• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

I still don't understand why Rome gets Supremacy but not Antioch

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,761
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Rome holds supremacy as the final resting place of both Sts Peter and Paul. I mean, sure, Petrine Supremacy and all, but that St Paul guy apparently had primacy over St Peter, opposing him to his face and winning the Council of Jerusalem. So, Rome wraps the two up quite nicely in one little package.

I mean, no one would ever suggest Antioch was important for St Paul, right?
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
9
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
I don't understand why Orthodox Christians aren't tripping over one other to cede supremacy to the other. If the last shall be first, then we should want as little power and authority as possible. Preserve sound doctrine and sacramental theology, but leave political power to the world. I guess some would argue that political power is necessary to preserve sound doctrine and theological truth, but I would disagree. And even if political powers convened the Church councils, I would argue that God would have preserved His Church nonetheless.

Selam
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,759
Reaction score
203
Points
63
FormerReformer said:
Rome holds supremacy as the final resting place of both Sts Peter and Paul. I mean, sure, Petrine Supremacy and all, but that St Paul guy apparently had primacy over St Peter, opposing him to his face and winning the Council of Jerusalem. So, Rome wraps the two up quite nicely in one little package.

I mean, no one would ever suggest Antioch was important for St Paul, right?
It was a combination of both these Apostles along with Rome's secular standing as the Imperial City.  This was described in the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon.  Rome later denied this canon, but it is easily apparent that the secular standing was equally important since Constantinople was made second in primacy for this very reason above other Sees like Antioch.  If it were only about Peter's primacy, then Antioch would've been second after Rome instead of Alexandria and later Constantinople. 
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
Let us allow Pope St. Damasus at a Roman Synod held in 382 to explain it for us, "Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people."
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
164
Points
63
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
^^ it's known text and it's been rather one of signs that the Western theology, because of having only one apostolic see and no serious competition in the area (maybe only a bit North Africa), started to move into dangerous direction.

It's not explanation why not Antioch; Jerusalem is not mentioned.
It's an usurpation of some apostolic sees - not all of them are mentioned, as they were started by various apostles and it does not fit to this theory.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,759
Reaction score
203
Points
63
Xavier said:
Let us allow Pope St. Damasus at a Roman Synod held in 382 to explain it for us, "Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people."
But why was Alexandria placed higher in honor than the Petrine See of Antioch?  Why was Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ Himself was crucified and rose again, not give primacy above all of them?  It's precisely because the secular and political importance of the city played a huge role.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,409
Reaction score
126
Points
63
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch, but they lived in Jerusalem first. Even had a conference there. I believe it's in Acts.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Dominika said:
^^ it's known text and it's been rather one of signs that the Western theology, because of having only one apostolic see and no serious competition in the area (maybe only a bit North Africa), started to move into dangerous direction.
That's a good point. Multiple centers of power can challenge and keep one another honest, to an extent.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
I don't understand why Orthodox Christians aren't tripping over one other to cede supremacy to the other. If the last shall be first, then we should want as little power and authority as possible. Preserve sound doctrine and sacramental theology, but leave political power to the world.
+1
 

Rubricnigel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
244
Location
USA
Volnutt said:
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
Tbh Detroits bishop is the #1 bishop is the whole wide world, since Detroit is the Garden of eden, its only natural that he is made pope, supreme commander of all people.

Ask silly things get silly things
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Rubricnigel said:
Volnutt said:
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
Tbh Detroits bishop is the #1 bishop is the whole wide world, since Detroit is the Garden of eden, its only natural that he is made pope, supreme commander of all people.

Ask silly things get silly things
It's a serious question that's only prefaced with a bit of silliness.





And Daviess County Missouri, as the site of Adam-ondi-Ahman, is clearly the true center of the Christian universe and the people of God will not be united until there is a Most Holy Patriarch of Kansas City, Independence, and Jameson. Maranatha.
 

platypus

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
713
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Dominika said:
^^ it's known text and it's been rather one of signs that the Western theology, because of having only one apostolic see and no serious competition in the area (maybe only a bit North Africa), started to move into dangerous direction.

