See of Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montalban
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montalban

Guest
Got a question for everyone. Rome is known as a See of Peter.

Are there any churches known as a See of Paul?
 
I have never heard of a See of Paul. I don’t think he had one. His job was more of a traveling, church-planting bishop without a permanent see than a bishop with a permanent location.
 
Ephesus was under John’s jurisdiction, although Paul did spend a lot of time with him there.

I’m not sure that Paul would have been considered the bishop/overseer of any particular region as he regarded his mission as more of a chuch-planting role. He ordained bishops, of course, putting them in authority over churches that he had established; Titus and Timothy, just to name the most obvious ones.

A few of the Apostles are associated with specific places (James/Jerusalem, Andrew/Byzantium, Mark (not an Apostle, obviously)/Alexandria, but most of them were pretty nomadic.

Sally
 
Traditionally in the Eastern Church; Antioch is the See of Saints Peter and Paul.
Antioch was the base for Paul’s missionary journeys into Asia Minor and was the
First Hub of Christianity in the world. It is where Peter stayed before going to Rome.
Antioch oldest of of the five ancient Christian Sees. In order of primacy they are:
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. Before the Schism, Each had
a Patriarch and were mostly self ruled.
 
DanWelshiMac said:
Traditionally in the Eastern Church; Antioch is the See of Saints Peter and Paul.
Antioch was the base for Paul’s missionary journeys into Asia Minor and was the
First Hub of Christianity in the world. It is where Peter stayed before going to Rome.
Antioch oldest of of the five ancient Christian Sees. In order of primacy they are:
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. Before the Schism, Each had
a Patriarch and were mostly self ruled.
Click to expand...
Just as a side note… The Early Roman Popes did not ratify the canon in the Second Council that revised the order of precedence by placing Constantinople second to Rome. The Alexandrian Fathers (such as St Cyril of Alexandria) appear to reject it as well. Pope St Leo of Rome writes about this rejection of the revision.
In the original order of primacy was made up of the three Petrine Sees:
Rome (founded by St Peter)
Alexandria (founded by St Peter’s disciple, St Mark)
Antioch (founded by St Peter)

And the First Ecumenical Council gave special honour to:
Jerusalem (founded by St James)

“Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation.”
 
Zekariya said:
The Early Roman and Alexandrian Fathers did not ratify the canon in the Second Council that revised the order of precedence by placing Constantinople second to Rome. Pope St Leo of Rome writes about this rejection of the revision.
In the original order of primacy was made up of the three Petrine Sees:
Rome (founded by St Peter)
Alexandria (founded by St Peter’s disciple, St Mark)
Antioch (founded by St Peter)

And the First Ecumenical Council gave special honour to:
Jerusalem (founded by St James)
“Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation.”
Click to expand...
I love the Eastern Christians! No one knows the facts of History like you guys!
Thank for the Clarification.
Dan
 
Montalban said:
Got a question for everyone. Rome is known as a See of Peter.

Are there any churches known as a See of Paul?
Click to expand...
Rome is the holy see period. According to st Ireneus in the second century Peter and Paul organized the church on Rome and handed it over to Linus, the first Pope. And that all churches are to be in agreement with that church because of it’s preiminant authority. The papacy has the authority, and is the see of, both Peter and Paul
 
I don’t know of any See or Patriarchate that claims the source of its apostolic authority solely from St. Paul. The only two possible candidates would be Antioch and Rome. Ignatius of Antioch may have been consecrated by St. Peter or St. Paul, according to tradition. There is evidence that both Peter and Paul were the founders of the Church of Rome, and later appointed Linus as bishop. Earlier Popes would sometimes invoke the jurisdiction of both St. Peter and St. Paul, but that is not common in the modern papacy.
 
Zekariya said:
Just as a side note… The Early Roman Popes did not ratify the canon in the Second Council that revised the order of precedence by placing Constantinople second to Rome. The Alexandrian Fathers (such as St Cyril of Alexandria) appear to reject it as well. Pope St Leo of Rome writes about this rejection of the revision.
In the original order of primacy was made up of the three Petrine Sees:
Rome (founded by St Peter)
Alexandria (founded by St Peter’s disciple, St Mark)
Antioch (founded by St Peter)

And the First Ecumenical Council gave special honour to:
Jerusalem (founded by St James)

“Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation.”
Click to expand...
Just wanted to ask,didnt Rome accept Constantinople to be ranked 2nd after rome centuries later?

Was that canon (28th I think) accepted in the end??

if it was accepted ,what about what St Leo said…?
 
Paul_theApostle said:
Just wanted to ask,didnt Rome accept Constantinople to be ranked 2nd after rome centuries later?

Was that canon (28th I think) accepted in the end??

if it was accepted ,what about what St Leo said…?
Click to expand...
The order of precedence of the Sees is not a matter of faith or morals. It is permissible to adjust them.

Rome eventually did place Constantinople as second in rank during the 8th Ecumenical Council (AD 869 - 870):

“We believe that the saying of the Lord that Christ addressed to his holy apostles and disciples, Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever despises you despises me, was also addressed to all who were likewise made supreme pontiffs and chief pastors in succession to them in the catholic church. Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch or seek to move them from their high positions, but rather they should esteem them as worthy of all honour and reverence. This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.”
 
