Antioch

[KeenanParkerII]

I'm studying middle age mediterranean history, hoping to major in it come fall, and I read that St.Peter founded not only the See of Rome but that of Antioch as well.

It's more of a historical question, but what are the Church's current views on the patriarchate of Antioch? If the Catholic Church bases its authority on apostolic succession, and St.Peter founded the Church of Antioch, shouldn't Antioch be in complete communion with Rome?

And just out of curiosity.. How come the Roman Church uses unleavened bread in the Eucharist?

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Antioch is in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. After the schism of 1054, the Patriarch of Rome became known as the Pope, head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Patriarchs of Jeruselum, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople remained in communion under the umbrella of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

(It should be noted that there are two Patriarchs in Alexandria; one that is Eastern Orthodox and one that is Coptic Orthodox. Although the two have friendly relations, they are not in communion with one another.)

See more here. http://antiochpat.org/english/sitef...me=Historical Overview&catname=Other Contents

 

[KeenanParkerII]

Thanks

I am familiar with the general history of the situation. It just seemed inexplicable to me that the Roman Church would do nothing to mend the rift with Antioch, seeing as the authority it claimed over eastern Orthodoxy was through the succession of Peter, who -as we see, founded both Churches.

I am beginning to see the splitting of the Church as a tragic miss-understanding more than anything, and as strongly as people may feel about it.

 

[Weird]

there are people who are Eastern Catholics

 

[benedictaoo]

I'm studying middle age mediterranean history, hoping to major in it come fall, and I read that St.Peter founded not only the See of Rome but that of Antioch as well.

It's more of a historical question, but what are the Church's current views on the patriarchate of Antioch? If the Catholic Church bases its authority on apostolic succession, and St.Peter founded the Church of Antioch, shouldn't Antioch be in complete communion with Rome?

Because the "keys" that Christ gave was given to/ belongs to a person-- not to a place.

Rome has no significance and neither does Antioch. They are just places. Papal authority belongs to a person, just one at a time, not places. Peter established the Church first in Antioch... so? The keys of the Kingdom belong to him, not to where he's at.

Rome just so happens to be where Peter last was and just so happens to be where his successor was chosen and just so happens to be where the pope remained because the pope just so happens to be the patriarch of the western seat as well as the head of the universal Church all over.

The apostles established the faith everywhere and established their own rites and culture, their own seat but only one was chosen to be the head of the Church. Rome is the Latin Rite, the western culture and the pope just so happens to be seated there.

It has significance because of who it is, not where.

 

[benedictaoo]

Thanks

I am familiar with the general history of the situation. It just seemed inexplicable to me that the Roman Church would do nothing to mend the rift with Antioch, seeing as the authority it claimed over eastern Orthodoxy was through the succession of Peter, who -as we see, founded both Churches.

I am beginning to see the splitting of the Church as a tragic miss-understanding more than anything, and as strongly as people may feel about it.

Keenan, it's important that you understand there is no "Roman Church." There is only the Catholic Church and Rome is where the head of the Catholic Church is seated. Rome itself is not the head of the Church, Peter's successor is, and who ever that is, is the vicar of Christ in every corner of the world, east and west, not just in the west. Thus it's the Catholic Church, not the Roman Church.

 

[Anoetos]

He was speaking specifically of the See of Rome in its relations with the See of Antioch, therefore his use of the expression "Roman Church" was appropriate.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It just seemed inexplicable to me that the Roman Church would do nothing to mend the rift with Antioch

What you would be looking for is the Council of Florence in the 1400s. It was an attempt to re-unify the Church. It, of course, did not end very well.

 

[AMDG]

He was speaking specifically of the See of Rome in its relations with the See of Antioch, therefore his use of the expression "Roman Church" was appropriate.

He was also speaking about the Eucharist--why unleavened bread is used. Perhaps an answer might be that the Passover (with the fact that the Jews were to eat as if they were traveling and would not have time to leaven the bread, watch it rise, and then bake it) is considered to be a foreshadowing of the Eucharist in which the host (bread) is unleavened.

 

[Rhamiel]

unleavened bread is a western tradition, I think some eastern rite churches use it too, but not most
as for Rome and Antioch both being from Peter, many of the Apostles started churches all over the ancient world, Antioch was a Church that St.Peter started, but he did not end up there, when he left Antioch and appointed another Bishop for the region he did not pass on his role as first among the Apostles, he took that with him, he did not leave Rome, so the title stayed there

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Thanks

I am familiar with the general history of the situation. It just seemed inexplicable to me that the Roman Church would do nothing to mend the rift with Antioch, seeing as the authority it claimed over eastern Orthodoxy was through the succession of Peter, who -as we see, founded both Churches.

I am beginning to see the splitting of the Church as a tragic miss-understanding more than anything, and as strongly as people may feel about it.

