Question for Catholics

[AveChriste11]

Dear all,

I really do enjoy reading through the various threads and the insights of everyone involved. We really do have a lot of knowledgeable individuals on these forums, for that we are truly blessed! I imagine you could ask some priests some of these very same questions, and would refer you to something on here! lol

I have been wondering though, how does Roman Catholicism view the See of Antioch? It is a historical fact that Rome is not the only one who can claim Peter, so where does Antioch fall into this? I think that’s the basic idea behind the concept of the Pope, as Peter was said to be the leader of the Apostles so according to Catholicism he must have universal jurisdiction both in the East and in the West. Where Peter was, there we should turn so the logic would go! But Peter was also in Antioch, so maybe there’s something I’m not understanding?

 

[mikeinchester]

Good question.

Let’s put it this way.

As Genghis Khan conquered his way around the world, he set up many kings and princes in his territories, but it was the person that his position went to upon his death that was his successor. His powers and authority went to this person, not any of the many rulers he set up around the world during his reign.

Likewise, Peter’s successor was the person that assumed his position and authority upon his death.

 

[grandfather]

Dear all,

I really do enjoy reading through the various threads and the insights of everyone involved. We really do have a lot of knowledgeable individuals on these forums, for that we are truly blessed! I imagine you could ask some priests some of these very same questions, and would refer you to something on here! lol

I have been wondering though, how does Roman Catholicism view the See of Antioch? It is a historical fact that Rome is not the only one who can claim Peter, so where does Antioch fall into this? I think that’s the basic idea behind the concept of the Pope, as Peter was said to be the leader of the Apostles so according to Catholicism he must have universal jurisdiction both in the East and in the West. Where Peter was, there we should turn so the logic would go! But Peter was also in Antioch, so maybe there’s something I’m not understanding?

Peter spent most of his ministry in Rome. His bones were discovered directly underneath the altar in Saint Peter’s Basilica. The historical record of the popes is traceable, from his first successor, located in Rome. The capital of the Roman Empire moved to Constantinople. History shows there was a debate over whether to move Church governance there as well. The argument was that since Constantinople was the center of the empire, the authority of the Church should also be relocated or moved there and the bishop or patriarch of Constantinople should be the head of the entire Church. This is of course before the great schism and Orthodoxy and Catholcism were separated. Whether or not you think the see of Peter should have been moved or not, the debate itself shows that the episcopal see of Peter at Rome was at that time recognized by the entire Church. The authority was recognized for what it is, some people just wanted it relocated.

The notion of all bishops having the same authority, but there is a first among equals is a later development, conceived to argue against Peter’s authority as Christ’s appointed prime minister. The idea that there can be primacy and equality at the same time is a contradiction in terms. It is like being a married bachelor. Jesus made unique promises to Peter. A body has one head.

 

[mosher]

Dear all,

I really do enjoy reading through the various threads and the insights of everyone involved. We really do have a lot of knowledgeable individuals on these forums, for that we are truly blessed! I imagine you could ask some priests some of these very same questions, and would refer you to something on here! lol

I have been wondering though, how does Roman Catholicism view the See of Antioch? It is a historical fact that Rome is not the only one who can claim Peter, so where does Antioch fall into this? I think that’s the basic idea behind the concept of the Pope, as Peter was said to be the leader of the Apostles so according to Catholicism he must have universal jurisdiction both in the East and in the West. Where Peter was, there we should turn so the logic would go! But Peter was also in Antioch, so maybe there’s something I’m not understanding?

I’m sure that someone will be able to provide the specific reference for you. I don’t have it at my fingertips. It is my understanding that the primacy of the See of Rome is not simply because it was one of the Sees established by Peter. Rather, I believe that the fathers judged it to be eminent in dignity because it was that plus it was where he and St. Paul were martyred. In a sense, the See was consecrated by the blood of the Apostle to the Gentiles and the Apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus
Where Peter is, there is the Church, there is God.

St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch, but he ordained Ignatius as his replacement and went to Rome, where he and St. Paul ministered. Peter became the first Bishop of Rome. He was crucified upside down in Rome by order of Nero. Had he remained in Antioch and died there, that would have been the headquarters of the Church because Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia. St. Paul was beheaded in Rome. He and Peter are both buried there beneath Churches that bear their names.

