The Patriarch Of Antioch- Another Successor To Peter?

[anonymousguy]

According to the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church is a successor of St. Peter, the first Patriarch of Antioch.

"Reliable historians such as Origens (d. 256 AD) Eusebius of Caeserea (d 340 AD), John the Golden Mouth (d. 407 AD), Hieronymus ( d. 420 AD ) and Mar Severius of Antioch (d. 538 AD ) have all commented on St. Peter’s efforts in Antioch, where, as mentioned earlier, he established the Apostolic See. He was the first of its patriarchs to whom the line of succeeding patriarchs is traced. Eusebius of Caeserea25 notes 'In the fourth year after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, St. Peter proclaimed the word of God in Antioch, the great capital, and became its first bishop."26 He also tells us in his Ecclesiastical History, "Ignatius became famous and was chosen to be the Bishop of Antioch and the successor of St. Peter."27 In his Calendar of Feasts, Hieronymus28 fixed the 22nd day of February as the day of the establishment of the See of St. Peter in Antioch. The Catholic Church still celebrates this feast on this same date.29

**We can, therefore, surmise that St. Peter was the first Patriarch of the Apostolic See of Antioch. He had many illustrious successors, including St. Ignatius. This succession has remained unbroken until the time of the present patriarch, the author of this treatise. He is the 122nd in line among the legitimate patriarchs." ** (“The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch At A Glance” by H.H. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas [bold empahsis mine] sor.cua.edu/Pub/PZakka1/SOCAtAGlance.html )

“The Syriac Orthodox Church is one of the most ancient Christian Churches tracing its roots to the Church of Antioch. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts of the Apostles 11:26). Apostle Peter is believed to have established a church in Antioch in AD 37, the remnants of which are still in Antakya (the modern name of Antioch), Turkey. After the martyrdom of Apostle Peter, he was succeeded by St. Euodius and St. Ignatius Noorono as shepherds of the flock in Antioch and in the writings of St. Ignatius we find the evolution of the ecclesiastical order of bishops—ordained successors of the Apostles in whom continued the spiritual authorities vested by our Lord in the Apostles.” ( ‘History of the Syriac Orthodox Church’ [bold emphasis mine] sor.cua.edu/History/index.html )

“Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles,** after having been bishop of the Church of Antioch ** and having preached to the Dispersion…” (St. Jerome De viris illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Chapter 1. Simon Peter newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm )

"The first Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter…The “Chronicle of Eusebius” is lost; but in Jerome’s translation of it we find in three successive years the three entries

that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years"
(‘Evodius’ in ‘The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Online Edition’ newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm )

“H.H. Patriarch Mor Ignatios Zakka I Iwas
Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Supreme Head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church” sor.cua.edu/Personage/PZakka1/index.html

Question:
It seems that St Peter has at least 2 successors, the Roman Catholic Pope and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch. Wouldn’t that make the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, H.H. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, infallible according to the Catholic belief of Papal infallibility?

 

[Roman_Army]

anonymousguy:

According to the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church is a successor of St. Peter, the first Patriarch of Antioch.

"Reliable historians such as Origens (d. 256 AD) Eusebius of Caeserea (d 340 AD), John the Golden Mouth (d. 407 AD), Hieronymus ( d. 420 AD ) and Mar Severius of Antioch (d. 538 AD ) have all commented on St. Peter’s efforts in Antioch, where, as mentioned earlier, he established the Apostolic See. He was the first of its patriarchs to whom the line of succeeding patriarchs is traced. Eusebius of Caeserea25 notes 'In the fourth year after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, St. Peter proclaimed the word of God in Antioch, the great capital, and became its first bishop."26 He also tells us in his Ecclesiastical History, "Ignatius became famous and was chosen to be the Bishop of Antioch and the successor of St. Peter."27 In his Calendar of Feasts, Hieronymus28 fixed the 22nd day of February as the day of the establishment of the See of St. Peter in Antioch. The Catholic Church still celebrates this feast on this same date.29

**We can, therefore, surmise that St. Peter was the first Patriarch of the Apostolic See of Antioch. He had many illustrious successors, including St. Ignatius. This succession has remained unbroken until the time of the present patriarch, the author of this treatise. He is the 122nd in line among the legitimate patriarchs." **(“The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch At A Glance” by H.H. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas [bold empahsis mine] sor.cua.edu/Pub/PZakka1/SOCAtAGlance.html )

“The Syriac Orthodox Church is one of the most ancient Christian Churches tracing its roots to the Church of Antioch. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts of the Apostles 11:26). Apostle Peter is believed to have established a church in Antioch in AD 37, the remnants of which are still in Antakya (the modern name of Antioch), Turkey. After the martyrdom of Apostle Peter, he was succeeded by St. Euodius and St. Ignatius Noorono as shepherds of the flock in Antioch and in the writings of St. Ignatius we find the evolution of the ecclesiastical order of bishops—ordained successors of the Apostles in whom continued the spiritual authorities vested by our Lord in the Apostles.” ( ‘History of the Syriac Orthodox Church’ [bold emphasis mine] sor.cua.edu/History/index.html )

“Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles,** after having been bishop of the Church of Antioch **and having preached to the Dispersion…” (St. Jerome De viris illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Chapter 1. Simon Peter newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm )

"The first Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter…The “Chronicle of Eusebius” is lost; but in Jerome’s translation of it we find in three successive years the three entries

that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years"
(‘Evodius’ in ‘The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Online Edition’ newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm )

“H.H. Patriarch Mor Ignatios Zakka I Iwas
Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Supreme Head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church” sor.cua.edu/Personage/PZakka1/index.html

Question:
It seems that St Peter has at least 2 successors, the Roman Catholic Pope and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch. Wouldn’t that make the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, H.H. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, infallible according to the Catholic belief of Papal infallibility?

**Nonesense. This logic does not work for them. For the very reason why Peter is made Prime is stated in scripture in my quote below. Jesus said that he would build his Church on Peter the Rock. Where is Peter’s tomb found? Rome under St. Peter’s bascilica. Where was his chair? Rome. He did obviously appoint many Bishops, priests, and deacons, it was his job. However, his final office was in Rome, so therefore his office is Rome. He was also martyred in Rome along with St. Paul and many other faithful Christian martyrs. Plus, the fact is that the Roman Empire had a big influence on the developement of Christianity. Many emperors were present in the councils and helped spread Christianity. Where was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire? Rome! **

 

[Brain]

Im sure that all the apostiles had TONS of sucessors in terms of bishops they concecrated. There might have been dozens of petrine lines. so logically, Peter must have taken Linus aside and said “Linus my boy, i have a job for you…”

 

[anonymousguy]

just so there is no misunderstanding, the Syrian Orthodox Church does not claim and has not ever claimed that it’s patriarchs were/are infallible. The current Syrian Orthodox Patriarch does not claim that he is infallible. Nor have the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs ever claimed that they were/are infallible. The questoin was based on my understanding of the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church, St. Peter’s efforts in Antioch and the Catholic belief of papal infallibility.

 

[Milliardo]

Actually, the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of Peter, as Peter first became bishop of Antioch before going to Rome. Even the Melkite Church, one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, admits this: According to tradition, the Patriarch (Batiryark) is the successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter. Tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter in 45 AD.
The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter was appointed by Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ to be His representative on earth. Then, the Patriarch is the representative of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ on earth. The Melkite Patriarch’s full title is Patriarch / Batiryark of the cities of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, of Cilicia, Syria, Iberia, Arabia Mesopotamia, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, of all of Egypt and the entire East, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Bishop of Bishops, the Thirteenth of The Holy Apostles. Currently the Patriarch of the Melkite Church is His Beatitude Gregorios III (Gregory III).

This is from the Melkite Greek Catholic Church site: mliles.com/melkite/patriarch.shtml Hopefully Irish Melkite can wander here and explain this further.

 

[Brain]

so is the patriarch of Antioch in communion with the Catholic Church (the 23+ rites united with the holy see)?

 

[Milliardo]

Brain:

so is the patriarch of Antioch in communion with the Catholic Church (the 23+ rites united with the holy see)?

You’ll have to ask first which Patriarch you’re referring to. Seriously, the Melkite Patriarch, His Beatitude Gregorios III is in communion with Rome. The Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church would be not, as the Orthodox Church is not in communion with Rome.

 

[Brain]

Nevermind, just had to read down the page some more

 

[Roman_Army]

anonymousguy:

just so there is no misunderstanding, the Syrian Orthodox Church does not claim and has not ever claimed that it’s patriarchs were/are infallible. The current Syrian Orthodox Patriarch does not claim that he is infallible. Nor have the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs ever claimed that they were/are infallible. The questoin was based on my understanding of the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church, St. Peter’s efforts in Antioch and the Catholic belief of papal infallibility.

I understand. St. Peter’s efforts were everywhere. The question is who is his direct successor? Matt 16:18 states that Christ’s Church will be built on Peter. Just as the Roman Church is. Antioch was supposed to submit to the Pope, but refused. In otherwords, what Peter was doing is exactly what the Pope does when he appoints Bishops, Cardinals, and Priests. Also, the Pope used to appoint Eastern Rite Patriarches. Now, I heard Pope John Paul II changed that for the sake of ecumenism with the Orthodox. Plus, you know that an Ecumenical Council is infallible right? Both sides agree that Ecumenical Councils are infallible. However, they don’t accept any after Niceae II (757 AD). Papal infallibility and primacy was proclaimed in Ecumenical Council. Also, papal primacy was always believed prior to those councils, however the ecumenical councils enforced them. The Pope’s teaching’s in matters of faith and morals were never doubted by Catholics. Then Vatican I and II came and enforced Papal infallibility.

