Successors of St. Peter

[twf]

I know the Melkites definitely have a strong tradition of honoring their Patriarch as a “successor of St. Peter”. Is this sense of Antioch as Petrine see also emphasized in the Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches? In the ancient Church, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were accorded special privileges by virtue of their Petrine nature. Do we as Catholics find it at all problematic that there are, for historical reasons, three distinct Patriarchs of Antioch within the same communion?

 

[Vico]

I know the Melkites definitely have a strong tradition of honoring their Patriarch as a “successor of St. Peter”. Is this sense of Antioch as Petrine see also emphasized in the Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches? In the ancient Church, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were accorded special privileges by virtue of their Petrine nature. Do we as Catholics find it at all problematic that there are, for historical reasons, three distinct Patriarchs of Antioch within the same communion?

These are the proper eparchies of the Patriarchs (See of Antioch):

Maronite: Jebbeh–Sarba–Jounieh
Melkite: Damas
Syrian: Beirut

 

[MorEphrem]

Well all our patriarchs assume the name Peter after their name when they become Patriarch. The Syriac Catholics do not, however, as they follow the Syriac Orthodox custom of assuming the name Ignatius, the successor of Peter.

As for multiple patriarchs - to answer that, one must answer if it is problematic that overlapping episcopal jurisdiction exist to begin with.

I don’t know if another question you might have is how do we attribute a certain idea of primacy to the Pope if we too have succession to Peter. Latin theology is deficient in the fact they attribute primacy to the Pope solely through Petrine succession (deficient in the sense that it does not make a qualitative distinction between its succession and the succession of other Petrine Sees other than “we’re better”). In Syriac liturgical texts, it is clear that the Church was laid upon Peter but built upon by Paul - this is why the Bishop of Rome has primacy, because his See is both Petrine and Pauline (which gives both apostolic and legal primacy).

 

[malphono]

Well all our patriarchs assume the name Peter after their name when they become Patriarch.

That, of course, is true, but it’s a relatively recent tradition. IIRC, the first Maronite Patriarch to do so was Moran Mor Elias Howayek.

 

[Nestor_kea]

As I see it, during St Peter’s life there was no succesor of himself in his ministry as Head. Well, firstly he was (co-)founder of Antioch, maybe its bishop as we would call it now. Later he moved to Rome, so the next one leading community centred in Antioch was just successor in matters of bishop of Antioch, not successor in office of Head. Similarly there might have been Peter’s successors in his job as fisherman (literally, person who “hired” small boat and business to hunt fishes in water) etc. So at the same time there was Peter as Head in Rome and someone else leading people in Antioch. When Peter’s days finished, it was important who would be his successor as Head, not as leader in this or that city. E. g. if he had founded eight bishoprics in person, the other seven bishops would not have been his successors as Head of the whole Church.
Plus councils later gave order to patriarchal sees (and had said which ones were to be patriarchal).