I considered Orthodoxy before I became a Catholic. I found that there is no Orthodox Church – there are several separate autonomous ethnic and nationalistic Churches with no overarching principle that unites them. I also had a problem with their practice of granting two divorces and allowing three marriages, contrary to Scripture, and their abandonment of the Natural Law and the centuries-old prohibition against contraception. They, like the Protestants, caved to society’s pressure. The Catholic Church stands alone, a beacon of Truth.

God be with you on your journey,

Jim Dandy

 

[CMatt25]

The notion of all bishops having the same authority, but there is a first among equals is a later development, conceived to argue against Peter’s authority as Christ’s appointed prime minister. The idea that there can be primacy and equality at the same time is a contradiction in terms. It is like being a married bachelor. Jesus made unique promises to Peter. A body has one head.

As I read the Gospel it wasn’t necessarily all that much later of a development. In Matt 16 Peter is given the keys. Then just 2 chapters later the Apostles are arguing over the greatest. After the one head Jesus settles that, then in the same chapter all of the Apostles are given the power to bind and loosen which is exactly the function of keys. Keys bind and loosen a lock.

But it will be interesting to get the Orthodox perspective about the OP’s question.

May God bless each of us along our walks of faith. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

The historical record of the popes is traceable, from his first successor, located in Rome.

Of course it is. The Catholic Church is doing the tracing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course it is. The Catholic Church is doing the tracing.

So you believe that the Catholic Church is suppressing or alterating the true ‘facts’, Matt?

What else are we supposed to understand from your remark?

 

[Stephen168]

I have been wondering though, how does** Roman Catholicism view** the See of Antioch?

But it will be interesting to get the **Orthodox perspective **about the OP’s question.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus I considered Orthodoxy before I became a Catholic. I found that there is no Orthodox Church – there are several separate autonomous ethnic and nationalistic Churches with no overarching principle that unites them.

No overarching principle that unites them? Ridiculous. They all practice the same faith.

 

[grandfather]

Of course it is. The Catholic Church is doing the tracing.

That is nonsence. I have a book on my bookshelf on papal lineage written by a Protestant. Historical evidence is clear. Your comment is flippant and silly.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Truth is; all those diverse communities existing from antiquity such as the Jews record excommunication and persecution of the Catholic church and her Popes and bishops, as well as pagan Roman authorities made the Catholic faith illegal. Both secular and Jewish histories can trace the Catholic popes and bishops as well.

Peter anointed the first bishop at Antioch, and the apostolic successors from Antioch became heretics and fell into heresy along with all the other surrounding cities which was prophesied by the apostle John from his revelation (apocalyptic book) that all the great cities around Antioch ultimately lost their “light”, see Revelations chapter 2-3.

The bishops from Antioch broke away from the valid apostolic succession ultimately when they fell into error, when the gates of hell prevailed in the (Asian) Antioch bishops, but the gates of hell never prevailed against Peter and his successors from Rome, the first 30+ popes since Peter all preferred death (were martyred) before denying the apostolic faith handed to them.

Peace be with you

Of course it is. The Catholic Church is doing the tracing.

 

[AveChriste11]

The bishops from Antioch broke away from the valid apostolic succession ultimately when they fell into error, when the gates of hell prevailed in the (Asian) Antioch bishops, but the gates of hell never prevailed against Peter and his successors from Rome, the first 30+ popes since Peter all preferred death (were martyred) before denying the apostolic faith handed to them.

Peace be with you

Gabriel, what about some Popes who knowingly taught heretical things and were rebuked for it? Pope Honorius comes to my mind…

 

[Nicea325]

Of course it is. The Catholic Church is doing the tracing.

And would you apply the same words about the U.S. Presidents,since it is the U.S. doing the tracing? Pretty weak!

 

[AveChriste11]

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia, Ibi Deus
Where Peter is, there is the Church, there is God.

St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch, but he ordained Ignatius as his replacement and went to Rome, where he and St. Paul ministered. Peter became the first Bishop of Rome. He was crucified upside down in Rome by order of Nero. Had he remained in Antioch and died there, that would have been the headquarters of the Church because Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia. St. Paul was beheaded in Rome. He and Peter are both buried there beneath Churches that bear their names.