 

[adventistnomore]

First of all, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch are Petrine, as the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith (under Cardinal Ratzinger) has rightfully ackowledged:

“In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God’s Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.”

• ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM

At the same time, the Church ackowledges the particular privilege of primacy the Church of Rome has always maintained. From the earliest days, Rome exercised a primacy over the Church that was grounded by her apostolic succession from Peter, and also from Paul. Her guardianship of the relics of these apostles, her position at the captial of the Empire, and above all, her renowned and consistent faith (Antioch and Alexandria alternately into heresy at different times), all contriubuted towards the full acknowledgement of Rome as the first See at various ecumenical councils, and in the opinion of every ancient Christian. Rome became the final arbitrer in Church disputes, and the champion of Orthodoy against the Church’s worst heresies in the first millenium (and to this day).

So, in one light, we affirm that Rome recieves her primacy from her apostolic succession. At the same time, she is not alone in rightfully claiming a Petrine ministry, as other cities can claim episcopal succession from Peter and Paul (Antioch can claim both, Alexandria claims Peter via Mark who was ordained by Peter). Though certianly, the city where the great apostle Peter ministered the longest, and where he at last surrendered his life has recieved the greatest honor since the first century, and holds a presidence of juridstiction within the Church. The doctrine of papal infallibility flows from this Petrine ministry and* the witness of history.

 

[anonymousguy]

However, they don’t accept any after Niceae II (757 AD).

Actually, the Syrian Orthodox Church is Oriental Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox i.e. it only accepts the first three Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus) as Ecumenical and rejects the Council of Chalcedon. So they don’t accept any Councils as Ecumenical after Ephesus (431 AD).

“The Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox Church of Alexandria is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. This group also includes the Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and the Malankara Indian Churches. The common factor among these churches is their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD.” suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=339&catid=277

Papal infallibility and primacy was proclaimed in Ecumenical Council.

In which Council/s?

 

[Roman_Army]

anonymousguy:

Actually, the Syrian Orthodox Church is Oriental Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox i.e. it only accepts the first three Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus) as Ecumenical and rejects the Council of Chalcedon. So they don’t accept any Councils as Ecumenical after Ephesus (431 AD).

“The Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox Church of Alexandria is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. This group also includes the Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and the Malankara Indian Churches. The common factor among these churches is their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD.” suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=339&catid=277

In which Council/s?

Thanks for the history lesson. Yes, of course as Adventistnomore pointed out too, Peter as well as all the other apostles had many successors. However, since Peter served longer in Rome and died in Rome, it makes the Roman Church prime, fullfilling the prophesy of Matt 16:18 in which Jesus promised that his Church would be built on Peter. St. Paul was also a prince of the apostles and he was last in Rome and his tomb is in Rome. There were also many other great martyrs in Rome, this is the reason why it is called the “eternal city.” It is the center of christianity, even before the great schism it ranked first among the patriarchates.

Which Ecumenical councils? Papal Primacy has obviously been believed and expressed in the early Church, even in the East. However, the Orthodox Churches only believe in a primacy of Honor. It is not a primacy of Honor but a primacy of authority. The councils I assume did are Constantinople 4, Lyons 2, Council of Florence, Lateran 5, Vatican 1, and Vatican 2. Vatican 1 and 2 proclaimed Papal infallibility. The Council of Florence explicitly expresses Papal Primacy, I don’t know much about all the councils, I only know a little about some.

 

[Roman_Army]

**Oh sorry, I forgot to answer the question in the first post: **

**No, of course the Patriarches of Antioch and Alexandria are not infallible. They also do not believe that they’re infallible. What makes the Roman Pontiff infallible is that he is in Peter’s last and longest serving office. The Roman Church is also built on top of Peter like in Matt. 16:18. The Roman Church has always been prime. The Roman Church has never given in to heresy. Ecumenical Councils have resumed even after the Great Schism and even after the schism of the Oriental Orthodox. Ecumenical Councils must resume since new challenges continue to arise and dogma and teachings continue to develop. There must be a center and one pastor in order for there to be full unity. No one has the right to pick and choose which Ecumenical Councils to follow and which not to follow. Doing so would be like 1) the Progressive dissenters who have a “cafeteria” approach to religion and 2) The traditionalist dissenters who don’t accept any liturgical reforms and don’t accept inculturation. **

**21 14 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” ****22 15 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. **23 16 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." -Jn 20:21-23 (NAB)

Source: usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm

This scripture clearly shows how the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. The Orthodox only believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

 

[batteddy]

Yes, it is because it was Peter’s last See that Rome is the seat of the Supreme Pontiff.

