Whatever Happened to the Church of Antioch?

During my days when I was flirting with Orthodoxy, this is one of the major points of contention that came up with Catholicism. It’s well known that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. However, tradition actually ascribes to Peter two Patriarchates - that of Rome AND that of Antioch. So what happened to Antioch? Why did it never receive the same infallible status as Rome? Especially if Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome?

I think there are several reasons. One is, it is my understanding that the Roman successors of Peter were/are infallible at least in part because they automatically become the pope upon their election. There can only be one leader of the Church, and it couldn’t be both Antioch and Rome.

Related to that, I think Peter chose Rome to be the headquarters of the Church some time after the Christians were scattered from Jerusalem. (It seems to me that they had originally used Jerusalem as the headquarters, and I believe Peter traveled there to lead the apostles in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.)

If my understanding is correct, when St. Peter left Antioch, the reason his successor there didn’t get Peter’s infallibility was because Peter didn’t leave him “in charge” as pope of the universal church. Peter maintained that status until his death in Rome.

I think it may also be related to Biblical prophecy. It is my understanding that Rome was the capital of the “fourth kingdom” mentioned by the Prophet Daniel. I think Daniel says that the Roman kingdom will be in charge when the Messiah comes, and then says significantly that “the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess [it] for ever.” Daniel 7:17-18. If I’m correct that Rome was the capital of the fourth kingdom, then perhaps it follows that it would be the “capital” of the Church, and perhaps the early Christians recognized that.

So there’s three reasons that I can think of right away: (1) I think the “head see” was Rome and not Antioch because that was Peter’s own selection. (2) Peter didn’t give his first successor at Antioch headship over the Church but kept it until his death in Rome. (3) Perhaps one of the reasons Peter selected Rome over Antioch was related to biblical prophecy. (I also think it was probably because Rome was central from a secular perspective, and due to its position in the empire it would be easier to govern the Church from there than to govern it from another see.)

I hope that helps.

Tradition ascribes 3 Patriarchates to Peter - Rome (prime), Alexandria, and Antioch. Alexandria is considered Petrine because it’s first bishop, St. Mark was ordained by St. Peter. Infallibility as defined as Vatican I was developed mainly in the West, although it can be argued that the roots are in place in the earliest Church. Instead of viewing infallibility as a personal ‘thing’ ascribed, think of it as a charism given to the whole church. It is effectively ascribed to Rome because Rome is the prime spokesman for the Church and traditionally final arbiter. In Antioch and Alexandria, the Patriarch is given the same latitude, if not more, although not defined the same as Rome exactly; and synodality and collegiality are emphasized similar to the lines of VC2.

It’s still there. The Patriarch of Antioch and All the East is His Beatitude Gregorios III. This is the See of Antioch that traces its existence all the way back to St. Peter according to the Canons of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The patriarchal succession was disputed at the time of the Meletian schism in 362 and again after the Council of Calcedon in 451, when a non-Calcedonian Patriarch was set up in opposition to the Melkite Patriarch of the see

It’s not where a bishop’s see was, but where his see** is**. For Peter his last see is Rome. That’s where he was bishop before his martyrdom. Therefore, his successors are the bishops of Rome in his succession.

Re: Antioch

During apostolic times, sedition broke out in Corinth Greece, with their bishops. At this time Clement is bishop of Rome, Ignatius is bishop of Antioch, and St John the apostle is still alive, living either in Ephesus or on Patmos. John has not written the book of revelation yet.

Who did the Church of Corinth petition for help to solve their problem? The bishop of Rome.

One could ask WHY?
[LIST]
*]Ignatius of Antioch is closer to Corinth than Rome
*]John either living in Ephesus or Patmos is closer to Corinth than Rome.
*]Not to mention, Athens, a stones throw from Corinth, who has a valid bishop(s), and they are mentioned in Acts, why wasn’'t THEIR bishop(s) asked to end this dilema at Corinth?
[/LIST]Why did Corinth go to Clement in Rome for help?

A political answer i.e. Rome is the capital city of the empire doesn’t work because in the day, secular / pagan Rome was trying to eliminate the Church.

It leaves the BIG question, why wasn’t John, the last remaining apostle, asked to intercede?

What’s unspoken here, is the actual understanding and application of the papacy in it’s infancy.

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.