Question from Reader about the Five Patriarchal Sees and the Role of St. Peter

Sts. Peter and Paul, protects and uplifts the Church

passionately_papist said...

tanong ko narin po father, meron po bang patriarch sa orthodox churches na may direct successor ng isang apostle? totoo po bang yung patriarch ng constantinople ay successor ni saint andrew?

April 28, 2010 9:13 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

In the Tradition of both Catholics and Orthodox the following is recognized:

1. THE BISHOP OF ROME IS THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER

2. The Bishop of Constantinople is the successor of St. Andrew

3. The Bishop of Alexandria is the successor of St. Mark

4. The Bishop of Antioch is also the successor of St. Peter but of lesser importance that Rome because Peter stayed longer and died in Rome

5. The Bishop of Jerusalem is the successor of St. James

But, every body recognizes that the See of Rome is the "Presider in Charity'. It is the First and the Highest as well as the most important among the Five Patriarchates.

It is also to be noted that for the Catholic Church all and each Bishop is a successor of the Apostles. That is why they are the head shepherd of their See. But the See of Peter in Rome is unique because it has primacy over the whole Church.

April 28, 2010 9:20 AM

passionately_papist said...

ah, kaya pala kumpara sa ibang bishops medyo mataas ang dating ng mga patriarchs, interesting...

so bale father yung successors ng ibang apostles, kaya sila naging successor nun e dahil yung apostle na yun ang nag-establish ng iglesia sa lugar na yun?

so sa madaling salita si san pedro din nagestablish ng simbahan sa antioch kaya successor of peter din yung bishop of antioch(but of lesser importance)?

wait a minute, dipo ba si san pedro ang nagestablish ng simbahan sa jerusalem, dahil nung pentecost e si san pedro yung naunang mangaral? diba po dapat successor of peter din yung bishop of jerusalem(but of lesser importance din)? paki correct po ako, medyo nalilito po ako...

April 28, 2010 9:33 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

The 5 Patriarchs of the Pentarchy are considered as having greater prominence because they are successors of the Apostles. Also because of the Apostolic origin of their See. However, if you will read the Fathers of the Church, it is the Bishop of Rome that is being given the Primacy and Honor above anybody else.

In case of Constantinople, historically it is very difficult to establish if St. Andrew really lived and stayed as the First Bishop of Constantinople. There is very few evidences even though by tradition we recognize it. Constantinople rose to greater prominence because Emperor Constantine transferred the Capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium and renamed it Constantinople [City of Constantine]. Thus, politics has something to do with is importance as well. Now Constantinople is no longer a Christian center but of Islam. In the case of Rome, because it is the See of Peter and the place of martyrdom of Paul ROME IS ROME WHEREVER THE EMPIRE CAPITAL IS. It is First and Foremost of all patriarchates because of PETER AND PAUL.

Yes, Antioch is important because it is also a See of Peter. But, it is lesser than Rome because Peter left Antioch for Rome.

Concerning Jerusalem, actually the founder of the Church in Jerusalem is THE LORD JESUS HIMSELF. Of course, St. Peter was chosen to be His representative or Vicar. Obviously among the Apostles St. Peter is the most visible in the Bible, except St. Paul who wrote a lot.

Even though St. Peter was the head of the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem, St. Peter didn't assume the Office of the Bishop of Jerusalem. Instead, he chose to be the leader of the Universal Church going from one place to another and making universal decisions. Tradition attests that the Apostles chose St. James as the First Bishop of Jerusalem while Peter went to Antioch and ultimately to Rome.

April 28, 2010 9:58 AM

passionately_papist said...

"Concerning Jerusalem, actually the founder of the Church in Jerusalem is THE LORD JESUS HIMSELF"

oo nga no! how could I miss that? silly me! lol hehehe

salamat father, am really enjoying learning about the history of the church...

"...except St. Paul who wrote a lot" speaking of writings father, meron po bang mga ibang sinulat ang mga apostol na nasira na kaya hindi naisama sa bibliya? this really interests me

April 28, 2010 10:07 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[meron po bang mga ibang sinulat ang mga apostol na nasira na kaya hindi naisama sa bibliya?]

Yes, there is. Actually it was mentioned by St. Paul in one of his letters that he sent a letter to one community. I think to the Laodiceans... but unfortunately that letter is lost in history. Well, the Holy Spirit didn't preserve it for the posterity of the Church or to be part of the Deposit of the Faith. It means it is a simple letter and not Word of God, otherwise both the Holy Spirit and the early Church worked hard to preserve it by reading it during worships and re-copying it, then distributed to others as they have done to the preserved Apostolic writings.

N.B.: For more information on the lost writings of St. Paul this is what I've found in the online search:

Lost Pauline Epistles

1. The first Epistle to Corinth referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9

2. The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9

3. The Corinthian letter to Paul referenced at 1 Corinthians 7:1

4. The Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4

5. The Epistle to the Laodiceans referenced at Colossians 4:16

So, there are actually 5 lost writings of Paul. They are mentioned in the Bible but they are not preserved. My example, the one written to the Laodiceans is only the 5th of the missing Pauline texts.

April 28, 2010 10:15 AM

passionately_papist said...

The beauty of the Holy Catholic Church, she has all the answers, how can any human being reject such a gift from Almighty God?

It is truly a sad thing that the followers of our Lord are not one :,C

April 28, 2010 10:28 AM