It's not explanation why not Antioch; Jerusalem is not mentioned.
It's an usurpation of some apostolic sees - not all of them are mentioned, as they were started by various apostles and it does not fit to this theory.
Yeah, in the west the Roman see became THE apostolic see, given the scarcity of bishoprics founded by apostles in the west. In the East, the Antiochian Patriarch's significance was less noticeable amidst a plethora of sees founded by apostles.

Volnutt said:
So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there?
As far as I know the Patriarch of Antioch never made a power-grab for supremacy over the other Churches. And if he doesn't want it, there's not really any particular reason why anyone would argue for it.

Also, Catholics remember St. Peter as the Bishop of Rome. You're not likely to find his job as bishop of Antioch mentioned by any Catholic speakers or authors. And most Catholics, just like most Protestants and most Orthodox, are probably not very familiar with the Acts of the Apostles.

Even for someone who does read it, it's easy to not notice. I read Acts for the first time in highschool, and I completely missed Peter being the bishop of Antioch. Since the book never said clearly, "Peter, the bishop of Antioch," but the phrase "Peter, the first bishop of Rome" was burned indellibly onto my soul through years of catechesis.
 

Alpha60

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,793
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Alphaville Zone Sud
Volnutt said:
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
Actually, I’ve met chaps in the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch who adhere to what one might call a high Petrology, although not to the extent of asserting any kind of primacy or supremacy of the Patriarch over the Coptic Pope, or the Armenian, Ethiopian and Eritrean primates.  The former RC bishop in Guatemala was moved to join the Syriac Orthodox Church while on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Peter in Rome, and he took 900,000 or so former Catholics with him.

Although in terms of missionary activity, I would be happier if we could get 900,000 atheists or Muslims in any country to join any part of the Orthodox Church, regardless of their respective theologoumemna on Petrology.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
platypus said:
Volnutt said:
So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there?
As far as I know the Patriarch of Antioch never made a power-grab for supremacy over the other Churches. And if he doesn't want it, there's not really any particular reason why anyone would argue for it.

Also, Catholics remember St. Peter as the Bishop of Rome. You're not likely to find his job as bishop of Antioch mentioned by any Catholic speakers or authors. And most Catholics, just like most Protestants and most Orthodox, are probably not very familiar with the Acts of the Apostles.

Even for someone who does read it, it's easy to not notice. I read Acts for the first time in highschool, and I completely missed Peter being the bishop of Antioch. Since the book never said clearly, "Peter, the bishop of Antioch," but the phrase "Peter, the first bishop of Rome" was burned indellibly onto my soul through years of catechesis.
I know. I just see all these these things as inconsistencies in the RC position. Another reason I'm highly skeptical of Papal claims.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
34
Alpha60 said:
Volnutt said:
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
Actually, I’ve met chaps in the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch who adhere to what one might call a high Petrology, although not to the extent of asserting any kind of primacy or supremacy of the Patriarch over the Coptic Pope, or the Armenian, Ethiopian and Eritrean primates.  The former RC bishop in Guatemala was moved to join the Syriac Orthodox Church while on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Peter in Rome, and he took 900,000 or so former Catholics with him.
Yeah, the Syriac tradition on Peter is still kind of strange to me. I started a thread about it some months ago.

Alpha60 said:
Although in terms of missionary activity, I would be happier if we could get 900,000 atheists or Muslims in any country to join any part of the Orthodox Church, regardless of their respective theologoumemna on Petrology.
Yeah, agreed.
 

Rubricnigel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
244
Location
USA
Volnutt said:
Rubricnigel said:
Volnutt said:
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
Tbh Detroits bishop is the #1 bishop is the whole wide world, since Detroit is the Garden of eden, its only natural that he is made pope, supreme commander of all people.

Ask silly things get silly things
It's a serious question that's only prefaced with a bit of silliness.





