The Pope as ground of Church unity

[Isaiah45_9]

Indeed. Say what you will about St Peter, he wasn’t absent minded.

Yup. He had ninja skills too!

 

[Peter_J]

Yup. He had ninja skills too!

 

[joe371]

Yes.

sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html

The point of the question was to illustrate that Peter travelled to Antioch, stayed for a number of years, and ordained a bishop, and then proceeded to Rome, where the Petrine office (the first Pope) was established. Sure, Antioch can trace its lineage back to Peter. That said, do you believe that Peter intended the Petrine office aka the Papacy (you are rock and on this rock I will build my church…) to be established in Antioch, considering the fact that Peter prior to his death established the office in Rome, where he would remain and be martyred?

The Melkite Church is historically associated with the See of Antioch. This See, established by the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 together with the Sees of Rome and Alexandria, traces its history and episcopal succession to St. Peter. Prior to journeying to Rome and establishing the bishopric there, we know that St. Peter travelled to Antioch and ordained a bishop for that city. St. Paul tells us of this trip in his epistle to the Galatians, and the mediaeval Liber Pontificalis claims that St. Peter served seven years as Antioch’s primate. Antioch was thus the first Petrine See, and to this day the Patriarchs of Antioch trace their apostolicity to the Prince of the Apostles.

 

[josie_L]

Hi Josie: I agree with you . I would like to add this Peter’s first see would I think be Jerusalem, then after having to leave went to Antioch where he stayed till the Council of Jerusalem. Peter then went to Rome where he set up residence and lived till he was martyred. Tradition has it that Peter sent John Mark to Alexandria, but so far as I know of early Church history peter did not live in Alexandria so it was not a Petrine see in that sense but a see he started by sending John Mark who wrote his Gospel according to what peter preached and taught. It was only when Peter was to be martyred that he passed the keys given to him by Christ to Linus, who in turn gave them to Clement and so on and so forth. This is my understanding.

Jerusalem was never a Petrine see, and Alexandria is considered a Petrine see by virtue of St. Peter’s disciple, St. Mark, whom he sent to Alexandria on his behalf.

 

[spina1953]

Jerusalem was never a Petrine see, and Alexandria is considered a Petrine see by virtue of St. Peter’s disciple, St. Mark, whom he sent to Alexandria on his behalf.

How so about Jerusalem not being a see of Peter? If I remember correctly in Acts Peter was in Jerusalem for quite some time, at least till he went to Antioch when he escaped from prison by an angel and went off to Antioch or did I miss something about Peter being in Jerusalem during the time when the Apostle James was beheaded, and Peter put into prison? Also the James of Acts 15 was not an Apostles so far as I have read of early Church history and who made this James of the Acts 15 head of the Church of Jerusalem? if not Peter?

 

[spina1953]

Jerusalem was never a Petrine see, and Alexandria is considered a Petrine see by virtue of St. Peter’s disciple, St. Mark, whom he sent to Alexandria on his behalf.

How so about Jerusalem not being a see of Peter? If I remember correctly in Acts Peter was in Jerusalem for quite some time, at least till he went to Antioch when he escaped from prison by an angel and went off to Antioch or did I miss something about Peter being in Jerusalem during the time when the Apostle James was beheaded, and Peter put into prison? Also the James of Acts 15 was not an Apostles so far as I have read of early Church history and who made this James of the Acts 15 head of the Church of Jerusalem? if not Peter?

Also in Acts there is plenty about Peter and what he did while he was in Jerusalem, so would that not also make Jerusalem a see?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The term Pope and Patriarch are synonymous as well… Bishops of the 3 Petrine Sees were all called Pope at some point.

 

[Wandile]

How so about Jerusalem not being a see of Peter? If I remember correctly in Acts Peter was in Jerusalem for quite some time, at least till he went to Antioch when he escaped from prison by an angel and went off to Antioch or did I miss something about Peter being in Jerusalem during the time when the Apostle James was beheaded, and Peter put into prison? Also the James of Acts 15 was not an Apostles so far as I have read of early Church history and who made this James of the Acts 15 head of the Church of Jerusalem? if not Peter?

Also in Acts there is plenty about Peter and what he did while he was in Jerusalem, so would that not also make Jerusalem a see?

Jerusalem is the see of St.James

 

[chimo]

2 questions: Do either of those churches claim to possess a Petrine office? Could you show their respective successions beginning with peter and ending with their current Pope? For example the line in Rome is: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm:)

The succession of the line of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is from St. Peter. The present Patriarch is John X. He can direct his line of succession to the Apostle St. Peter. One of the Bishops that had succeeded Peter in Antioch was St. Ignatius of Antioch. The story with this saint was he was the boy whom Jesus had taken to show the apostles that unless you become converted like this young boy it would be hard for you to see the Kingdom of God. This small boy remembering the gracious words of the Lord Jesus had grown up to occupy one of the Lord’s Apostolic sees. Even though Peter is the Apostolic founder of Antioch his greater foundation would come later to Rome. I don’t know about Peter’s connection with the Church of Alexandria. It is to my knowledge the Apostolic see of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark and the leader of the Coptic Church is the successor of St. Mark and interesting enough is called Pope.