Steveabrous said:
Rome is the holy see period.
Click to expand...
So?
Steveabrous said:
According to st Ireneus in the second century Peter and Paul organized the church on Rome and handed it over to Linus, the first Pope. And that all churches are to be in agreement with that church because of it’s preiminant authority. The papacy has the authority, and is the see of, both Peter and Paul
Click to expand...
I agree
 
Zekariya said:
The order of precedence of the Sees is not a matter of faith or morals. It is permissible to adjust them.

Rome eventually did place Constantinople as second in rank during the 8th Ecumenical Council (AD 869 - 870):

“We believe that the saying of the Lord that Christ addressed to his holy apostles and disciples, Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever despises you despises me, was also addressed to all who were likewise made supreme pontiffs and chief pastors in succession to them in the catholic church. Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch or seek to move them from their high positions, but rather they should esteem them as worthy of all honour and reverence. This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.”
Click to expand...
So at first Rome and St Leo refused to accept the canon and then centuries later it was accepted? why the change and didn’t what St Leo said mean anything anymore?
 
Paul_theApostle said:
So at first Rome and St Leo refused to accept the canon and then centuries later it was accepted? why the change and didn’t what St Leo said mean anything anymore?
Click to expand...
My understanding was that the Catholic Church first accepted the canon in the 1200’s - when there was a Latin patriarch in Constantinople.

They kept this idea afloat in the 1400s in an attempt to lure the Orthodox church (by then returned to Constantinople) to Rome.
 
Montalban said:
My understanding was that the Catholic Church first accepted the canon in the 1200’s - when there was a Latin patriarch in Constantinople.

They kept this idea afloat in the 1400s in an attempt to lure the Orthodox church (by then returned to Constantinople) to Rome.
Click to expand...
So it seems to be that earlier… Maybe this earlier changing of mind prevented any attempts to take this back after abolishing Latin patriarchates in the East (one left in Jerusalem but situation there is different). I am sure it was not revoked because in CCEO there is still order of eastern precedence starting with Constantinople.

I wanted to ask how it was “invented” that Andrew had been the first bishop of Constantinople. Because my intention was: well, emperor is in Constantinople, so let’s have a patriarch there, it would be goog if as high ranking as possible, and then we will somehow make this see Apostolic. Was the (sufragan) bishop of Constantinople always Andrew’s successor or just Andrew “came” just after establishing of patriarchate? And are there any other apostolic or “nearly apostolic” sees different from patriarchal ones?
 
From New Advent:

When the Apostles went forth to preach to the Nations, Andrew seems to have taken an important part, but unfortunately we have no certainty as to the extent or place of his labours. Eusebius (Church History III.1), relying, apparently, upon Origen, assigns Scythia as his mission field: Andras de [eilechen] ten Skythian; while St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 33) mentions Epirus; St. Jerome (Ep. ad Marcell.) Achaia; and Theodoret (on Ps. cxvi) Hellas. Probably these various accounts are correct, for Nicephorus (H.E. II:39), relying upon early writers, states that Andrew preached in Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia, then in the land of the anthropophagi and the Scythian deserts, afterwards in Byzantium itself, where he appointed St. Stachys as its first bishop, and finally in Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, and Achaia.

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm
 
Brethren,

The see of St. Paul is the see of Rome, along with St. Peter; these two Apostles founded the see of Rome as the orthodox center of catholicity or universality. St. Peter, the head of the body of the Apostles, was commissioned to the Jews, and St. Paul, the great missionary and builder of the churches, was commissioned to the Gentiles.

In the ancient mindset of the Jews, there were only two kinds of people in the world; either you were a Jew or a Gentile. So, to have two main Apostles commissioned to both the Jews and Gentiles for the spreading of Christianity, and having their martyred blood shed in Rome, sealed up this Holy See of Rome as the center of the Christian Faith.

From that point on, all the people of the world came up to Rome to venerate the two great princes of the Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul, buried in Rome and asleep in the Lord, because St. Peter is the new chief of the Jews, and St. Paul is the new chief of the Gentiles.

The living successor or heir of Sts. Peter and Paul is the Bishop of Rome, who draws his universal guidance and authority from these two universal teachers of the Faith, embodying both the commission to the Jews and the commission to the Gentiles. This is a major reason why the Bishop of Rome has Primacy, and why full communion with the Bishop of Rome is so important.

I came across this page… which has some good information:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html

God bless,

Rony
 
I hope I don’t offend anyone but while I was reading this thread it donned on me. I don’t see Austin, Texas on that list. Hmmmm…curious. Would any city with a presiding Bishop be in essence a See? If so then even though I reside in Austin,Texas where a Bishop resides since I’m a Maronite Catholic and my Bishop is in Los Angeles. Correct?
 
gmcbroom said:
I hope I don’t offend anyone but while I was reading this thread it donned on me. I don’t see Austin, Texas on that list. Hmmmm…curious. Would any city with a presiding Bishop be in essence a See? If so then even though I reside in Austin,Texas where a Bishop resides since I’m a Maronite Catholic and my Bishop is in Los Angeles. Correct?
Click to expand...
A See is the seat of a bishop: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_see The See (cathedra/chair) of Birmingham (AL) is filled by Bishop Robert Baker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top