Eastern Orthodox: Is the Ecumencial Patriarch the successor of Peter?

Hi I’m trying to understand something about Eastern Orthodoxy. In their theology is the patriarch of Constantinople (Bartholomew I) the successor of Peter?

The Orthodox are divided as to whether or not Peter had a divinely appointed primacy among the apostles.

So they believe that the authority Peter had is shared by all the apostles, and they gave it to the bishops. So, each and every bishop is Peter in his diocese, but Peter didn’t have authority over the other apostles because they were bishops equal to him.

In the modern Roman Catholic sense of the phrase, no.

In the Cyprianic sense, yes.

In Christ
Joe

lol

You just said that your view is named after a person, and affirmed that our view is the Catholic view.

I know, I know, it doesn’t mean our position is right.

Do we really have to play this name game again? It certainly is the view of the modern Roman Catholic Church, not the view of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that we confess in the Creed. :wink:

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

It’s not modern nor is it merely Roman Catholic. Not only the entire Catholic Church, but all Churches of the Syriac Tradition share this view.

Blessings,
Marduk

Antioch had their first bishop appointed by Peter before he went to Rome, where Linus succeeded Peter which Paul approved Peter’s successor in Linus according to St.Irenaeus. Antioch’s succession of bishops fell into heresy, the gates of hell prevailed here. Where as according to history, the gates of hell came against the Popes, but never prevailed in the bishops of Rome successor to Peter in the Popes.

The Eastern Orthodox have valid apostolic succession to the original apostles, but they do not have a direct successor to any apostle.

The only bishop today that has maintained a direct unbroken succession to its apostle is the bishops (Popes) of Rome as (unbroken) successor to St.Peter.

No other bishop in the Catholic church from both east and west has a direct succession to one apostle, Except the (Pope) bishop of Rome, yet all maintain the “valid” apostolic succession to the apostles.

The term pope from antiquity was applied as common language when addressing an apostolic successor to the apostles. Although the patriarch from Constantinople is called a pope which translates into father, bishop or patriarch.

The bishop of Rome because of unbroken succession to Peter has maintained th title of Pope ( Father) of the Church Jesus founded upon Peter and His apostles.

Forte;7274529]Hi I’m trying to understand something about Eastern Orthodoxy. In their theology is the patriarch of Constantinople (Bartholomew I) the successor of Peter?

Are you talking about the Syriac Churches under Rome or the Orthodox Churches?

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

I think this demonstrates the novelty of the EO position. Your answer, from the perspective of apostolic succession, should have been St. Andrew.

St. Cyprian’s argument was not about succession, but about the nature of the episcopate.

Blessings,
Marduk

Both. The Latin Church and all the Churches of the Syriac Tradition (Syriac Orthdox, Assyrian Church of the East, Maronite, Syrian Catholic, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Chaldeans) have had their own dialogue through the Pro Oriente foundation since 1994 based on this common belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

St. Andrew is the founder of the See. The Patriarch holds succession from all the Apostles, as do all bishops.

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Every faithful Christian is like Peter. But that is not what the principle of Apostolic Succession is about. Apostolic Succession refers to the pedigree of the bishop - who layed hands on you? One determines Apostolic Succession by consideration of that single action. You can read the importance of this determination by reading Church Fathers such as St. Irenaeus and Eusebius.

Every bishop is like Peter, sure (heck,. every Christian is like Peter). But not every bishop is a successor of St. Peter. So the correct answer to the OP’s question is “NO.” The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the successor of St. Peter. Rather, he is the successor of St. Andrew.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, it is always broken. The bishop of Rome does not name his successor, as with bishops everywhere someone else always does.

Pius XII does not appoint John XIII to the See, John XXII does not appoint Paul VI to the See. The See is always vacant for a time (sometimes for years), it is an office with a chair inside, not an order.

This kind of succession is not personal in any way, it is merely incidental.

There are three major orders in the church: bishop, priest and deacon. Everything else is an artificial construct.