 

[joe371]

The term Pope and Patriarch are synonymous as well… Bishops of the 3 Petrine Sees were all called Pope at some point.

True. The question on the table from certain non-Catholics: of those 3 Petrine Sees, which one, as it relates to Matthew 16* (And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…)* is the Petrine office, where we see a line Popes from Peter to the present day Pope? It cannot be all three…Based on the early church fathers and scripture, Rome is the most likely candidate, in my humble opinion.

 

[joe371]

The succession of the line of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is from St. Peter. The present Patriarch is John X. He can direct his line of succession to the Apostle St. Peter. One of the Bishops that had succeeded Peter in Antioch was St. Ignatius of Antioch. The story with this saint was he was the boy whom Jesus had taken to show the apostles that unless you become converted like this young boy it would be hard for you to see the Kingdom of God. This small boy remembering the gracious words of the Lord Jesus had grown up to occupy one of the Lord’s Apostolic sees. Even though Peter is the Apostolic founder of Antioch his greater foundation would come later to Rome. I don’t know about Peter’s connection with the Church of Alexandria. It is to my knowledge the Apostolic see of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark and the leader of the Coptic Church is the successor of St. Mark and interesting enough is called Pope.

I agree on all points.

 

[chimo]

Hi chimo: I agree that in time there will be unity between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. I have noticed in the canon of the eastern rite Churches in union with Rome that the in general run things more or less just like the Orthodox Churches do. So I wonder if the Orthodox read those canons of the eastern Catholic Churches, maybe they have I do not know; it might be of some help in better understanding of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches might be able to come together and reunite.

I am sure some of them might know of them. I really do not know. I have seen the Orthodox Church up close and this Church is just as busy as the Church of Rome. With all of what Bishops and priests do in the caring of the faithful I find they do not have the time to look up what you have suggested. I seen the Bishops especially the Antiochian ones here in Canada and the United States spending a lot of time with their own faithful. If what you suggest can be useful than it must be brought to their attention. From what I observe in how busy these Bishops are I do not think they would ever look into it. It is in my humble opinion that unity must be more focused more on the lowest level that is in the hands of the Laity rather than in the hands of the clergy and Bishops. The Laity just have more time to focus on these issues. The problem though is how can we get the Laity involved? This will take time and a little bit more motivation.

 

[LionHeart777]

According to the Byzantine scholar, the later Father Dvornik, Rome had always preferred the Apostolic view, as opposed to the East who generally preferred or worked off of the premise that that the prestige of a See was due to its place in the Empire. Rome had preferred the older Nicene ranking of the Patriarchates Rome, Alexandria, Antioch to the raising of Constantinople which took a while for Rome to recognize. Rome had to warm up to the idea of the Pentarchy, which was so treasured in the East. This is all you re seeing in Pope St. Gregory’s letter along with his humility. He is cited in Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” in order to quell the complaint of some that the definition given would essentially make all Bishops the Popes suffragens (sp?); this is to misunderstand the Primacy.

I learned a lot from Fr. Dvornik’s Byzantium and the Roman Primacy as well as the Photian Schism: History and Legend, the latter being quite a task to read though.

That is the wrong word I used I think but I think my point is still understandable. The complaint was that the authority of the Bishop in his Diocese would be harmed in some way or rendered superfluous-- that approximates the situation

 

[joe371]

I am sure some of them might know of them. I really do not know. I have seen the Orthodox Church up close and this Church is just as busy as the Church of Rome. With all of what Bishops and priests do in the caring of the faithful I find they do not have the time to look up what you have suggested. I seen the Bishops especially the Antiochian ones here in Canada and the United States spending a lot of time with their own faithful. If what you suggest can be useful than it must be brought to their attention. From what I observe in how busy these Bishops are I do not think they would ever look into it. It is in my humble opinion that unity must be more focused more on the lowest level that is in the hands of the Laity rather than in the hands of the clergy and Bishops. The Laity just have more time to focus on these issues. The problem though is how can we get the Laity involved? This will take time and a little bit more motivation.

