, to the story of Moses and the Israelites defeating the Egyptians as they crossed the Red Sea. (The sign in the sky that accompanied the Israelites was the glory of the Lord that appeared as a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night).

Was it Constantine’s victory, or was it the victory of the saints who had withstood years of martyrdom in their fidelity to Jesus Christ? It was the apostle Paul who had been imprisoned and beaten so many times who wrote to the church in Rome:

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. (Rom. 16:20).

Micah

 

[GaryTaylor]

True, there is no other successor listed by Eusebius.

As far as the vision and dream of Constantine reported by Eusebius one would think there is validity to it. Lactantius also reported it as a dream of Constantine’s. Both Eusebius and Lactantius had personal contact with the Emperor, and the only way it would not seem to be true, is if Emperor Constantine embellished, or made up the story.

As Constantine reports it, not only did he see the sign of the cross in the sky over the sun, but his army did likewise. Eusebius likens Constantine’s defeat of Maxemitus with the bridge collapsing, to the story of Moses and the Israelites defeating the Egyptians as they crossed the Red Sea. (The sign in the sky that accompanied the Israelites was the glory of the Lord that appeared as a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night).

Was it Constantine’s victory, or was it the victory of the saints who had withstood years of martyrdom in their fidelity to Jesus Christ? It was the apostle Paul who had been imprisoned and beaten so many times who wrote to the church in Rome:

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. (Rom. 16:20).

Micah

I’m of the impression that the earliest work of Eusebius does not contain the vision. Which was added to a later work. Now I haven’t researched this myself yet, but heard from a solid source in Catholicism. The name came up a few times so I thought I’d ask. This is an important link in time though.

 

[mercytruth]

I’m of the impression that the earliest work of Eusebius does not contain the vision. Which was added to a later work. Now I haven’t researched this myself yet, but heard from a solid source in Catholicism. The name came up few times so I thought I’d ask. This is an important link in time though.

Thanks for that information. Both Eusebius and Lactantius reported it to be a dream. So, maybe we should not assume that it was anything more than a dream.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ConstantineTG]

Tell me then, who was the bishop of Corinth when St. Clement wrote his letter to the church of Corinth?

What if Cenchrea was part of Corinth, or visa versa?

God’s peace

Micah

Just because we do not know doesn’t mean there is none. The fact that we do know is the basic ecclesiology of the Church, and that is the Church exists where there is a bishop and a congregation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right for a brief history here. So too we can see the questions often proposed for example in Clements work and the Bible clearly through the below understanding.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CF0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBishop&ei=nkIiUKDmBcei6wGnxYHYCA&usg=AFQjCNFPrTa6ScqMacEsX6Woq68JNH3aHw&sig2=KbdZmdmlov4Mh6b9Odglxg

When we say for example we’re nor postive about Corinth. IMHO then we have to regard this from other perpectives which sorta gets back to what Fr Kimbal mentioned on another thread. While we are somewhat limited by the documented history in areas be it Scripture or the writings of the early church fathers and surrounding history of value. We still need to consider the Liturgy of the Eucharist or worship Lex orandi, lex credendi. the canon of scripture and other doctrinal matters based on the prayer texts of the Church, that is, the Church’s liturgy. In the Early Church there were about 69 years of liturgical tradition before there was a creed and about 350 years before there was a biblical canon. These liturgical traditions provided the theological framework for establishing the creeds and canon. Which I posted this link on another thread here. So too through this process you see the Apostolic Churchs and how they progressed even though there is spotted history.