Successor of Apostle Peter: Rome or Antioch?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosemary2009
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rosemary2009

Guest
I have a doubt: whether the Roman Pope is the successor of Apostle Peter or is it Patriarch of Antioch?

This is based on the claim that
Roman catholic church says that Pope is the 265th successor of Apostle Peter and claims universal supremacy.
In the same way, the Syriac Orthodox church says that its Patriarch of antioch is the 122nd successor of Apostle Peter and it also claims universal supremacy.
Which is right?

I also have quotes from 2 eminent catholic cardinals.
Code:
The great American Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons said, "Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the authority of Rome?" 
The Major Arch bishop of Syro Malabar Catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, "What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Roem is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior?"
 
There were three Petrine Sees in the early Church - Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Antioch claims apostolic succession from St. Peter, but only Rome can claim to have the actual successor of St. Peter. Apostolic succession is a theological principle that establishes from whence a particular Church’s apostolic power comes. But apostolic succession does not establish who the actual successor is. So just because a Church claims apostolic succession from a certain Apostle, that does not mean that the bishop of that See is the actual successor of that Apostle. Another example is St. Andrew. Both Constantinople and Moscow claim to have apostolic succession from St. Andrew, but it is only the bishop of Constantinople who can claim to be the actual successor of St. Andrew.

So St. Peter was indeed at Antioch, and he appointed a bishop there to lead the Church in Antioch. So he established apostolic succession in that Church, but he did not establish his successor in that Church. Besides, one cannot have a successor if one is still alive. One can only do so at the point of death, and we know by Tradition that this was Linus in Rome.

The most obvious proof that the bishops of Antioch were not the actual successors of St. Peter is the order of the Churches established by the Ecumenical Councils. Rome was first, Alexandria was second, and Antioch was third. If the bishop of Antioch had ever made a claim to be the actual succesor of Peter, then Antioch would have been second in the order of Churches. The fact that it never was indicates either that Antioch never made that claim, or if they did, the early Church did not believe it.

I believe it was St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Antioch, who wrote, “We had Peter, but we gave him up to Rome.”

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I have a doubt: whether the Roman Pope is the successor of Apostle Peter or is it Patriarch of Antioch?

This is based on the claim that
Roman catholic church says that Pope is the 265th successor of Apostle Peter and claims universal supremacy.
In the same way, the Syriac Orthodox church says that its Patriarch of antioch is the 122nd successor of Apostle Peter and it also claims universal supremacy.
Which is right?

I also have quotes from 2 eminent catholic cardinals.
Code:
The great American Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons said, "Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the authority of Rome?" 
The Major Arch bishop of Syro Malabar Catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, "What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Roem is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior?"
If both the Eminences quoted have a problem with Rome’s primacy, then why did they accept the red cap? Clearly both, on some level, accept that Rome is first.
 
But there should be something true in this, since 6 bishops claim as patriarchs of Antioch, now it is 5. In that 3 are protected by Rome.
 
Code:
The Major Arch bishop of Syro Malabar Catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, "What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Roem is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior."
What is the context of this quote? It seems like a rhetorical question. What is the answer to these questions?

The strange thing is that James Cardinal Gibbons was a member of the Majority Party at Vatican 1. He consistently voted in all things with the Majority Party. His quote is obviously taken out of context. Like Mar Vithayathil, his statement “What is the authority of Rome?” was obviously a purely rhetorical question.

The Wikipedia article on Cardinal Gibbons falsely assigns to that snippet of a quote the intention of questioning papal authority. That is absolutely the furthest thing from the truth.

Blessings
 
What is the context of this quote? It seems like a rhetorical question. What is the answer to these questions?

The strange thing is that James Cardinal Gibbons was a member of the Majority Party at Vatican 1. He consistently voted in all things with the Majority Party. His quote is obviously taken out of context. Like Mar Vithayathil, his statement “What is the authority of Rome?” was obviously a purely rhetorical question.

The Wikipedia article on Cardinal Gibbons falsely assigns to that snippet of a quote the intention of questioning papal authority. That is absolutely the furthest thing from the truth.

Blessings
Evidence No: 1
Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch has written several letters to various churches. One letter is to church of Rome. In that letter, where is the significance of Rome expressed? Ignatius has written a letter to Rome. Does it show the authority of Antioch over Rome?

Evidence No 2
In the St. Paul’s letter to Romans in the Gospel, where is the importance of Roman church expressed?

