The bishop of Rome and the bishop of Antioch? Successors of Peter?

[Guest1]

So correct me if I’m wrong both are traditionally believed to be successors of Peter? What makes the bishop of Rome unique compared to the bishop of Antioch?

Is there any historical things you can show me that made the bishop of Rome ‘Pope’ unique office?
Why the bishop of Rome and why not Antioch?
Thank you

 

[steve-b]

So correct me if I’m wrong both are traditionally believed to be successors of Peter? What makes the bishop of Rome unique compared to the bishop of Antioch?

Is there any historical things you can show me that made the bishop of Rome ‘Pope’ unique office?
Why the bishop of Rome and why not Antioch?
Thank you

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, ordained ~68 a.d. as bishop. He was a direct disciple of John the apostle. He writes 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations on his way to be thrown to the lions in the coliseum in Rome ~107 a.d…

No other Church including his own, does Ignatius say holds the presidency except the Church of Rome.
[St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans (Lightfoot translation)]

See his salutation, to the Church of Rome. As an aside, looking at all the letters he wrote to the Churches, and his salutation to them, the salutations are all short except to the Church of Rome .

also

Re: Antioch
• There is no argument Peter’s see is Rome. When a bishop moves, during his life, his see is where he is Not where he was. If Peter remained in Antioch, then Antioch would be considered Peter’s see for all time. But that’s not how it was…
• Besides, Popes ordain bishops throughout their pontificate. Just look at how many bishops JPII ordained. It does NOT mean those bishops he ordained are automatically successors to him, nor are they the pope. That’s an important point to remember.
Re: Antioch It’s also instructive to look at the ancient ranking of sees
1. Rome
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
Notice the position of Antioch? If Antioch is seen by the Church as the chair of Peter then or now, then where’s the consideration for Antioch in ranking as Peter’s see being #1? It’s not there. Instead it’s behind Alexandria and Rome.

THEN consider the time Constantinople is established in the 4th century. Look at the change of rankings THEN
1. Rome
2. Byzantium becomes Constantinople and eventually Istanbul
3. Alexandria
4. Antioch
5. Jerusalem
Rome stays #1. Antioch moves to #4. Constantinople moves to 2nd place, ahead of apostolic sees. I say it that way because there’s no solid evidence Byzantium was founded by an apostle (as in Andrew who is mentioned by some). And it also needs to be mentioned, as an aside, Constantine the emperor, wasn’t baptized till the end of his life. Which means he wasn’t technically a Christian.

 

[PluniaZ]

The first millennium church recognized the primacy of three “Petrine Sees”: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, in that order.

Each of these sees can trace their apostolic succession to Saint Peter, as Pope Gregory I explains in this letter: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

The key difference is that the jurisdiction of Alexandria and Antioch was limited to their territory (Egypt and Syria) by the First Ecumenical Council, whereas no geographic limits were ever imposed on Rome.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

 

[steve-b]

The first millennium church recognized the primacy of three “Petrine Sees”: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, in that order.

Each of these sees can trace their apostolic succession to Saint Peter, as Pope Gregory I explains in this letter: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

The key difference is that the jurisdiction of Alexandria and Antioch was limited to their territory (Egypt and Syria) by the First Ecumenical Council, whereas no geographic limits were ever imposed on Rome.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

Just a few points to add

Speaking of order, and how history sees it,

The ancient ranking of sees in order of importance, BC before Constantinople is important to note.

1. Rome
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem

after Constantinople

1. Rome
2. Constantinople
3. Alexandria
4. Antioch
5. Jerusalem

Antioch and Alexandria being demoted like that behind Constantinople, shows they (those 2 cities) carried no weight as far as being “previous” sees of Peter. Rome OTOH, remained #1 because it was and continues to be the see of Peter.

Also,

while alive, a bishop’s see is where he is, NOT where he was. Peter’s last see is Rome, and since that is where he died, that makes Rome the see in which succession to Peter exists. And historically, that is the way it has been seen.

Bishop Irenaeus ~180 a.d., 1 man away from the apostle John, lists the successors (12 bishops by name) to Peter in Rome, down to his day, in his work “Against Heresies” [Bk 3 ch 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) , paragraphs 2-3]

Popes ordain other bishops during their pontificate. That doesn’t make those bishops they ordain are then popes, nor successors to that pope .

 

[PluniaZ]

Rome did not recognize the elevation of Constantinople until the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 869 AD. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum08.htm

By then Alexandria and Antioch had been conquered by the Muslims for two centuries, and had adhered to the monophysite heresy for an additional two centuries before that.

But yes, Alexandria and Antioch are recognized as Petrine Sees based on Saint Peter’s time at Antioch and the martyrdom of his disciple, Saint Mark the Evangelist, in Alexandria, which Pope Saint Gregory the Great said explicitly in the letter I posted.

 

[steve-b]

Rome did not recognize the elevation of Constantinople until the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 869 AD. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum08.htm

By then Alexandria and Antioch had been conquered by the Muslims for two centuries, and had adhered to the monophysite heresy for an additional two centuries before that.

But yes, Alexandria and Antioch are recognized as Petrine Sees based on Saint Peter’s time at Antioch and the martyrdom of his disciple, Saint Mark the Evangelist, in Alexandria, which Pope Saint Gregory the Great said explicitly in the letter I posted.

To add another pope’s assessment, particularly in the phrase 1st among equals, trying to equalize other sees with Rome

1. “In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. 4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.”
   From [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html]

 

[PluniaZ]

Ah thanks. I’ve been wondering when that nefarious phrase, “first among equals” first appeared on the scene. It can’t be found at all in the first millennium.

Likewise, the phrase “pentarchy” can’t be found in the first millennium.

Both phrases were made up by second millennium Greek schismatics, as your link shows.

Thanks!

 

[steve-b]

Ah thanks. I’ve been wondering when that nefarious phrase, “first among equals” first appeared on the scene. It can’t be found at all in the first millennium.

Likewise, the phrase “pentarchy” can’t be found in the first millennium.

Both phrases were made up by second millennium Greek schismatics, as your link shows.

Thanks!

It also shows where the seeds of that schism came from which sprouted into the full blown schism we saw in 1045. It’s always about authority.

 

[Todd_Easton]

As I understand it…
Peter was the leader of the universal Church or pope and also the leader or bishop of the local Church where he resided. When he was living in Antioch, the two offices of the pope and the bishop of the local Church at Antioch were joined together. If Peter had died while he was the bishop of the local Church at Antioch, the man who succeeded him as the bishop of the local Church at Antioch would also have succeeded him as the pope. However, that was not to be the case. When Peter left Antioch and settled in Rome, the office of the pope and the office of the bishop of the local Church at Antioch were separated and the office of the pope and the office of the bishop of local Church at Rome became joined together. At the time of Peter’s death, the offices of the pope and the bishop of the local Church at Rome were joined together. So, the man who succeeded Peter as the bishop of the local Church at Rome also succeeded Peter as the pope.