I love the Eastern Orthodox Churches where all the Sacraments can be found, as does God, as per the apparitions of Damascus, endorsed by Roman Catholic and Orthodox bishops; couple cool sites:

unitypublishing.com/damascus.html

soufanieh.com/ENGLISH/eravaz.htm

 

[spina1953]

Jerusalem is the see of St.James

I knew that that Jerusalem is called the see of St. James. However, Peter was the first before he left for Antioch after his escape from prison. I do not know but think that when Peter left he appointed James to Jerusalem. I wonder who this James was as James the brother of John was beheaded about the time when peter escaped and went to Antioch. So, it seems to me that since Peter till he left for Antioch that Jerusalem was really the see of Peter. Not that it makes any difference at this point, it is just an observation on my part.

 

[spina1953]

I am sure some of them might know of them. I really do not know. I have seen the Orthodox Church up close and this Church is just as busy as the Church of Rome. With all of what Bishops and priests do in the caring of the faithful I find they do not have the time to look up what you have suggested. I seen the Bishops especially the Antiochian ones here in Canada and the United States spending a lot of time with their own faithful. If what you suggest can be useful than it must be brought to their attention. From what I observe in how busy these Bishops are I do not think they would ever look into it. It is in my humble opinion that unity must be more focused more on the lowest level that is in the hands of the Laity rather than in the hands of the clergy and Bishops. The Laity just have more time to focus on these issues. The problem though is how can we get the Laity involved? This will take time and a little bit more motivation.

Hi chimo: You made good points and I understand what you have said. I am not saying every Orthodox needs to read the Eastern canon laws and what they say that might help and I do think that patriarchs have read it to be sure, but for most of us for whatever reason have not read it. I agree that far often Bishops are very busy whether Catholic or Orthodox. I agree that it is the laity that needs to be educated to really know what our real differences are and ways in which one can come together. it really should not be a fight as to who is correct and who is wrong, it should always be who we can bring us closer to God through Christ with one Gospel of Love that the Apostles have handed down from receiving it from Christ Himself. I IMHO think that in a way that is what CAF is trying to do by having this forum so that the laity can better understand.

 

[josie_L]

I knew that that Jerusalem is called the see of St. James. However, Peter was the first before he left for Antioch after his escape from prison. I do not know but think that when Peter left he appointed James to Jerusalem. I wonder who this James was as James the brother of John was beheaded about the time when peter escaped and went to Antioch. So, it seems to me that since Peter till he left for Antioch that Jerusalem was really the see of Peter. Not that it makes any difference at this point, it is just an observation on my part.

Sacred tradition does not view Jerusalem has a Petrine see whatever your observations may be, however, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are regarded as such. Here’s Pope St. Gregory writing to the Patriarch of Alexandria:

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria.

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

(Book VII, Epistle XL)

 

[josie_L]

I knew that that Jerusalem is called the see of St. James. However, Peter was the first before he left for Antioch after his escape from prison. I do not know but think that when Peter left he appointed James to Jerusalem. I wonder who this James was as James the brother of John was beheaded about the time when peter escaped and went to Antioch. So, it seems to me that since Peter till he left for Antioch that Jerusalem was really the see of Peter. Not that it makes any difference at this point, it is just an observation on my part.

St. James the Elder/Greater (brother to St. John) and St. James the lesser (bishop of Jerusalem), purported to be the cousin of Jesus (although in the Bible he is referred to as His brother because in Aramaic there was no word for cousin).

 

[spina1953]

St. James the Elder/Greater (brother to St. John) and St. James the lesser (bishop of Jerusalem), purported to be the cousin of Jesus (although in the Bible he is referred to as His brother because in Aramaic there was no word for cousin).

Hi Josie: I looked up Jerome Biblical Commentary and on pg. 796 it says" Thus among Jesus’ acquaintances we seem to have three men named James; James son of Zebedee, also known as the Greater and one of the twelve, James, son of Alphaeus , one of the twelve, and James son of Clopas known as the Less later Bishop of Jerusalem, traditional author of an Epistle an apostle in the broad sense of the word, but not one of the twelve.

This James called the Less, Bishop of Jerusalem not one of the twelve Apostles I have understood to be a cousin though and while the NT says brother, I do understand that in Aramaic one word was used to mean brother sister cousin etc.

Now sine this James was not one of the twelve Apostles but was named Bishop of Jerusalem, someone had to have named him Bishop and I think it was Peter before he left Jerusalem for Antioch. I say this because since this James was not one of the twelve he was have the authority that the other Apostles had, so it does seem to me that he was made a bishop by someone of the twelve if not Peter.

In a broad sense it does not matter since by tradition we know or understand that the see of Jerusalem is called the see of St. James. But I do think one needs to remember that it was Eusbius who wrote the early history of the Church and there were many things missing due to him not being able to get al the information, as I am sure that much was destroyed during the persecutions especially during the reign of Diocletian, so some of the information that Eusbius got was most likely hear say, but he used it anyway. At the very least that is my understanding at this point.