Why isn’t there primacy of the church from Antioch?


Even though catholics say that the Roman pontiff controllable the church. The Orthodox Church says that they have equal power over each other but have one symbolic head of the church which is Constantinople instead of Antioch. Why isn’t Antioch holding primacy even though peter was head of Antioch for a while.


He founded Antioch but died as the Bishop of Rome that is where the seat is. In other words was he at the time of his death the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Antioch. That is your answer.


I see the pope today is bishop of Rome. But why is Constantinople the seat or rather first among equals within EO? Why not Antioch Jerusalem, or another more ancient see?


I suppose that Rome has primacy. Because in the Orthodox Church, they have Constantinople as the head instead of antitoch. Why in the world would have they Constantinople instead of antitoch.


Because Constantinople was head of the Empire??

In Orthodoxy, the reasoning for primacy is a bit different. Sure, Peter may have held primacy, but this is not automatically restricted to a certain location. To (many) Orthodox, Constantinople fulfills the role of primacy, even without historical connection to Peter.

Constantinople was in a privileged position after its establishment as head of the Byzantine Empire. It was only natural, to them anyways, that this city should hold primacy.

Now, on Catholic terms, the primacy must be historically connected to Peter. This is why Rome is Peter’s chair (since he ended his days as the church’s leader there).


This. Constantinople replaced Rome as the capitol of the Roman Empire and after the west fell remained the capitol of the eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantium. There’s probably some additional nuances, but that’s a huge part.

Note that the Bishops of Rome have never based their claim of primacy on being the capitol.



Ancient ranking of sees

Re: Antioch It’s also instructive to look at the ancient ranking of sees
1. Rome
2. Alexandria
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
Notice the position of Antioch? If Antioch is seen by the Church as the chair of Peter then or now, then where’s the consideration for Antioch in ranking as Peter’s see? It’s not there. Instead it’s behind Alexandria and Rome.


consider the time Constantinople is established in the 4th century. Look at the change of rankings THEN
1. Rome
2. Byzantium becomes Constantinople and eventually Istanbul
3. Alexandria
4. Antioch
5. Jerusalem
Rome stays #1. Antioch moves to #4. Constantinople moves to 2nd place, ahead of apostolic sees. I say it that way because there’s no solid evidence Byzantium was founded by an apostle. And it also needs to be mentioned, Constantine the emperor, wasn’t baptized till the end of his life. Which means technically, he wasn’t a Christian till the end.


Short answer

A bishop’s see is where he is NOT where he was.

Peter’s last see was Rome.


I plead ignorance regarding the EO and I’m trying to learn more. It’s difficult to follow the pattern of recognition of Kiev, then transfer to Moscow, later unofficially described as the Third Rome. Moscow? Apostolic see?

I’m sure the RCC would be equally mystifying, but I am familiar with it.

I’m surprised we don’t hear more claims for the Primacy of Jerusalem, not much from EO, or even that no Protestant denomination seems to identify with it much. It seems like that would be the ultimate apostolic see.


The west favors the idea of the triple Petrine See of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The idea of pentarchy arose in the eastern churches. See Justinian I, Novella 131, and also the later Quinisext Council of 692 under Justinian II. The council was rejected by the western Church. Alexandria also supported the triple Petrine See.


As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering. This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople.

So by the time of the schism, Antioch and Alexandria were pretty insignificant compared to Constantinople. If we apply EO logic on this, the question should not be why Constantinople instead of Antioch, it should be why Constantinople instead of Moscow, since Moscow is now the most significant see among the EO Churches.

Of course, as Catholics we believe in a theological basis for Rome being chief, not just a political one, which is why Rome remained first in rank despite Constantinople being a more significant city. But for the EOs, there is no theological justification for Constantinople being first, so I don’t think there is any real reason for it to remain so when Moscow is de facto first in honor (see how everyone lined up in the recent schism between Constantinople and Moscow).


"If we apply EO logic on this, the question should not be why Constantinople instead of Antioch, it should be why Constantinople instead of Moscow, since Moscow is now the most significant see among the EO "
End prior post
Then significance by current numbers, rather than antiquity?


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

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.