Evidence No 3
In the 5th century, Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch was elected the head of all the bishops in the christendom. In the Robber Council of Ephesus, he was deposed. Then Maximus was elected as the Patriarch. He gave his support letter to Leo, Roman Pope.
In that period, rise of Constantinople slowly deterioriated the authority of Antioch. May be to save Antioch and to save from Constantinople, Pope Leo declared himself as superior in Chalcedon. It continued then on till now.

Evidence No 4
Why the Roman church created the false document ‘Donation of Constantine’ in 8th century?
 
Dear brother matthewjoseph,
Evidence No: 1
Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch has written several letters to various churches. One letter is to church of Rome. In that letter, where is the significance of Rome expressed? Ignatius has written a letter to Rome. Does it show the authority of Antioch over Rome?
The letters don’t mean a thing. He was simply writing letters to cities where he stopped on his martyr’s journey to Rome.
Evidence No 2
In the St. Paul’s letter to Romans in the Gospel, where is the importance of Roman church expressed?
We shouldn’t expect it to be so evident when the Apostles were still alive. The seed of the Church is sown with the blood of the martyrs. The greatness of Rome came after their martyrdom.
Evidence No 3
In the 5th century, Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch was elected the head of all the bishops in the christendom. In the Robber Council of Ephesus, he was deposed. Then Maximus was elected as the Patriarch. He gave his support letter to Leo, Roman Pope.
In that period, rise of Constantinople slowly deterioriated the authority of Antioch. May be to save Antioch and to save from Constantinople, Pope Leo declared himself as superior in Chalcedon. It continued then on till now.
This is refuted by the order of the Churches established by the First Ecumenical Council.
Evidence No 4
Why the Roman church created the false document ‘Donation of Constantine’ in 8th century?
Not a single Pope has ever used the Donation as a means to impose her authority on the East or Orient. It is mentioned once in any papal correspondence with the East - in Pope Leo IX’s letter to the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, where he mentioned it is but a mere ornament to the papal authority, and is not the basis for its authority. It’s relevance was completely restricted to the West.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother matthewjoseph,

The letters don’t mean a thing. He was simply writing letters to cities where he stopped on his martyr’s journey to Rome.

We shouldn’t expect it to be so evident when the Apostles were still alive. The seed of the Church is sown with the blood of the martyrs. The greatness of Rome came after their martyrdom.

This is refuted by the order of the Churches established by the First Ecumenical Council.

Not a single Pope has ever used the Donation as a means to impose her authority on the East or Orient. It is mentioned once in any papal correspondence with the East - in Pope Leo IX’s letter to the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, where he mentioned it is but a mere ornament to the papal authority, and is not the basis for its authority. It’s relevance was completely restricted to the West.

Blessings,
Marduk
If this is the truth, then why did Pope John Paul II made such a special visit to Damascus in 2001 and visited Syriac Patriarch. You should see that there are already 3 Patriarchs of Antioch under Rome. Another one Eastern orthodox Greek Patriarch was with Rome up to 12th century. Why should Pope met the Syriac Patriarch even though it broke away in 5th century itself.
 
Q: Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch has written several letters to various churches. One letter is to church of Rome. In that letter, where is the significance of Rome expressed? Ignatius has written a letter to Rome. Does it show the authority of Antioch over Rome?

A: The significance of Rome is expressed here: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

I will not repeat the opening remarks of St. Ignatius in his letters to the other churches, but to none of them does he heap praises as he does the Romans. Amidst all the other worthy notes he attributes to the Romans he mentions that they *preside *over love. A casual reading of this letter without the context we have presented might permit one to pass over this expression unnoticed. But to the Christian steeped in an oral tradition that recognizes the significance of this church at Rome, it stands out in contrast to all of the other churches to whom Ignatius wrote. This is not idle prattle, or the flattery of a sycophant. Rather it is a significant concession by the bishop of Antioch, where St. Peter also labored, admitting that in some respect the Roman church stands guard as a president, to preserve the Gospel of Christ which results in love. In addition to this, he attributes to them the continued faith which has spread round the world in St. Paul’s day as to the faithful retention of apostolic doctrine, in admiring that they were “purified from every strange tint.”

If one should wish to challenge the preface of St. Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, it would be understandable. It is not impossible that this is a later addition. But what seems most notable of all is, if the Church at Antioch was the residence of the Keys of St. Peter, how St. Ignatius makes no reference to them.

My position is that the doctrine of the papacy developed over the centuries. I don’t think it would have been clearly understood at the time we are speaking of. But there are many hints that point in the direction of the later developments as being accurate. From the beginnings, (see below) there is clearly more importance attached to the Roman church than its location at the head of the Empire.