And Daviess County Missouri, as the site of Adam-ondi-Ahman, is clearly the true center of the Christian universe and the people of God will not be united until there is a Most Holy Patriarch of Kansas City, Independence, and Jameson. Maranatha.
LoL

Ok i must have thought you were just being goofy. I retract my Detroit claim and bow to yours, its clearly the most solid, theologically speaking of course
 

jobin219

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
152
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Alpha60 said:
Volnutt said:
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
Actually, I’ve met chaps in the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch who adhere to what one might call a high Petrology, although not to the extent of asserting any kind of primacy or supremacy of the Patriarch over the Coptic Pope, or the Armenian, Ethiopian and Eritrean primates.  The former RC bishop in Guatemala was moved to join the Syriac Orthodox Church while on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Peter in Rome, and he took 900,000 or so former Catholics with him.

Although in terms of missionary activity, I would be happier if we could get 900,000 atheists or Muslims in any country to join any part of the Orthodox Church, regardless of their respective theologoumemna on Petrology.
The Syriac Orthodox faith has always been very high-Petrine, just not in a universal jurisdiction sort of way like the Roman Catholics.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
I do not care if you're a fancy hierarch.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
I mean, to me, it makes sense - after all, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Syriac Church claims to be THE Antiochian Church founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul - such a theologumenon allows for a greater legitimacy of the Church's authority.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
There's actually still a Catholic Feast called St. Peter's Chair in Antioch. Fr. Gueranger wrote about it, in his The Liturgical Year.

See here for the Feast: https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/

Dominika said:
^^ it's known text and it's been rather one of signs that the Western theology, because of having only one apostolic see and no serious competition in the area (maybe only a bit North Africa), started to move into dangerous direction.
Well, the Church of Africa in the times of the Fathers was generally second to none in upholding Roman Primacy of Jurisdiction. See for e.g. St. Optatus against the Donatists, he is probably more strong on the authority of Rome than most Roman Catholics today would be.

See: "You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38" http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm

Bishop St. Optatus, of course, was Bishop of Milevis in what is now Numidia in North Africa.

It's not explanation why not Antioch; Jerusalem is not mentioned.
Well, Antioch holds the 3rd place among the Sees having a connection to St. Peter the Apostle. That is the old canonical taxis. Jerusalem would almost certainly have held the first place, and St. Peter would have set up the see there, if the city had not rejected the Lord.

It's an usurpation of some apostolic sees - not all of them are mentioned, as they were started by various apostles and it does not fit to this theory.
Pope St. Damasus takes for granted that St. Peter held primacy among the Apostles. Hence, it is in the sees that have a connection to him that primacy over the Church resides. Alexandria and Antioch were second and third after Rome even in the 4th century.

The Second Bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius who succeeded St. Evodius, gives us another eloquent testimony to Roman Primacy way back in the first and second centuries, as an Orthodox Priest summarizes, "It is enough to compare his epistle to the Church of Rome with the other Ignatian epistles; one immediately feels the difference of tone. In his other epistles he teaches like a doctor; but when addressing Rome, he does not venture to give any advice at all. Every line in this epistle is charged with special deference to “the church that presides in love.” http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
But why was Alexandria placed higher in honor than the Petrine See of Antioch?  Why was Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ Himself was crucified and rose again, not give primacy above all of them? It's precisely because the secular and political importance of the city played a huge role.
Well, Jerusalem rejected the Lord, yes? That's the reason the Fathers give for why the city was destroyed in 70 A.D. Constantinople and Jerusalem were given some canonical rights later on, but in the early Church before that, it was Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.

St. Peter had sent St. Mark to govern the See of Alexandria as its Patriarch and had appointed St. Evodius as Bishop to govern the See of Antioch. Why he chose Alexandria to be second and Antioch to be third I'm not sure, but that's the order the Popes give. Can you show me any patristic text in the first 300 years that gives secular importance as a reason? I don't think even Rome itself had any great political importance for Christianity before Constantine's conversion. If Rome's secular importance was the reason, how can we explain those texts in Pope St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus etc in the first few centuries itself, where Rome's Bishop exercises such authority?

Eamonomae said:
I mean, to me, it makes sense - after all, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Syriac Church claims to be THE Antiochian Church founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul - such a theologumenon allows for a greater legitimacy of the Church's authority.
I think it is very difficult if not impossible for a Church to function without its lead Bishop, whether he be an Archbishop, a Patriarch or a Pope, being clearly recognized to have some authority. It would be an ideal for that authority to be exercised gently, with collegiality, in consultation with all the Churches and with all affected parties in the dispute. That would also be in accord with Apostolic Canon 34. But that canon and the other canons also bear witness that some kind of universal headship has existed in the Church from Apostolic times.
 