Each bishop is consecrated by the laying on of hands of three other bishops, who themselves have been consecrated by the laying on of hands of three other bishops, all the way back to the apostles. This is what Apostolic succession is.
There is little chance that the holder of an office will be consecrated by the previous holder of that office, so making the claim that he holds that office by way of apostolic succession is wrong. He is able to hold the office because of it, but it is not a defining characteristic of the office.

If we accept apostolic succession as being solely for the holding of an office, then in accord with the Ancient Church the individual must be consecrated by whoever goes before them. If you wish to simply state they are the successor to all the apostles (as will inevtiably happen through those three bishops in these late days) but have succeeded to the See of a specific apostle then you’re on much more secure ground.

You can check the Apostolic Succession list of the Church of Constantinople online. It is readily available. He is not the successor of St. Peter, but of St. Andrew.

Blessings,
Marduk

You’ll have to give a link, because any such list I’ve seen has been tracing the succession of Office Holders, not the consecration.

Blessings to you Hesychios:) What you reference here deals with the bishop of Rome which is an apostolic successor as all the Bishops are. What I draw your attention to is the Pope successor to Peter with unbroken succession.

In keeping with the context of the op "is the Ecumenical Patriarch the successor of Peter? No he is not, but a successor to the apostles. The office of Patriarch is not a divine office instituted by Christ. It is an ecclesiastical office which is subject to change within the hierarchy.

What is never subject to change is the divine offices of Bishops, priests, deacons and the Chair of Peter, established by Christ himself, when he named Simon “Peter” =Rock and gave him the keys to the kingdom of God with the authority to bind and loose and call his brethren back. Not to mention John 21:15-17. Jesus Christ did this, not man. No man can separate what God has joined together (sacra-mentally).

The Chair of Peter may become vacant physically as you stated, but the Chair of Peter is never vacated. For the simple fact that this Chair of Peter even though no one temporarily physically sits on it, the Chair of Peter perpetually unites all Bishops to its head in the Pope. So it is always active and visible in the body of Christ, whether or not a Pope is temporarily (as you quoted) physically not present. You have no Catholic church without Peter and his successors in the Popes united with the bishops (apostolic successors) t its visible head on earth.

The Chair of Peter remains perpetual until Christ comes again, Jesus promised to be with Peter “always”.

So, again there is unbroken apostolic succession to Peter from the Popes who are bishop’s of Rome first before ascending to the unbroken succession of Peter’s chair. In every Catholic age since the resurrection, there has never been an age without a Pope successor to Peter’s Chair.

A broken succession to Peter would have to prove, the Chair of Peter ceased one time when all the bishops failed to recognize Peter and his successors in the Popes and the gates of hell prevailed. This has never happened. No need to judge the Character of Peter denying Jesus 3X’s or any other Popes character as this does not equate a broken succession to Peter’s chair.

I will quote the CCC now for those who may need an official response from the Catholic church, to which my commentary supports.

CCC 862 "just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.”

Peace be with you

Hesychios;7283202]Actually, it is always broken. The bishop of Rome does not name his successor, as with bishops everywhere someone else always does.

Pius XII does not appoint John XIII to the See, John XXII does not appoint Paul VI to the See. The See is always vacant for a time (sometimes for years), it is an office with a chair inside, not an order.

This kind of succession is not personal in any way, it is merely incidental.

There are three major orders in the church: bishop, priest and deacon. Everything else is an artificial construct.

Dear brother Nine_Two,

The consecration is the means of the succession. The one who is elected to the throne of Constantinople is elected as successor of St. Andrew. He is consecrated as the successor of St. Andrew, and he is enthroned as the successor of St. Andrew. It is the same with the other Apostolic Sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem - St. Peter, St. Mark, St. Peter, St. James, respectively).

Blessings,
Marduk

The consecration is the rising to the position of Bishop. It is pretty rare for a man to be made a Bishop and immediatly assigned to the highest see of his Church, the only example I can think of, Metropolitan Jonah, was not consecrated by his predecessor.

Essentially, what it seems you’re arguing, is that Bishops don’t have apostolic succession, only Patriarchs, and even though multiple Patriarchs claim official succession from St. Peter, for some reason only the Patriarch of Rome is the Monarch of the Church entire?

Now that sounds absolutely wrong, yet it seems to be what you are saying.

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.