Paul Varghese
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
In the Bible it is written that Christianity
was established in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)
- In that case, how can the Pope, in Rome,
be the successor of Peter?
Paul
|
| {
If
Christianity was established in Antioch, how
can the Pope, in Rome, be the
successor of Peter? }
|
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, Paul —
I believe the Bible says they were
first called Christians in Antioch.
Just as the seed of any tree is just
a tree seed, with time,
it grows into a tree.
Peter went to the city of Rome and
was martyred there. From there, the
Church grew to what it is today.
These pages from our colleagues
at Catholic Answers may help:
Mike
|
Eric
replied:
|
Hi, Paul —
What my colleague says is correct;
Scripture merely says that the disciples
were first called Christians in Antioch,
not that the Church was founded there.
Nevertheless, Peter was the first
bishop of Antioch, so if you want
to believe that, that's fine too.
Peter moved to Rome at a later date
to be bishop there together with
Paul; there he was martyred. That
is why the successors of Peter are
in Rome and not in Antioch, although
the Antiochenes take great relish
in their historical connection to
Peter.
Eric
|
John
replied:
|
Paul —
Technically, the Bishop of Antioch
is also a successor of Peter.
Before leaving for Rome he left a
successor in Antioch, the Melkite
Patriarch is that successor today.
If Peter had not made
it to Rome, for some reason, then
the Papacy would have probably
been established in Antioch.
Obviously,
the faith would be the faith, but
it would have a very Eastern feel.
Oh yeah, the official language of
the Church would probably have been Arabic!
John
|
|
|
