www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St.Peter's First Congregation - The church of Antioch

Before St.Peter came to Rome he was bishop of the church at Antioch. Is today's Antioch Church in this line and what's the difference to the Byzantine Church? Is there apostolic succession int the Antioch Church?

You history freaks, I challenge you kindly and thanks for any answers,
Shiloah

"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Acts 11:26

Allright, so far I found some amazing results. At http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/founding.htm there is the history of the antioch church and they also have a link with the Apostolic succession at http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/patriarchs.htm

This calls for further study

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all." Acts 4:32-33

With all respect, and I mean this sincerely, the internet is not the ideal place to research history.

It's a great place to get different peoples versions of history!

Now there is no disputing the very early presence of Christianity in Antioch, and it has been an important Patriarchate from the beginning. But the history of Antioch is pretty complicated and in some ways quite tragic. There are now several lines of Patriarchs all pretty much claiming to be extensions of the original Patriachal line, none of which currently reside in that sleepy little place in Turkey. It would be very easy to start a spitting contest over this, and I hardly think it worth it.

I do think that it is important to remember that the Church of Antioch, like it's sister churches of the ancient world, has always had bishops, presbyters and deacons plus a sacramental theology, the Real Presence of Christ on the Eucharist and a long full heritage of Patristic writings that we can benefit from today.

The church of Antioch has brought us a rich legacy and beautiful tradition in all of it's manifestations. Let's pray for Christian unity, starting with Antioch.

Michael

So, Michael, what is Antioch called nowadays and is the Church of Antioch still represented there?
Sorry, I don't have the money to buy all these fancy history books in the book stores, neither the time to become a daily customer at the local library. I think, there is plenty of good and valid info on the web and I can start with that.

I don't want to start a 'spitting contest' about anything, but am looking for the closest thing to the Early Church there is. Rest assured, I'm not going to 'contend' about it.

All the denominations and splits we have today in the Church originate in the sinful nature of man, not in the will or intention of Jesus. And it is all about Him in the end, isn't it?

Shiloah

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb.9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Shiloah,

The city of Antioch no longer exists. It has been destroyed numerous times by earthquakes, and after the last time it was destroyed it was not rebuilt (and that goes back several hundred years now!). There is a small city (Antakya) nearby. Because it is in Trukey, there are few Christians present there. Five patriarchies claim the city at this time (Antiochian Orthodox, Melkite-Greek Catholic, Maronite, Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholic). None of these Patriarchs actually live in that area.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Father Ed, thank you for the input which leads me to the next question: If all those have their claims, I guess they also have their lines of Apostolic succession. Suppose their lines all go back to St.Peter who certainly laid hands on many during his years, are they all considered valid or does each group claim they are the ones and onlys ? I really want to learn about these backgrounds and you are welcome to point me to posts where this has been dealt with already or PM me for further instructions. I'm hungry, Father. Please feed your sheep
Thankfully, Shiloah

"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification." 1.Cor.14:10

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Shiloah,
I am sorry, I didn't mean to offend, but a question like yours will be answered by each person a little differently. It's like asking "how many living descendants would Thomas Jefferson have today?", depending upon whom you ask, you may get a different response!

There are a few interesting theories of the origin of the Church of Antioch. Clearly the city was an economic powerhouse in the pre-Roman days: trade routes from the interior of Asia came to the Mediterranean coast, so Antioch must have been the equivalent to a Chicago or Seattle by Roman times.

The early church spread rapidly from city to city usually through the Jewish communities of the Diaspora. Antioch had a large Jewish population with several synagogues and a chief Rabbi. When Simon Peter arrived there were already some Jewish Christians at Antioch. They were an island of Christian Jews and Gentiles a good distance from Galilee. There might have been just as many Christians in Damascus by then.

It took a while for Christianity to cover the countryside and fill in the spaces between the cities, but we know that by the time Christianity was common in the Syrian province (Antioch was the capital) the liturgy of Saint James was in use from Palestine through Damascus and Edessa, Antioch and points far north (into Cappadocia and Armenia for instance). So we don't know exactly how the worship was in Simon Peters time but it was mainly Synagogue prayers and the Berekah for the eucharist, and the beautifully structured Liturgy of Saint James was in place by the fourth century.

Subsequently there was a development in the Liturgy of Saint James that has been attributed to Saint Basil and modified slightly by Saint John Chrysostom. That liturgy was installed at the church in Constantinople, the Roman Capital of the East and we will call it Byzantine. Later, an attempt was made to introduce the Constantinopolitan form of Liturgy at Antioch, but it wasn't a unanymously popular change and many of the smaller villages in the province retained the use of the Liturgy of Saint James. Aramaic speakers dominated the countryside, Greek speakers were more common in the cities and there probably was an ethnic/cultural aspect to the reaction of the general public to the changes. The clergy and faithful who adopted the new liturgy were known as the "King's" party, or Melkites.