Eamonomae

Julian the Apostate
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Xavier said:
But why was Alexandria placed higher in honor than the Petrine See of Antioch?  Why was Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ Himself was crucified and rose again, not give primacy above all of them? It's precisely because the secular and political importance of the city played a huge role.
Well, Jerusalem rejected the Lord, yes? That's the reason the Fathers give for why the city was destroyed in 70 A.D. Constantinople and Jerusalem were given some canonical rights later on, but in the early Church before that, it was Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.

St. Peter had sent St. Mark to govern the See of Alexandria as its Patriarch and had appointed St. Evodius as Bishop to govern the See of Antioch. Why he chose Alexandria to be second and Antioch to be third I'm not sure, but that's the order the Popes give. Can you show me any patristic text in the first 300 years that gives secular importance as a reason? I don't think even Rome itself had any great political importance for Christianity before Constantine's conversion. If Rome's secular importance was the reason, how can we explain those texts in Pope St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus etc in the first few centuries itself, where Rome's Bishop exercises such authority?
Well, the idea in writing doesn't appear until the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which is after the 300 year time limit which you have set, as far as I know.

However, there are plenty of examples that refute the Roman idea of Supremacy. For instance, there's Canon 6 of Nicaea

"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. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

While some Catholics have tried to interpret this to mean that the Bishop of Rome has jurisdiction over Alexandria, the canon itself also argues on behalf of a majority of bishops prevailing, and Rufinus, the 4th century Church historian, says that "the like customary for Rome" refers to the Suburbicarian dioceses of Rome.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14324a.htm

And then there's Canon 35 of the Apostolic Canons:

"Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained."

And then there's Section IV of Book VII of the Apostolic Constitutions:

"XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:— James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Timothy 4:21 and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter. Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Timothy 1:5 and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. Of Colossæ, Philemon. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20"

And there's both St. Cyprian and St. Augustine...

"In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another." (Opening address to the Council of Carthage)

"Through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the Divine Law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church." (Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI)

"Supposing those bishops who judged at Rome were not good judges, there remained still a general Council of the Catholic Church where the cause could be sifted with the judges themselves, so that if they were convicted of having judged wrongly their sentence could be annulled." (Augustine, Epistle 43)

I think it is very difficult if not impossible for a Church to function without its lead Bishop, whether he be an Archbishop, a Patriarch or a Pope, being clearly recognized to have some authority. It would be an ideal for that authority to be exercised gently, with collegiality, in consultation with all the Churches and with all affected parties in the dispute. That would also be in accord with Apostolic Canon 34. But that canon and the other canons also bear witness that some kind of universal headship has existed in the Church from Apostolic times.
There's absolutely no problem with leadership - it's when leadership involves universal and immediate jurisdiction, and irreformable judgments. This single concentration of power in Rome is what led to Vatican II, as you would no doubt know - if Pope Paul VI didn't have the power that he had, the liturgical reforms and documents would not have happened. And if Pope Francis didn't have the power he had, every single Pope post-Vatican II, except Pope Benedict, who is still alive, and Pope John Paul I, wouldn't be infallibly canonized as Saints.

Unlike Rome, which is plagued not only with impossible to fight modernism, because it has come from the Popes themselves, including those infallibly canonized as Saints, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches - with the exception of the occasional schism every set of years - has done much, much better, because nobody can just seize the horns and destroy the Church from the top down.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
665
Reaction score
20
Points
18
Location
Atlanta, GA
Xavier said:
There's actually still a Catholic Feast called St. Peter's Chair in Antioch. Fr. Gueranger wrote about it, in his The Liturgical Year.
Well, there used to be such a feast. In the reforms of 1960, Pope John XXIII combined the two feasts of St. Peter's Chair (at Rome on Jan 18 and at Antioch on Feb 22) into one feast simply called "Chair of Peter" on Feb 22.
 