Peter did have a See at Antioch at one point, he founded it, but he left and someone else took over WHILE PETER WAS STILL ALIVE (in Rome). So clearly the See of Antioch is not infallible, because it had a Bishop or more while Peter (who succession of Office from is the source of Papal Infallibility and Primacy) was STILL ALIVE. Clearly only one person holds it at one time, for the unity of the Church, so the See of the Pope must be the LAST See which Peter was alive in. Otherwise, what of those Bishops who were alive in his former Sees while he still was?

 

[Caldera]

Batteddy, i’m really struggling to believe what you’re saying is true. (Peter died in Rome, so therefore Rome has complete authority now, and is infallible in their teaching)

It sounds to me like nothing more than a power struggle for authority…

You said:
“So clearly the See of Antioch is not infallible, because it had a Bishop or more while Peter (who succession of Office from is the source of Papal Infallibility and Primacy) was STILL ALIVE. Clearly only one person holds it at one time, for the unity of the Church, so the See of the Pope must be the LAST See which Peter was alive in.”

So, does that mean that at one time Antioch had this supremecy and infallible teaching until Peter left there and brought it all to Rome? Is that what you’re trying to say?

 

[Roman_Army]

Caldera:

Batteddy, i’m really struggling to believe what you’re saying is true. (Peter died in Rome, so therefore Rome has complete authority now, and is infallible in their teaching)

It sounds to me like nothing more than a power struggle for authority…

You said:
“So clearly the See of Antioch is not infallible, because it had a Bishop or more while Peter (who succession of Office from is the source of Papal Infallibility and Primacy) was STILL ALIVE. Clearly only one person holds it at one time, for the unity of the Church, so the See of the Pope must be the LAST See which Peter was alive in.”

So, does that mean that at one time Antioch had this supremecy and infallible teaching until Peter left there and brought it all to Rome? Is that what you’re trying to say?

**Just think of Peter as the traveling Pope. The Pope travels and as he travels he appoints Bishops, priests, and deacons, he also preaches while he’s on the road. So, since Pope John Paul II came to the U.S. does that make the top U.S. Bishop prime and infallible? No! As I have said repeatedly in this thread, the Church is built on Peter, in otherwords since St. Peter’s basilica is built on Peter’s tomb and the Pope of Rome obviously sits in his chair and appoints Bishops, Priests etc., also the fact that the Roman Church has always been considered prime and Rome was the capital of the Christian Roman Empire, that makes the Pope of Rome Peter’s successor in office. As Battedy stated there can only be one supreme Pontif at a time, Peter was still alive when he appointed the Bishop of Antioch. Could two or three patriarches be prime? No, that doesn’t work. **

 

[anonymousguy]

batteddy:

Yes, it is because it was Peter’s last See that Rome is the seat of the Supreme Pontiff.

Peter did have a See at Antioch at one point, he founded it, but he left and someone else took over WHILE PETER WAS STILL ALIVE (in Rome). So clearly the See of Antioch is not infallible, because it had a Bishop or more while Peter (who succession of Office from is the source of Papal Infallibility and Primacy) was STILL ALIVE. Clearly only one person holds it at one time, for the unity of the Church, so the See of the Pope must be the LAST See which Peter was alive in. Otherwise, what of those Bishops who were alive in his former Sees while he still was?

But wasn’t Peter STILL ALIVE when he appointed his successor Clement in Rome? So how does this make sense?

 

[JOHNYJ]

I still recall this. During the reign of Paul VI the Melkite patriarch of Antioch, Maximo Saigh .Use to bust the pope by wriitting to him. From " Maximo successor of Saint Peter at Antioch ,to Paul successor of Saint Peter at Rome.The Melkites have a gift for busting Romes chops.They were the first Eastern Rite church to ordain married men to the priesthood in the USA .Even before that stupid decree of 1928 .That said they couldn’t was revoked.They work constantly to reunite with their Orthodox version.

 

[a_pilgrim]

** As I have said repeatedly in this thread, the Church is built on Peter, in otherwords since St. Peter’s basilica is built on Peter’s tomb and the Pope of Rome obviously sits in his chair… **

Technically, St. Peter’s Basilica is NOT the official church of the Patriarch of the West, his holiness the Pope. His official church is St. John Lateran.

St. Peter’s Basilica is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Of the remaining three of the five Major Basilicas of Rome, St. Paul outside the Walls is assigned to the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch and St. Lawrence outside the Walls to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

 

[Roman_Army]

a pilgrim:

Technically, St. Peter’s Basilica is NOT the official church of the Patriarch of the West, his holiness the Pope. His official church is St. John Lateran.

St. Peter’s Basilica is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Of the remaining three of the five Major Basilicas of Rome, St. Paul outside the Walls is assigned to the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch and St. Lawrence outside the Walls to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

What are you getting this from?