Sees founded by the Apostles

[WisdomTree]

I've been wondering, when talking about Apostolic Succession we generally agree that these "Sees" were founded by the Apostles themselves, whether it was by them being the first bishop or having them appoint the bishops themselves. However most of the time it is usually about Saint Peter (Petrine Sees) or the Pentarchy thus the sees founded by the other Apostles are usually either neglected or unheard of.​

So this thread is started to discuss which sees the Apostles founded:

• Saint Simon Peter: Jerusalem, Antioch, Syracuse, and Rome​
• Saint Andrew: Byzantium/Constantinople, Kiev (Ukraine and Russia), and Georgia​
• Saint James Zebedee: Jerusalem​
• Saint John: Ephesus​
• Saint Philip: n/a​
• Saint Bartholomew Nathanael: Seleucia-Ctesiphon and Etchmiadzin (Armenia)​
• Saint Thomas Didymus: Seleucia-Ctesiphon and India​
• Saint Matthew: n/a​
• Saint James Alphaeus: n/a​
• Saint Judas Thaddeus: Etchmiadzin (Armenia)​
• Saint Simon Zealot: Georgia​
• Saint Matthias (Replacement of Judas Iscariot):​

Later Apostles:​

• Saint Paul Tarsus: Athens, Philippi, Thessaloniki, Corinth, Rabat (Malta), Paphos, and Rome​
• Saint Barnabas: Paphos and Milan​
• Saint Timothy: n/a​
• Saint Mark (proxy of Saint Peter): Aquileia and Alexandria​
• Saint Philip Evangelist: Axum (Ethiopia)​
• Saint Thaddeus Edessa: Seleucia-Ctesiphon​

For the Apostles that have "n/a" on them, did they ever have sees founded by them that still exists today or are they now extinct? Or perhaps they never had the opportunity to find any due to martyrdom?​

 

[Cappadocious]

St. Paul is also attributed to Antioch.

 

[WisdomTree]

St. Paul is also attributed to Antioch.

Oh really? Never heard that one before.

 

[Cappadocious]

That's why St. Peter and Paul are typically depicted like this on the seals of Antioch:

 

[Albion]

Just a quick thought here...

Apostolic Succession isn't primarily about "sees" although some churches think in those terms, particularly perhaps the Eastern Orthodox.

Different churches/denominations have descended from the same Apostle, and many different bishops of different church bodies have traced their lineages back to the same ordination in the past, for example.

 

[WisdomTree]

That's why St. Peter and Paul are typically depicted like this on the seals of Antioch:

Oh wow, I had no idea. I must say that it's pretty cool with the sigil showing the two leading apostles at the time.

Just a quick thought here...

Apostolic Succession isn't primarily about "sees" although some churches think in those terms, particularly perhaps the Eastern Orthodox.

Different churches/denominations have descended from the same Apostle, and many different bishops of different church bodies have traced their lineages back to the same ordination in the past, for example.

I know, but I want to be a bit more specific than that hence the thread title being "Sees founded by the Apostles". Although some may be claimed with no real evidence behind it...

 

[Albion]

I know, but I want to be a bit more specific than that hence the thread title being "Sees founded by the Apostles".

Fair enough. I wanted to add a comment that I thought was worth considering...but not to say there was anything wrong with focusing upon the sees if that was your particular area of interest in this thread.

Although some may be claimed with no real evidence behind it.

Well, that definitely WAS NOT what I was talking about. I hope you do not have the idea that unless one's church can trace its lineage back to some particular Apostle AND CITY which, in addition, was not the beginning point for some other church or communion, that its claim to Apostolic Succession is, therefore, invalid. That's just not how Apostolic Succession works.

What was saying (whether it's on topic or off topic) was that a church's Apostolic Succession does not depend upon the existence of any particular see. The two (AS and historic sees) are not necessarily connected, and history as well as the opinion and policies of the churches that are in Apostolic Succession show this to be the case.

 

[WisdomTree]

Fair enough. I wanted to add a comment that I thought was worth considering...but not to say there was anything wrong with focusing upon the sees if that was your particular area of interest in this thread.



Well, that definitely WAS NOT what I was talking about. I hope you do not have the idea that unless one's church can trace its lineage back to some particular Apostle AND CITY which, in addition, was not the beginning point for some other church or communion, that its claim to Apostolic Succession is, therefore, invalid. That's just not how Apostolic Succession works.

What was saying (whether it's on topic or off topic) was that a church's Apostolic Succession does not depend upon the existence of any particular see. The two (AS and historic sees) are not necessarily connected, and history as well as the opinion and policies of the churches that are in Apostolic Succession show this to be the case.