Justin Kolodziej

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
MalpanaGiwargis said:
Xavier said:
There's actually still a Catholic Feast called St. Peter's Chair in Antioch. Fr. Gueranger wrote about it, in his The Liturgical Year.
Well, there used to be such a feast. In the reforms of 1960, Pope John XXIII combined the two feasts of St. Peter's Chair (at Rome on Jan 18 and at Antioch on Feb 22) into one feast simply called "Chair of Peter" on Feb 22.
Managing to pick the date of the one at Antioch instead of the one at Rome. Oops.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
The Church of Rome developed papal supremacy over time.
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
Volnutt said:
It's still April 1 for four more hours here, so I figured I'd start one more thread that will soon descend into folly! :p

Setting aside the Church at Alexandria having been founded by his disciple St. Mark, St. Peter was personally the bishop of Antioch for several years. So, why does the RCC only count Rome as the Supreme See? Just because Peter happened to die there? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest. What are the steps in that kind of argument? If he'd happened to be in, say, Ephesus on some official business when the Romans had him killed, would that have made Ephesus into the Holy See?

If the reasoning was just that Rome happened to be the Capital of the Empire, I could understand it (though I would then also question why Constantine didn't have the authority to move the Holy See to Constantinople, even though not even the EP seems to claim that he did that).
Speculation about the Churches? . . .
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Rome was given Primacy because of its being capital of the Roman empire. It was also respected as the resting place of Peter and Paul, and this was surely an additional factor for giving it Primacy
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Let us allow Pope St. Damasus at a Roman Synod held in 382 to explain it for us, "Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people."
This is plain wrong. An Ecumenical Synod gave Primacy to Rome because of its secular importance
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
There's actually still a Catholic Feast called St. Peter's Chair in Antioch. Fr. Gueranger wrote about it, in his The Liturgical Year.

See here for the Feast: https://reginamag.com/saint-peters-chair-at-antioch/



Well, the Church of Africa in the times of the Fathers was generally second to none in upholding Roman Primacy of Jurisdiction. See for e.g. St. Optatus against the Donatists, he is probably more strong on the authority of Rome than most Roman Catholics today would be.

See: "You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38" http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm

Bishop St. Optatus, of course, was Bishop of Milevis in what is now Numidia in North Africa.



Well, Antioch holds the 3rd place among the Sees having a connection to St. Peter the Apostle. That is the old canonical taxis. Jerusalem would almost certainly have held the first place, and St. Peter would have set up the see there, if the city had not rejected the Lord.



Pope St. Damasus takes for granted that St. Peter held primacy among the Apostles. Hence, it is in the sees that have a connection to him that primacy over the Church resides. Alexandria and Antioch were second and third after Rome even in the 4th century.

The Second Bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius who succeeded St. Evodius, gives us another eloquent testimony to Roman Primacy way back in the first and second centuries, as an Orthodox Priest summarizes, "It is enough to compare his epistle to the Church of Rome with the other Ignatian epistles; one immediately feels the difference of tone. In his other epistles he teaches like a doctor; but when addressing Rome, he does not venture to give any advice at all. Every line in this epistle is charged with special deference to “the church that presides in love.” http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm
Church in Africa = Aurelius and Augustine rejected Roman meddling and refused to just accept Canon V of Sardica which the Roman delegates attempted to pass off as a Nicene Canon. The African Bishops instead sent letters to the Greeks to check their copies of the Nicene Acts, because 'our copy [of the Nicene Acts] does not contain the Canon you have brought forward, and exact copies reside with the Greeks, and received letters from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople. This happened in the Synod of Carthage in 419
 
Last edited:

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Indonesia

'Daniel the Notary read the Commonitorium. To our brother Faustinus and to our sons, the presbyters Philip and Asellus, Zosimus, the bishop. You well remember that we committed to you certain businesses, and now [we bid you] carry out all things as if we ourselves were there (for), indeed, our presence is there with you; especially since you have this our commandment, and the words of the canons which for greater certainty we have inserted in this our commonitory. For thus said our brethren in the Council of Nicaea when they made these decrees concerning the appeals of bishops:
But it seemed good that if a bishop had been accused, etc. [Here follows verbatim Canon v. of Sardica.]
Ancient epitome: If bishops shall have deposed a bishop, and if he appeal to the Roman bishop, he should be benignantly heard, the Roman bishop writing or ordering.
And when this had been read, Alypius, bishop of the Tagastine Church, and legate of the province of Numidia, said: On this matter there has been some legislation in former sessions of our council, and we profess that we shall ever observe what was decreed by the Nicene Council; yet I remember that when we examined the Greek copies of this Nicene Synod, we did not find these the words quoted — Why this was the case, I am sure I do not know. For this reason we beg your reverence, holy Pope Aurelius, that, as the authentic record of the decrees of the Council of Nicaea are said to be preserved in the city of Constantinople, you would deign to send messengers with letters from your Holiness, and not only to our most holy brother the bishop of Constantinople, but also to the venerable bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who shall send to us the decrees of that council with the authentification of their signatures, so that hereafter all ambiguity should be taken away, for we failed to find the words cited by our brother Faustinus; notwithstanding this however we promise to be ruled by them for a short time, as I have already said, until reliable copies come to hand. Moreover the venerable bishop of the Roman Church, Boniface, should be asked likewise to be good enough to send messengers to the aforementioned churches, who should have the same copies according to his rescript, but the copies of the aforementioned Nicene Council which we have, we place in these Acts

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: Let not your holiness do dishonour to the Roman Church, either in this matter or in any other, by saying the canons are doubtful, as our brother and fellow bishop Alypius has vouchsafed to say: but do you deign to write these things to our holy and most blessed pope, so that he seeking out the genuine canons, can treat with your holiness on all matters decreed. But it suffices that the most blessed bishop of the city of Rome should make enquiry just as your holiness proposes doing on your part, that there may not seem to have arisen any contention between the Churches, but that you may the rather be enabled to deliberate with fraternal charity, when he has been heard from, what is best should be observed

And when this had been read, Augustine, the bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia, said: We promise that this shall be observed by us, provided that upon more careful examination it be found to be of the Council of Nicaea. Aurelius the bishop said. If this also is pleasing to the charity of you all, give it the confirmation of your vote. The whole Council said: Everything that has been ordained by the Nicene Council pleases us all. Jocundus, the bishop of the Church of Suffitula, legate of the province of Byzacena, said: What was decreed by the Nicene Council cannot in any particular be violated

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: So far as has developed by the confession of your holiness as well as of the holy Alypius, and of our brother Jocundus, I believe that some of the points have been made weak and others confirmed, which should not be the case, since even the very canons themselves have been brought into question. Therefore, that there may be harmony between us and your blessedness, let your holiness deign to refer the matter to the holy and venerable bishop of the Roman Church, that he may be able to consider whether what St. Augustine vouchsafed to enact, should be conceded or not, I mean in the matter of appeals of the inferior grade. If therefore there still is doubt, on this head it is right that the bishop of the most blessed see be informed, if this can be found in the canons which have been approved...'

African endorsement of Roman supremacy?
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Answers from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople

Canon 135. (Not numbered in the Greek.)
Here begin the rescripts to the African Council from Cyril bishop of Alexandria in which he sends the authentic proceedings of the Nicene Council, translated from the Greek by Innocent the presbyter: these letters with the same Nicene council were also sent through the aforementioned presbyter Innocent and by Marcellus a subdeacon of the Church of Carthage, to the holy Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, on the sixth day before the calends of December in the year 419.

To the most honourable lords, our holy brethren and fellow bishops, Aurelius, Valentinus, as well as to the whole holy synod met in Carthage, Cyril salutes your holiness in God.

I have received with all joy at the hands of our son, the presbyter Innocent, the letters of your reverence so full of piety, in which you express the hope that we will send you most accurate copies of the decrees of the holy Fathers at the Synod held at Nice the metropolis of Bithynia from the archives of our church; with our own certificate of accuracy attached thereto. In answer to which request, most honourable lords and brethren, I have thought it necessary to send to you, with our compliments, by our son, Innocent the presbyter, the bearer of these, most faithful copies of the decisions of the synod held at Nice in Bithynia. And when you have sought in the history of the church, you will find them there also. Concerning Easter, as you have written, we announce to you that we shall celebrate it on the xviii before the calends of May of the next indiction. The subscription. May God and our Lord preserve your holy synod as we desire, dear brethren.