Q: In the St. Paul’s letter to Romans in the Gospel, where is the importance of Roman church expressed?

A: Here: Romans 1:7, 8: "To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world."

Already, before St. Paul had even visited the city, the Roman church was reknowned throughout the Christian world for its faith in a special way which makes the Apostle give thanks. The epistle to the Romans, unlike that to the other churches, begins with this unique greeting, a theological treatise, a practical application of the theology, and a salutation. Nowhere is there a hint of disapprobation from the Apostle who is never shy of mentioning faults to be found in the churches to whom he addresses his letters. I would note that the passage says not “your faith is written about in the whole world.” No, this is an oral, spoken tradition that was becoming common among all Christians even before St. Paul’s first visit to Rome and it is recorded in inspired Scripture that we might know that it is no historical redaction but a genuine belief in the Christian world of a certain prominence for the church built in the capital of the Empire.

2) Romans 16:17-19: "All the churches of Christ salute you. Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you."

After assuring the Romans that every Christian church salutes the Roman church, he explains why. “For your obedience is published in every place.” Again, this would not necessarily be in written form. I would suggest it is again, an oral tradition that took root in “all the churches of Christ”, “in the whole world”. It is a unique commendation from St. Paul indicating that every church in the world is already looking Romeward at a time when there isn’t a great deal of written communication. St. Paul isn’t in the habit of “buttering up” his readers by telling them things that aren’t true. It is not difficult therefore to suggest that if there are no extant documents pointing to the pre-eminence of Rome now, there was during the times of St. Irenaeus a continuance of significant traditions. These are mentioned by St. Paul in Scripture as being spread abroad, most likely by word of mouth, regarding a distinctive obedience and faith in the Roman church.*
 
I have read your topic. What’s useful innformation for my job.
I do agree with you. Those are the most effective way
have a blessed day
 
If this is the truth, then why did Pope John Paul II made such a special visit to Damascus in 2001 and visited Syriac Patriarch.
What can you prove by that? The Syriac Patriarchs have visited the Vatican in 1971 and 1984. Patriarchs of different Churches visit each other all the time, even from different communions.
You should see that there are already 3 Patriarchs of Antioch under Rome.
There are three Patriarchs of three different Traditions in the same geographical area. What exactly does that prove?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
The strange thing is that James Cardinal Gibbons was a member of the Majority Party at Vatican 1. He consistently voted in all things with the Majority Party.
The Wikipedia article on Cardinal Gibbons falsely assigns to that snippet of a quote the intention of questioning papal authority. That is absolutely the furthest thing from the truth.

Blessings
Dear mardukm
You are talking of a young bishop Gibbons only 35 years old during vatican I. You should see that Cardinal Gibbons lived up to 94 years of age. Why didn’t you check his life in the later stages.
 
Dear mardukm
You are talking of a young bishop Gibbons only 35 years old during vatican I. You should see that Cardinal Gibbons lived up to 94 years of age. Why didn’t you check his life in the later stages.
I know he lived to that age, but don’t you personally want a much greater context than the mere snippet of the line “What is the authority of Rome?” in order to conclude that he was “challenging” the authority of the Pope, especially given his views at the Vatican Council? We need to be intellectually honest, after all, right?

Blessings
 
I know he lived to that age, but don’t you personally want a much greater context than the mere snippet of the line “What is the authority of Rome?” in order to conclude that he was “challenging” the authority of the Pope, especially given his views at the Vatican Council? We need to be intellectually honest, after all, right?

Blessings
Then what will you say about the statement of Major Arch bishop. His first 3 statements itself show that Rome has no authority at all.

Also what will you say about first 3 centuries. It is undoubtful that bishop of antioch rules almost all the bishops in the world.
 
Dear brother matthewjoseph,
The letters don’t mean a thing. Ignatius of Antioch was simply writing letters to cities where he stopped on his martyr’s journey to Rome.
Dear mardukm
I cannot agree with this.
 
The Wikipedia article on Cardinal Gibbons falsely assigns to that snippet of a quote the intention of questioning papal authority. That is absolutely the furthest thing from the truth.

Blessings
why didn’t you notice in the same article that, ‘he had rome against him often, but at the end he always suceeded’.
 
Q: Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch has written several letters to various churches. One letter is to church of Rome. In that letter, where is the significance of Rome expressed? Ignatius has written a letter to Rome. Does it show the authority of Antioch over Rome?