I considered Orthodoxy before I became a Catholic. I found that there is no Orthodox Church – there are several separate autonomous ethnic and nationalistic Churches with no overarching principle that unites them. I also had a problem with their practice of granting two divorces and allowing three marriages, contrary to Scripture, and their abandonment of the Natural Law and the centuries-old prohibition against contraception. They, like the Protestants, caved to society’s pressure. The Catholic Church stands alone, a beacon of Truth.

God be with you on your journey,

Jim Dandy

Jim, the way I understand it is that the Orthodox are all united under the Nicene Creed without the filioque clause, and the seven ecumenical councils. They also see the church as centered around the Eucharist, in a local sort of way – that’s why you have Greeks, Russians, Antiochian, Ukrainian, Romanian, etc…

Even the Oriental Orthodox are united under the same faith, yet use different terminology. The confusion was due to language barriers for a long time. So another question is, what about Pope Gregory the Great’s statement that some apologists use to deny his universal authority? I can’t seem to find the quote, but I know some of you are familiar with what I’m talking about. It was in one of his many letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I was reading Metropolitan Hilarion’s thoughts on the talks that are still ongoing with Rome at journeytoorthodoxy.com/ . It seems that Rome is much more optimistic about all of it than Moscow is. He was saying that they were having talks about the early Church during the first century, and already they are noticing differences in each of their understanding of what happened. So, it seems to be a very slow process as far as any reunion goes.

 

[CMatt25]

So you believe that the Catholic Church is suppressing or alterating the true ‘facts’, Matt?

What else are we supposed to understand from your remark?

I didn’t say that. What I meant was of course the lineage is intact because it is the Church which interprets Herself to be the one and only true one and declares who the Popes are That’s all anyone was supposed to understand me to mean. Not that I was being flippant as one poster judged me to be nor anything else. But it appears some misunderstood and I understand how sometimes all of us can get defensive now and then on a forum like this when we can not actually hear the other person’s voice. So peace be with you Tantum and to all of us who walk in faith and not by sight. God bless!

 

[mosher]

Ah yes, the source of my explanation is Irenaeus who indicates both Sts. Peter and Paul as the founders of the See of Rome:
Against Heresies III:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sure; Pope Honorius is a complicated matter that deserves much detailed information who was condemned a heretic 40 years after his death, never while he lived. Pope Honorius was a Greek speaking Pope who had personal friendships and many ties to the Eastern branch of Catholicism. This Pope championed the heresies and heretics trying to penetrate the Western Catholic Church, but was very relaxed in dealing with the Eastern heresies, that he was in communication via letters with such members from the Eastern Catholic church holding to such heresies.

40 years after his death, the Eastern Heretics who possessed Pope Honorius “letters” addressing leanings towards his Eastern friends holding heretical views, via personal Letters, used the Popes letters to qualify their heretical views, to which the Popes and councils not only condemned the heretics, but condemned their 40 year old dead conscriptor.

Never did Pope Honorius teach such heresy’s to be binding on all believers, such as speaking ex-cathedra (from the chair of Peter). There remains a difference between a Pope, bishop, priest to have personal opinions and commentaries on certain matters, and is another thing to infallible proclaim a teaching on faith and morals binding on all believers.

Pope Honorius while he lived never “taught” a heretical doctrine to be binding on all believers. There is much to reveal among the councils and popes who condemned Honorius 40 years after his death.

Let’s not forget that Jesus rebuked Peter, yet gave him the keys to the kingdom of God. Peter, the popes, bishops are not immune to rebuke and repentance. The bishops who did not repent are the ones who were labeled heretics, apostates and or excommunicated while they lived. Pope Honorius is in a “dead” category all by himself.

Peace be with you

AveChriste11;7605978]Gabriel, what about some Popes who knowingly taught heretical things and were rebuked for it? Pope Honorius comes to my mind…

 

[grandfather]

I didn’t say that. What I meant was of course the lineage is intact because it is the Church which interprets Herself to be the one and only true one and declares who the Popes are That’s all anyone was supposed to understand me to mean. Not that I was being flippant as one poster judged me to be nor anything else. But it appears some misunderstood and I understand how sometimes all of us can get defensive now and then on a forum like this when we can not actually hear the other person’s voice. So peace be with you Tantum and to all of us who walk in faith and not by sight. God bless!

Again this is nonsesne.