All this description about the liturgy is unfair and simply one sided because it doesn't even take into account the theological-Christological differences of the churches, which are admittedly minor, but have divided Christians for many centuries since the Council of Chalcedon.

About the Apostolic succession I think the various churches will have to agree to disagree! The churches who may rightfully claim descent (I may leave some out inadvertently) from the tradition at Antioch are as follows:

Armenian Apostolic church (St James - Armenian version)
Syriac Orthodox church (St James)
Malankara church (St James)
Maronite church (St James - Maronite version)
Melkite church (Byzantine)
Syrian Orthodox (Antiochian) church (Byzantine)
Armenian Catholic church (St James - Armenian version)
Syrian Catholic church (St James)
Syro-Malankar Catholic church (St James)

I'll admit that my explanation is poor and may miss the mark, but my time is limited this morning. I have tried to leave my own personal opinion out of this too, as far as possible. If you were hoping for a simple answer, sorry, this is what you get.

Have a pleasent Sabbathday
Michael, that sinner

Shiloah:

You ask: That's a good question. Let's see if we can't provide a little simplification. Realize that what follows is a simplistic vision that does not do justice to the complexity of the question you ask.

The Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Melkite-Greek Catholic Church were, at one time, one Church. There was a split between them in the 18th century over the election of the Patriarch. The unified Church that they both represented in antiquity was, at one time, Syriac and, over the course of time, followed the Byzantine tradition.

The Syriac Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) were at one time one Church as well, and that Church incorporated the Antiochian/Melkite Churches. So, we would have one patriach representing those four Churches in the past.

The Maronites, which claim Antioch as well, developed around the monastary of St. Maron. This was not in Antioch at all. In fact, most Maronites are from Lebanon where the Church retreated during an era of persecution.

So, the reality is that there is a constant development of the patriarchies, and they appear to have what the Latin Church would call "valid Apostolic succession."

Edward, Deacon and sinner

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is risen!

Michael, that was very interesting what you posted and I thank you kindly.

by the way, I'll pick you up on the "Sabbathday".

God Almighty never changed the Sabbath from what we call Saturday (the day dedicated to the Roman god Saturn) to Sunday (the day dedicated to the Sun god). The Sabbath was the seventh day of the week and given as an everlasting covenant to the people. It is represented in the Decalogue as the 4th commandment and in Ex.31:13 we hear the Lord say about it to Moses: "Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you."
But then with Jesus, who by the way always kept the Sabbath and went to the Temple to teach - after His glorious Resurrection - CHRIST IS RISEN! HE IS RISEN INDEED! - we read in Acts 20:7-8 about the new custom on Resurrection Day. (And keep in mind, in the Jewish culture the day begins at sundown the previous day; so the first day of the week began after sundown on the seventh day - Sunday would actually begin Saturday night). The Word says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
8. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together."

See, they gather together to break bread Saturday night. That was the so-called 'agape meals'. My question to you: Was it that out of those developed our liturgy? "as often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me" ?

Forgive me, I just like to try to get to the bottom of things, don't you ?

Looking forward to your next findings,
Shiloah

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn ...For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue ..." Mt.12:1;8-9

Father Ed, I really like your 'little simplifi cation'. Gets things in persepective, doesn't it? It reminds me of Gen.11:1 " And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. " as well as in comparison with Acts 2:46-47 " And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, " . I am looking forward with great desire to the time when the prayer of our Lord Jesus will be answered, which He prayed in the garden " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. "

Do you see this: THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME !!! As long as we are split up, the world will not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah, because He would bring the people to unity. And to take this thought one step further, when the great deceiver will come and establish his "one world religion' - the world will believe he is the Messiah, but they will fall for the counterfeit. Then will apply Rev.14:12 which says " Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. "

Do I see this wrong?

Shiloah, in limbo?

Shiloah,

The Melkite Patriarch has already said that if there is a reunion between the Melkites and the Antiochian Orthodox he will step down. That's not an issue. The issue now is much broader -- the Catholic--Orthodox split. That's a much harder nut to crack.

BTW, Jesus already knew of the problems that were coming. Jesus choose his own Judas. Let's not read too much into a perception of unity that, in fact, never existed.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Bless, Father Deacon Ed!

Well, we always have the Protestant model of ecclesial unity to look to, if we Catholics-Orthodox fail . . .

God bless, Shiloah!!

Alex