Consider:I was refering to the successor of St. Peter part. The patriarch of Antioch is also the successor of St. Peter, and your quotes don’t distinguish that.
Is there still an Antioch? Not asking anything political, but, take the question at face value because I’m not turning up any online searches.I was refering to the successor of St. Peter part. The patriarch of Antioch is also the successor of St. Peter, and your quotes don’t distinguish that.
Perhaps because Peter established a local church in Antioch with a local leadership but did not establish Antioch as his [Peter’s] local and permanent See …Doesn’t mention a successor. And why not Antioch: the NT places St. Peter there too?
The city’s currently called “Antakya”. (We still speak of “the Patriarch of Antioch” – in much the same way we speak of “the Patriarch of Constantinople”, even though that city is currently called “Istanbul”.)Is there still an Antioch? Not asking anything political, but, take the question at face value because I’m not turning up any online searches.
Yes. Look up Antakya, the Turks are ruling it now, although the place is inhabited by Arabs.Is there still an Antioch? Not asking anything political, but, take the question at face value because I’m not turning up any online searches.
February 22, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter on the Vatican calendar was originally “the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch.”Perhaps because Peter established a local church in Antioch with a local leadership but did not establish Antioch as his [Peter’s] local and permanent See …
laying aside the last comment, from the earliest times Antioch was seen as founded by St. Peter, and her patriarch as his successor there.Peter was only in Antioch [and also true for other geopgraphic locations] on a “transitional” basis … movin to Rome … where he was martyred … thus Rome became the place where Peter was succeeded in the truest sense …
How about Avignon?Obviosly the early church did not recognize these other geopgraphic locations as the “final” office of Peter … only Rome is afforded that designation … or can you provide a source that references the ongoing See of Peter or Chair of Peter being in an location other than Rome?
Not much, seeing how Rome at this time supported a line that died out. She condemned St. Meletius, now even on her calendar, whom all the patriarchs of Antioch that the Vatican has there claim their succession through.Probably not the first, but before Chalcedon, Pope Julius I wrote this epistle to the Eusebians in Antioch:
“Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place ? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter , that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.”
-From Apologia Contra Arianos ch. 2
As a Catholic, I would obviously have a bias, so I’m wondering what’s the EO position on this?
Kiev actually has the higher claim, the Mother See of all the Russians.Consider:
It would seem, then, that if Antioch has an equal claim with Rome to being the successor to Peter, then Kiev also has an equal claim with Moscow to being the chief hierarch of that region.
- St. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch, then he left Antioch and became Bishop of Rome.
- The Metropolitan of Kiev was the principle hierarch of what was then Russia until the 14th century, at which point Metropolitan Peter (no relation) settled in Moscow.
Or, if not, please explain why not.
But Peter selected a successor when he went to Rome … not as his [Peter’s] direct successor but as a successor to the Chair of the Antiochean See which was originally founded by Peter … and Peter travelled on … still in his leadership rolelaying aside the last comment, from the earliest times Antioch was seen as founded by St. Peter, and her patriarch as his successor there.
That the head of the church removed himself from Rome physically does not mean that he considered himself solely the Bishop of Avignon and not the Bishop of Rome …How about Avignon?
Ah, good point. And yes, I agree that a closer analogy could be drawn between Kiev/Moscow and Rome/Avignon (rather than Antioch/Rome). But I’d say that my main point still stand: Peter had the primacy before being Bishop of Antioch; Peter had the primacy while being Bishop of Antioch; and when Peter left Antioch and became the Bishop of Rome, it was Peter (not the person that took over as new Bishop of Antioch) who held the primacy. It wasn’t until Peter’s death that someone else held the primacy.Kiev actually has the higher claim, the Mother See of all the Russians.
The analogy is off: it is not a question of Antioch versus Rome, but Antioch versus Damascus (or Rome versus Avignon). The see itself was moved (along with the capital and dynasty). The EP continued to ordain the Metropolitan directly, and the office remained officially entitled “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’” until the autocephalous election of St. Jonah in 1448, after Moscow deposed the last suffregan metropolitan Isdore for signing onto Florence. When Constantinople did not denounce Florence, Jonas of Moscow (who had been the original choice over Isodore) assumed the office and changed the title, now being autocephalous by default. At that time Kiev was ruled by the hostile Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, at which point a metropolitan was reestablished, but not for all the Rus, and dependent, as far it was independent, on Constantinople again.
Actually, I think Isa already agrees with you on that point. Note where he saysThat the head of the church removed himself from Rome physically does not mean that he considered himself solely the Bishop of Avignon and not the Bishop of Rome …
the office remained officially entitled “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’”
Well, before the Popes became Pope they were Cardinals or Bishop of a city. For example, before Pope John Paul II was made Pope, he was the bishop of Karcow.Doesn’t mention a successor. And why not Antioch: the NT places St. Peter there too?
Forgive me, but what point are you making?Not much, seeing how Rome at this time supported a line that died out. She condemned St. Meletius, now even on her calendar, whom all the patriarchs of Antioch that the Vatican has there claim their succession through.
I understand your point, but we don’t rank the sees of any Apostle, including St. Peter. For instance, St. Andrew founded Constantinople, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia/Ukraine, but there is no discussion which is above which (he died, btw, in Greece who has his relics).Ah, good point. And yes, I agree that a closer analogy could be drawn between Kiev/Moscow and Rome/Avignon (rather than Antioch/Rome). But I’d say that my main point still stand: Peter had the primacy before being Bishop of Antioch; Peter had the primacy while being Bishop of Antioch; and when Peter left Antioch and became the Bishop of Rome, it was Peter (not the person that took over as new Bishop of Antioch) who held the primacy. It wasn’t until Peter’s death that someone else held the primacy.
If unity and validity and licitness (to use the Vatican terms) depends on the pope now, then they did then, if the Vatican is correct. But in the case of the Meletian schism, Rome backed someone as patriarch that even the patriarchs that the Vatican has in Antioch do not want to claim: they all want to claim St. Meletius, who was opposed by Rome and died out of communion with Rome. In other words, Rome implicitedly acknowledges its err, and the patriarchate of Antioch were correct, as the Ecumenical Councl asserted, to counter Rome’s interference in the See.Forgive me, but what point are you making?