A: The significance of Rome is expressed here: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.*

I will not repeat the opening remarks of St. Ignatius in his letters to the other churches, but to none of them does he heap praises as he does the Romans. Amidst all the other worthy notes he attributes to the Romans he mentions that they *preside *over love. A casual reading of this letter without the context we have presented might permit one to pass over this expression unnoticed. But to the Christian steeped in an oral tradition that recognizes the significance of this church at Rome, it stands out in contrast to all of the other churches to whom Ignatius wrote. This is not idle prattle, or the flattery of a sycophant. Rather it is a significant concession by the bishop of Antioch, where St. Peter also labored, admitting that in some respect the Roman church stands guard as a president, to preserve the Gospel of Christ which results in love. In addition to this, he attributes to them the continued faith which has spread round the world in St. Paul’s day as to the faithful retention of apostolic doctrine, in admiring that they were “purified from every strange tint.”

If one should wish to challenge the preface of St. Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, it would be understandable. It is not impossible that this is a later addition. But what seems most notable of all is, if the Church at Antioch was the residence of the Keys of St. Peter, how St. Ignatius makes no reference to them.

My position is that the doctrine of the papacy developed over the centuries. I don’t think it would have been clearly understood at the time we are speaking of. But there are many hints that point in the direction of the later developments as being accurate. From the beginnings, (see below) there is clearly more importance attached to the Roman church than its location at the head of the Empire.

.

I cannot agree with this point.
 
2) Romans 16:17-19: "All the churches of Christ salute you. Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you."
I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate, but this very passage actually speaks against Papal authority.
Why would Paul tell the Church in Rome what to do?
And why wouldn’t he address Peter at all?
In other letters, he addresses specific people. Surely, in a letter to Rome, he would address Peter!

( I do believe in the pope, in case you’re wondering 😃 )
 
I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate, but this very passage actually speaks against Papal authority.
Why would Paul tell the Church in Rome what to do?
And why wouldn’t he address Peter at all?
In other letters, he addresses specific people. Surely, in a letter to Rome, he would address Peter!

( I do believe in the pope, in case you’re wondering 😃 )
Hey…I WAS wondering.

Anyway, I did not cite the passage as demonstrating papal authority. I cited the passage because the thread was originally started by someone who was asking where we find eveidence for the primacy of Rome. I understood them to not be questioning the authority of Peter, but rather of the Roman church.

Regarding papal authority, I agree with what you say in some respects. I do not believe that the passage I cited supports papal authority. I would go so far as to suggest that it tends to prove my point about the legitimate development of the doctrine of the papacy. It seems to me that if the Roman Christians at the time of St. Paul’s writings had known that their church was the papal see, St. Paul or someone else would have mentioned it in the letter to the Romans or the other Scriptures.

As I said in my earlier post, I take the position that the papal doctrine developed organically from Apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. I do not believe that the significance of Peter’s role among the Apostles was understood in the Apostolic Age as we now understand it. I believe Pope Benedict XVI is the 264th Pope as Bishop of Rome and successor of St. Peter. But I refuse to try to prove that the Apostles, Sts. Ignatius, Clement of Rome, or Irenaeus fully grasped the doctrine of the papacy.

Many of the misunderstandings that Catholics have with Protestants and others are based on a mistaken assumption that doctrines were fully fleshed out and comprehended at the time of the writings of Scripture, by the Apostles. Protestants are dubious about why the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Blessed Assumption seem to not be spoken of the way we do now in the first centuries. I don’t think the best Catholic response can provide proof that these teachings were explicitly present in the first two centuries of the Church.

I hold to the defined position of the First Vatican Council which in my opinion acknowledges the necessity of corporate growth in understanding of the Apostolic deposit. “Therefore…let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, **grow and progress strongly through the ages and the centuries; **but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and understanding.” (Session Three, Chapter 4, Denziger 1800).

It can’t be willy nilly novel changes such as Martin Luther had proposed or modern day liberals who don’t care to show a consistent developmental pattern leading to greater understanding that means the opposite of what the Church once taught. I believe we have hints of the papacy in Scripture and Tradition, but it did not become explicit until later developments and meditation on the meanings of the prerogatives given to St. Peter by our Lord. The primacy of Rome is much more explicit in Scripture and taken with Peter’s eventual role and martyrdom is the beginning, a hint of the papacy as we have it today. In my opinion, Pope Benedict XVI understands the prerogatives belonging to Peter more explicitly than the holy Apostle himself ever did. Many good Catholics strongly disagree with my approach, but I am confident that it will eventually become more clear as the Church continues to “grow and progress strongly”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top