Antioch


#1

Hello everyone.

I am coming out of atheism, and am searching for a church - actually THE church. I have been searching for 5 years and I have narrowed it down to either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

I need some questions answered to help me decide.

Question: What gives Rome a better claim to the Chair of Peter than Antioch? Aren’t the bishops of Antioch also “descended” from St. Peter.

As noted, I have been searching - studying really - for 5 years. I am pretty well versed in ecclesiological jargon, so don’t pull your punches.

Thank you for any responses.

Gordon


#2

How have you come to the conclusion that the Traditionalist Catholics or the Old Catholics have made a false claim to being the one, true Church?


#3

Old Catholics, except for the PNCC, have become too liberal, and strayed from certain moral and theological teachings. They can’t be the true Church.

Traditionalists seem to be sedevacantists, which to me is an ecclesiological dead end. Traditionalists are inconsistent in their ecclesiology (“we believe in a papacy, but we reject this one”), so they can’t be the true Church.

Thank you for your response.


#4

As I understand it, the Church claims to be the sole legitimate successor to the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. It seems clear that Rome had primacy in the Early Church.


#5

Ah. At last a chance to ask the question, if I may be so bold (and if I may not, I understand). What does it feel like, to somehow suddenly be a theist? I am a nontheist (strong-agnostic) and have been so my entire life from infancy, and have always wondered what Faith must feel like, especially at onset.

Uh…maybe there are more politically-correct ways to put that, but since the members of this board apparently don’t like political-correctness and if they are consistent, don’t mind if it suddenly applies to their pov, so please do tell me? I really truly have always wanted to know, no mockery whatsoever.

Nor do I mean to derail. I am just taking an opportunity to have a (presumably) relatively minor question answered as opposed to ‘which church do I attend, since I believe in this particular Deity?’ Forgive me if my question sounds impudent – it honestly isn’t meant as such. I am not in this thread to argue anything at all, just to listen and learn.


#6

Ah. At last a chance to ask the question, if I may be so bold (and if I may not, I understand). What does it feel like, to somehow suddenly be a theist? I am a nontheist (strong-agnostic) and have been so my entire life from infancy, and have always wondered what Faith must feel like, especially at onset.

Uh…maybe there are more politically-correct ways to put that, but since the members of this board apparently don’t like political-correctness and if they are consistent, don’t mind if it suddenly applies to their pov, so please do tell me? I really truly have always wanted to know, no mockery whatsoever.

Nor do I mean to derail. I am just taking an opportunity to have a (presumably) relatively minor question answered as opposed to ‘which church do I attend, since I believe in this particular Deity?’ Forgive me if my question sounds impudent – it honestly isn’t meant as such. I am not in this thread to argue anything at all, just to listen and learn.

Does one particular church appeal to you more than another? I wish to know what you feel now, beyond any clubs, denominations, and so on, and I take it Christianity appeals most to you as a faith, but what is it you are looking for? Is it community? Tradition? What?


#7

So just by taste you have determined this?

No other standard outside of yourself?

Traditionalists seem to be sedevacantists, which to me is an ecclesiological dead end. Traditionalists are inconsistent in their ecclesiology (“we believe in a papacy, but we reject this one”), so they can’t be the true Church.

There have been many people who have claimed to be Pope that have been (rightfully) rejected by good Catholics.

All modernist Roman Catholics believe in anti-popes (“we believe in a papacy, but we reject this one”), so they cannot be any more inconsistent than the Traditionalists that make the exact same claims to being the one, true Church.

What standard of truth have you been using to discern truth from fiction thus far?

What infallible church authority?


#8

Q: Have you ever read from the Early Church Fathers?
newadvent.org/fathers/

Q:How about from Scripture Catholic?Scroll all the way down to “Tradition / Church Fathers” for quotes from the Early Church Fathers. And use the link above to read them in context.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_III

Q: Do you know the list of popes? St. Clement I is an Apostolic Father who wrote letters and they are in the 1st link above.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Q: Have you ever heard of the 4 marks of the True Church?
Article 9: Paragraph 3 in the Catholic Catechism.
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

Q: Ever hear of the Didache?It is the "DOCTRINE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES"
newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm

All these resources help me, I hope they help you. May the Lord be with you.:signofcross:


#9

When St Peter moved from Antioch to Rome (approx 39 AD) he consecrated another man to succeed him as bishop of Antioch. NOT to succeed him as leader of the Apostles and of the entire Church, since he wasn’t “resigning” from those roles. He moved his primatial episcopal seat to Rome and consecrated his successor (apparently at least 3 of them) to succeed him in that role.

Also the episcopal succession of the bishops of Antioch has been broken (more than once IIRC) during the Arian schism and as a result of Moslem persecutions. The current bishops of Antioch (there are IIRC at least 5 current contenders for the title - you’d have to decide between them too if you opt for Antioch) are descended from bishops who were brought in from outside, none of them succeeded directly through the ancient bishops of Antioch. Among the sees which the EOCs see as the big five “apostolic” sees, Rome is the only see which has an unbroken line of bishops going all the way back to the apostles. (NB this does NOT mean that the EOCs don’t have Apostolic Succession. They do, just not continuously as bishops of Antioch (or of Jerusalem, Alexandria or Constantinople).

The EOs will typically object to this “Ah but the Popes were in Avignon for 70 years”. But they still remained Bishops of Rome. A corresponding situation did not occur with Antioch.


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.