Okay Albion, I know that a lot of the times on this forum that I may come out as being a bit mad, but I'm not that insane! In fact, that's just plain stupidity.

The reason I've set up this thread is because I've been quite curious in terms of the lives of the Apostles. We hear a lot about Saint Paul (considering most of the NT was written by him), Saint Peter is infamous due to his status as "Prince of the Apostles", and then there is Saint John who was the only "survivor" in terms of martyrship. We know what they were like in the gospels and how they died, but apart from the really famous ones, we don't quite know what their evangelical works were like (unless we were to put complete trust on a whole load of pseudepigraphs).

My fascination with the Apostolic See is not just the "theo-political" aspects, but also because they indicate to us a sort of a "check-point" system on the journey of the Apostles. Also, for one reason or another, these sees are of great importance to the people under the diocesan jurisdiction.

 

[Albion]

Okay Albion, I know that a lot of the times on this forum that I may come out as being a bit mad, but I'm not that insane! In fact, that's just plain stupidity.

Maybe it's not worth pursuing, but I don't follow what you're referring to as stupid in that. Is it my comments on Apostolic Succession, or the suggestion that you might agree with it, or the approach that I said I hoped you were NOT wanting to discuss?

If it's the last of those, I can assure you that it has come up on CF before. I remember very well debating a Catholic who insisted that "No Patriarchate, no Apostolic Succession." That was his way of legitimizing the EO (which he couldn't avoid) while simultaneously dismissing as invalid any non-RC church in the West.

 

[WisdomTree]

Maybe it's not worth pursuing, but I don't follow what you're referring to as stupid in that. Is it my comments on Apostolic Succession, or the suggestion that you might agree with it, or the approach that I said I hoped you were NOT wanting to discuss?

If it's the last of those, I can assure you that it has come up on CF before. I remember very well debating a Catholic who insisted that "No Patriarchate, no Apostolic Succession." That was his way of legitimizing the EO (which he couldn't avoid) while simultaneously dismissing as invalid any non-RC church in the West.

I was referring to the "Apostolic succession = Apostle + City".

 

[Albion]

I was referring to the "Apostolic succession = Apostle + City".

OK, I'd agree with your opinion on that. But having had that very conversation with another Catholic on CF, I couldn't rule it out without asking.

 

[WisdomTree]

OK, I'd agree with your opinion on that. But having had that very conversation with another Catholic on CF, I couldn't rule it out without asking.

Without pointing fingers, I'm going to assume the two or three new members who have been going on an "evangelical crusade" ie rampage on the Christian Apologetics and General Theology sections are the ones responsible for giving you such impression.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Oh wow, I had no idea. I must say that it's pretty cool with the sigil showing the two leading apostles at the time.



I know, but I want to be a bit more specific than that hence the thread title being "Sees founded by the Apostles". Although some may be claimed with no real evidence behind it...

Archbishop Dorotheus of Tyre tells us that S.Simon Zealot founded the Church in Britain.

 

[WisdomTree]

Archbishop Dorotheus of Tyre tells us that S.Simon Zealot founded the Church in Britain.

Apologise for the absurdly late reply. I don't know about you, but that kinda sounds like some British Israelism.

 

[Albion]

Apologise for the absurdly late reply. I don't know about you, but that kinda sounds like some British Israelism.

It's not. That's an entirely different matter which has a quite different theological basis.

And as for Simon, you may recall that during the recent London Olympics, the opening ceremonies made a big show--and a reenactment of sorts--of the bringing of Christianity to western Britain shortly after the Ascension.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Apologise for the absurdly late reply. I don't know about you, but that kinda sounds like some British Israelism.

It might at that, how-and-ever, what are the reasons for your cynicism? Both Orthodoxy and the Roman's Martyrologies as well as other early publications affirm both S. Simon Zelotes and S. Jude were in Britain. Besides which, S.Dorotheus who is recognised as a reasonable and reliant historian (for his time,) claim that Aristobulos friend of S.Paul, was First Bishop of the Britons.

 

[WisdomTree]

It's not. That's an entirely different matter which has a quite different theological basis.

And as for Simon, you may recall that during the recent London Olympics, the opening ceremonies made a big show--and a reenactment of sorts--of the bringing of Christianity to western Britain shortly after the Ascension.

Interesting, I shall do more research...

It might at that, how-and-ever, what are the reasons for your cynicism? Both Orthodoxy and the Roman's Martyrologies as well as other early publications affirm both S. Simon Zelotes and S. Jude were in Britain. Besides which, S.Dorotheus who is recognised as a reasonable and reliant historian (for his time,) claim that Aristobulos friend of S.Paul, was First Bishop of the Britons.

I'm just cynical in general. However, I'd say it would be more accurate to say that I am sceptical.