[user]MisterCorduroy[/user], you make a good Rome-only argument. May I comment…
It’s true that Peter could be considered the Patriarch or Antioch before he went to Rome. When I was ANtiochian Orthodox, they made a big deal about this.
St Peter was never a bishop in Antioch. The first bishop their, named “Peter” was one of “the 70”. St Peter the Apostle was their
as an apostle, not a bishop. It would be blasphemy to downgrade an apostle to only a bishop and St Peter would also have be guilty of abandoning his See when he left!
However, St. John Chrysostom (after whom the Byzantine Liturgy is named) said that Rome was sanctified by the blood of Ss. Peter & Paul and will walk the streets of Rome at the resurrection–this is what makes Rome great (see his Homily 32 on Romans).
This is very true. It is also true that there has been more martyrs in Russia then the entire history of Christianity! This is what makes Russia (the 3rd Rome) great.
Peter’s successor in Antioch must be in communion with his successor in Rome–that would be the Melkite patriarch.
“Must” be in communion, or “should” be in communion? Prior to 1054 Constantinople was in communion with Rome only about 50% of the time! And after 1054 there were a few times when Constantinople and Rome communed again. Inter-communion proves nothing. You cannot even prove that any Eastern Church ever split from Rome. Rome never excommunicated any Eastern Church and the excommunication of the bishop of Constantinople in 1054 was done when the Pope was dead!
With regard to Antioch, in the matter of the so-called Meletian Schism at Antioch, the Pope made the mistake of communing with the party of Paulinus instead of the authentic Antiochian apostolic succession of Meletius. On the death of Meletius the Pope continued the error and sought to secure the succession for Paulinus and to exclude Flavian. So, in this example, niether Meletius nor Flavian had to be in communion with Rome to be the true bishops of the Antiochian Church!
If you read church history you will find that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch is only a few hundred years old.
The bishop of Constantinople “appointed” the bishop of Antioch. This was wrong and irregular, for sure. But it does not make the entire Antiochian Church somehow invalid thereby.
…those who remained loyal to the council were called Melkites.
Loyal to what council? Do you mean loyal to being in communion with Rome? They were befriended by the crusaders. I acknowledge their validity as well. There is alot of inter-communing going on between the Melkites and the Antiochian Orthodox too! The fact that they have chosen to remain in communion with Rome only proves that they have the right to make that choice; it doesn’t make them any more or any less valid thereby.
So Rome has primacy over Antioch, just as the Church councils declared and the earliest saints declared.
The order of the five patriarchates had alot more to do with Alexandria then with any issue having to do with Rome. Constantinople was the strongest city anywhere for many years, and as such it at least acted as the See holding the primacy. During the years that Moscow was such a primary city it sort of held a primacy. During the years that old Rome was weak it continued to hold an honorary first place, but the
practical first place was the most important to Catholic unity. Not
everything that was said of Rome at an early point in time continued to remain so years later.
I do confess that the Pope is still the successor to St Peter in a unique way, this much has not changed. When he speaks to the whole universal Church (not just Rome - Rome alone does not constitute the whole Church) it is St Peter that is speaking. When St Peter speaks the whole universe must hear him! No one is excluded from hearing St Peter, not even a Church that isn’t in communion with Rome right now. The bishop of Rome is not the successor to St Peter, these are two different offices, true they are held by the same man, but they are not one office, they are two. The primacy of Rome is one thing, and the ‘primacy of Peter’ is another. Actually St Peter doesn’t have a ‘primacy’ he has a ‘supremacy’! And the supremacy of St Peter is
only exercised ecumenically, and directly to the whole universe, not indirectly as through Rome. In general, the claims of ‘Rome’ are overblown, and the claims of ‘St Peter’ are underblown.
The supremacy of St Peter is still at Rome, not at Antioch.