Canon 136. (Not numbered in the Greek but with a new heading.)
Here begins the letter of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople to the same

To our holy lords, and rightly most blessed brethren and fellow bishops, Aurelius, Valentine, and to the other beloved ones met together in the Synod held at Carthage, Atticus the bishop.

By our son Marcellus the subdeacon, I have received with all thanksgiving the writings of your holiness, praising the Lord that I enjoyed the blessing of so many of my brethren. O my lords and most blessed brethren, you have written asking me to send you most accurate copies of the canons enacted at the city of Nice, the metropolis of Bithynia, by the Fathers for the exposition of the faith. And who is there that would deny to his brethren the common faith, or the statutes decreed by the Fathers. Wherefore by the same son of mine, Marcellus, your subdeacon, who was in great haste, I have sent to you the canons in full as they were adopted by the Fathers in the city of Nice; and I ask of you that your holy synod would have me much in your prayers. The subscription. May our God keep your sanctity, as we desire, most holy brethren.

Canon 137. (Continuation of the last in the Greek.)
Here begin the examples of the Nicene Council, sent on the sixth day before the calends of December in the year 419, after the consulate of the most glorious emperor Honorius for the XIIth time, and Theodosius for the IX th time, Augustuses, to Boniface the bishop of the City of Rome.

We believe in one God etc....the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

To this symbol of the faith there were also annexed copies of the statutes of the same Nicene Councils from the aforenamed pontiffs, in all respects as are contained above; which we do not think it necessary to write out here again.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Rome tried to pass off a Sardican Canon [Canon V] as an Ecumenical Canon [of Nicaea] to justify meddling in the affairs of the Church of Africa. The Church of Africa didn't just take Rome's word for it, and sent letters to check with the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch

Papal delegates actually tried to prevent the Church of Africa from doing this, and begged them to deign to refer the matter to Boniface

But this wasn't the only time Rome tried to falsify Church Canon
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
6,234
Reaction score
299
Points
83
Age
37
Rome tried to pass off a Sardican Canon [Canon V] as an Ecumenical Canon [of Nicaea] to justify meddling in the affairs of the Church of Africa. The Church of Africa didn't just take Rome's word for it, and sent letters to check with the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch

Papal delegates actually tried to prevent the Church of Africa from doing this, and begged them to deign to refer the matter to Boniface

But this wasn't the only time Rome tried to falsify Church Canon
Michael Seraphim, please refer to this post. Thanks.
--Ainnir
 
Last edited:

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
BANNED
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
167
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
Thanks for your reminder Ainnir

HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD OF CHALCEDON
Extracts from the Acts.

Session XVI.

'Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: If your magnificence so orders, we have something to lay before you.

The most glorious judges, said: Say what you wish...

...The most glorious judges said: Let each party quote the canon.

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and representative, read: Canon Six of the 318 holy fathers, “The Roman Church hath always had the primacy. Let Egypt therefore so hold itself that the bishop of Alexandria have the authority over all, for this is also the custom as regards the bishop of Rome. So too at Antioch and in the other provinces let the churches of the larger cities have the primacy...

'...Constantine, the secretary, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, the archdeacon; Canon Six of the 318 holy Fathers. “Let the ancient customs prevail, those of Egypt, 294so that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all, since this also is the custom at Rome. Likewise at Antioch and in the rest of the provinces, let the rank (πρεσβεῖα) be preserved to the churches. For this is absolutely clear that if anyone contrary to the will of the metropolitan be ordained bishop, such an one the great synod decreed should not be a bishop. If however by the common vote of all, founded upon reason, and according to the canons, two or three moved by their own obstinacy, make opposition, let the vote of the majority stand...'

What happened here was that Rome changed/added 'Roma hath always had Primacy' to Canon VI of Nicaea. You can find the complete account of Session XVI here:

 
Top