I'd like to invite you to pose your question over in St. Justin Martyr's Corner of TAW, so I can answer it in greater detail. I do not want to cause any waves over here in OBOB.

 

[KeenanParkerII]

wow, thank you for all the posts.

Yes, I was differentiating between the See of Antioch and that of Rome when referring to the Roman Church. (and it's history book terminology, sorry.)

Keenan, it's important that you understand there is no "Roman Church." There is only the Catholic Church and Rome is where the head of the Catholic Church is seated. Rome itself is not the head of the Church, Peter's successor is

I see what you're saying, yet Antioch was also founded by St.Peter. But the conundrum may have been clarified here..

Antioch was a Church that St.Peter started, but he did not end up there, when he left Antioch and appointed another Bishop for the region he did not pass on his role as first among the Apostles, he took that with him, he did not leave Rome, so the title stayed there

(I have a some questions on apostolic succession, related to this ^^ I'll post elsewhere.)

He was also speaking about the Eucharist--why unleavened bread is used. Perhaps an answer might be that the Passover (with the fact that the Jews were to eat as if they were traveling and would not have time to leaven the bread, watch it rise, and then bake it) is considered to be a foreshadowing of the Eucharist in which the host (bread) is unleavened.

Very interesting, I've heard answers both for and against unleavened bread from Catholics and Orthodox alike, Thanks.

What you would be looking for is the Council of Florence in the 1400s. It was an attempt to re-unify the Church. It, of course, did not end very well.

Great, I love historical sources. Thank you. It's interesting the council convened so close to the fall of Constantinople.. It makes you wonder, if they healed the rift, would the emperor have had support from the west. Would Byzantium have survived..? Very interesting stuff I'll have to read on.

I'd like to invite you to pose your question over in St. Justin Martyr's Corner of TAW, so I can answer it in greater detail. I do not want to cause any waves over here in OBOB.

By all means, I just don't know what TAW is?:o

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

By all means, I just don't know what TAW is?:o

Simply click here.

 

[benedictaoo]

He was speaking specifically of the See of Rome in its relations with the See of Antioch, therefore his use of the expression "Roman Church" was appropriate.

Well, appropriately it's not the Roman Church or the "see of Rome."

Appropriately, it's the Holy See.

 

[BillH]

Great, I love historical sources. Thank you. It's interesting the council convened so close to the fall of Constantinople.. It makes you wonder, if they healed the rift, would the emperor have had support from the west. Would Byzantium have survived..? Very interesting stuff I'll have to read on.

I think that was the basic idea. Constantinople wasn't in great shape, so the idea was that a paper reunion between the Eastern and Western Churches would elicit greater support for the Byzantines from the Western European states. Alas, the paper papered over a lot of the real differences that still existed, so it was repudiated shortly thereafter.

To get back to the OP, communion exists between two churches not because of history, but because of shared belief. It is a tragedy, and to some degree, a scandal that communion was ruptured between Rome and the historic patriarchs of the East. We should pray for reunion, but it needs to be a reunion that is based on a convergence in the real issues that divide us. Unfortunately, the pessimist in me fears that it may not occur on this side of Paradise.

 

[KeenanParkerII]

Well put Bill, after posting on this a bit I've come to the same conclusion..

 

[benedictaoo]

I'm more apt to think it's all politics. It was then and still is today, on both sides, not just one side.

 

[KeenanParkerII]

Agreed, I'm currently writing an essay on the matter and that's my premise.

The geo-political isolation of the Catholic church from the emperor resulted in it filling the void of central government. Thus it had to establish its authority in the area, and relations with the EO Church were ultimately a victim of that.

Everyone on these forums has been great. I was really interested in seeing how people currently feel on the matter. I think I'll stick around.

 

[Anoetos]

Well, appropriately it's not the Roman Church or the "see of Rome."

Appropriately, it's the Holy See.

1. The expression "See of Rome" is both normal and proper as a neutral descriptor. "The Holy See" is a more technical appellation and is also of more recent origin than the events under discussion.

2. He was asking about the relations between two geo-ecclesial entities: the church in Rome and the church in Antioch over an issue about which they disagreed. For him to have simply referred to "Catholic Church" would have made no sense; it would have either confused his point or been rather more emphatic of division since it would have implied that the Antiochian church was, at least "sub-Catholic".

3. You seem to be interested in introducing a polemical note into a discussion about a historical event. I find that troubling.

 

[benedictaoo]

google "see of Rome" and see what you get... you'll get the top 10 places to see when in Rome and you'll get the link to web site of the Holy See.

It's the non Catholics, like the Orthodox and various Protestants who like to use terms like "Roman Church" and "See of Rome" because it makes a distinction that it's not the universal Catholic Church, just the "Roman Church". Catholics have no business using those terms. It's the Catholic Church... it's the Holy See and it's the Latin Rite. It's not "RC", "RCC", "Roman Church", "church of Rome", "see of Rome". Those speak about a church that is not the Catholic Church.