The Church’s interpretation of herself, whatever that means, has nothing to do with the history of papal lineage. George Washington was the first president of the United States. We know who all the presidents were. It does not matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Englishman, Communist. The history is what it is. Papal lineage has nothing to do with theology or religion. Papal lineage, a succession of men who held the office from Peter to today is recognized by any honest historian, Catholic or otherwise. The Orthodox do not dispute it. They dispute the authority of the successor of Peter, not the fact that he is the successor. Protestant historians also don’t dispute it. They disagree with theology. You dispute it, now on the claim that it is some Catholic Church’s interpretation of itself.

All legitmately consecrated bishops, Catholic or Orthodox are linked to the apostles. It is an authority that is handed down, passed on, but not by blood, unlike the rule of kings. None of this has anything to do with how any group “interprets itself”. It is simply a matter of history.

Logic says the history is either true or false, made up and manipilated or accurate. If it were made up then you would expect that the historical figures would also be cast in a favorable light by the manipulators of history to make its party look good. History does indeed show many virtuous and admirable popes, but it also shows quite a few who were not so holy, some scoundrels and personally corrupt. It is the same honesty we see in the chronicles given in the Gospels and Acts. The apostles do not color themselves as heroes, but men prone to envy and pride. Peter is a bumbler. They argue. Nothing has changed, but the history is accurate. In antiquity taking on the mantle of Peter was a certain death sentence. Think about what that meant. Rather than acknowedge the courage of these men, even if you might disagree with their theology, by saying their position was not real, but just a Church interpretation of itself sounds pretty disparaging.

If the history were made up you would also expect some challenge to it with some evidence of historical fact presented by some historian and that evidence could be examined. A claim that papal lineage does not exist, because it is the Church’s interpretation of itself is just as meaningless as saying the list of American presidents in history is an American interpretation of its own history. You really don’t want to go there or try and reword what you really meant to make it sound more reasonable. You will lose intellectual credibility.

 

[CMatt25]

Again this is nonsesne.

The Church’s interpretation of herself, whatever that means, has nothing to do with the history of papal lineage. George Washington was the first president of the United States. We know who all the presidents were. It does not matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Englishman, Communist. The history is what it is. Papal lineage has nothing to do with theology or religion. Papal lineage, a succession of men who held the office from Peter to today is recognized by any honest historian, Catholic or otherwise. The Orthodox do not dispute it. They dispute the authority of the successor of Peter, not the fact that he is the successor. Protestant historians also don’t dispute it. They disagree with theology. You dispute it, now on the claim that it is some Catholic Church’s interpretation of itself.

All legitmately consecrated bishops, Catholic or Orthodox are linked to the apostles. It is an authority that is handed down, passed on, but not by blood, unlike the rule of kings. None of this has anything to do with how any group “interprets itself”. It is simply a matter of history.

Logic says the history is either true or false, made up and manipilated or accurate. If it were made up then you would expect that the historical figures would also be cast in a favorable light by the manipulators of history to make its party look good. History does indeed show many virtuous and admirable popes, but it also shows quite a few who were not so holy, some scoundrels and personally corrupt. It is the same honesty we see in the chronicles given in the Gospels and Acts. The apostles do not color themselves as heroes, but men prone to envy and pride. Peter is a bumbler. They argue. Nothing has changed, but the history is accurate. In antiquity taking on the mantle of Peter was a certain death sentence. Think about what that meant. Rather than acknowedge the courage of these men, even if you might disagree with their theology, by saying their position was not real, but just a Church interpretation of itself sounds pretty disparaging.

If the history were made up you would also expect some challenge to it with some evidence of historical fact presented by some historian and that evidence could be examined. A claim that papal lineage does not exist, because it is the Church’s interpretation of itself is just as meaningless as saying the list of American presidents in history is an American interpretation of its own history. You really don’t want to go there or try and reword what you really meant to make it sound more reasonable. You will lose intellectual credibility.

If you don’t think I have enough intellect for you, then you are free to ignore me. Here’s what it means. The Catholic Church interprets Scripture. Interprets it is She representing the Church Christ founded in Matt16. No one is saying the named Popes were not the named Popes. Only if the Catholic Church had/has Her interpretations correct. Case in point. For instance, the Catholic Church claims Episcopalians are outside Apostolic succession. The Episcopalians differ with that view. Why? Because it is all a matter of faith and belief as to Christ’s Church and where He leads it. And truly it is nothing else but faith and belief despite your attempts or need to make it something else. May God bless you on your walk of faith.