Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Apostolic Succession


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Vasily

Vasily

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:06 PM

Glory to Jesus Christ !

 

 A question has come up concerning the Apostolic Succession of Constantinople. St. Andrew's missionary work was in Asia Minor, throughout Greece, and along the Black Sea. Was St. Andrew in the city of Byzantium and is there proof of this? The Apocryphal Acts of St. Andrew have been disputed, specifically by Eusebius. Your input is greatly appreciated.

 

 

Love in Christ,

Vasily



#2 Rdr Daniel (R.)

Rdr Daniel (R.)

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 01 September 2013 - 03:32 PM

I don't know that there is any proof that St. Andrew visited Byzantium, but as he (as you said) preached in Asia Minor, Greece and the Black Sea, it is then most likely that he passed through Thrace and not unlikely Byzantium itself, it is the commonly held belief of the Church that he indeed did so.

 

However the idea that an Apostle had to found a see for it to be Apostolic is to me doubtable, Apostolic Succession does not mean that a see had to be founded by an Apostle only that its first bishop was appointed by an Apostle or one of their successors i.e. every Orthodox bishop. Of course we say such and such is an Apostolic See but I am not convinced on the idea of linking Apostles to a see in an absolute sense, if such were the case then Malta, Ephesus, and Corinth ect.. would all be Apostolic sees. Most of the sees which we now call Apostolic were in fact the major cities of the Roman Empire, i.e. the Patriarchy of Rome, New Rome (Constantinople), Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

 

The idea seems to be a Western catholic one, basically all major sees (especially Patriarchates) must be apostolic, therefore should one not be apostolic it is no longer a valid see (patriarchate), therefore if the Ecumenical Patriarchate which they see as the head of Orthodoxy rather than the first amongst equals is not really a valid patriarchate by extension the Orthodox Church cannot be the True Church, as Rome is apostolic and therefore valid and right in its teachings  the Roman Catholic Church must be the true Church. The entire argument is of course a load of tosh but it is seen as a good argument by those who use it. In fact I suspect it dates back further to the fact that by such reasoning Rome is the only Western Apostolic see therefore it has authority over the other sees as it is founded by the Apostles, therefore the Pope has authority over the other Western bishops.Personally I would not give much heed to such questions as they are most likely asked from such a view point.

 

In Christ.

Daniel,


Edited by Daniel R., 01 September 2013 - 03:39 PM.


#3 Vasily

Vasily

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 09:55 PM

Thank you for your reply.  I realize most of what you have stated.  I am looking for some solid evidence concerning St. Andrew's missions.  A statement from a particular religious website states," A later dubious tradition has him (Andrew) going to Byzantium, where he appointed St. Stachys bishop." Also," there is an unfounded tradition that he preached in Russia, reaching as far as Kiev."  I am trying to sort out what is true. 

 

Love and Faith in Christ,

Vasily



#4 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,820 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:47 PM

" Also," there is an unfounded tradition that he preached in Russia, reaching as far as Kiev."

 

The tradition is strong enough for St Andrew to be featured in the centre of the composition, along with Sts Vladimir and Olga, in icons of All Saints of Russia. ;)

 

What is beyond question in the life of the apostle is his presence in the Greek city of Patras, where he preached, and where he was martyred.



#5 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,516 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:54 AM

BYZANTIUM was under the jurisdiction of the Asia Minor region. It followed the traditions of St John the Evangelist, Andrew, and Philip. This is why in the gospel of John these apostles have a pre eminent role in that gospel. The communities of Asia Minor recieved their apostolic succession from these men and were considered their own.

What you are refering to is the first instance of rivalry between Rome and Constantiniple. When Constantinople was elevated in 381 ad Rome anticipated the new capital Constantinople growing influence within christianity. So Pope Damasus created the title " apostolic See" because the greek colony of Byzantium was not known to have been found by an apostle. Byzantium countered this new Petrine tbeory by saying they were not found by the "first of the apostle" Peter but were found by the "first called" apostle Andrew

#6 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,027 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:14 AM

Eusebius in his History (III, I) says: 'Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world.  Parthia, according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia  to Andrew,  and Asia  to John,  who, after he had lived some time there, died at Ephesus.'  Scythia covered a large area which included the region called Sarmatia which was on the north side of the Black Sea and included what is now Ukraine.



#7 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:40 PM

http://www.patriarch...rchate/history/ : "...The Church of Constantinople is traditionally regarded as being founded by St. Andrew, the “first-called” of the Apostles....The first bishop of the city of Byzantium was St. Stachys (38–54), a disciple of the Apostle Andrew....".

 

St Andrew is the first in the list of Apostolic Succession: http://www.patriarch...hate/patriarchs

 

http://www.patriarch.../andrew-apostle ": ...Then he (St. Andrew) sailed to Byzantium, where he ordained the Apostle Stachys as the first Bishop of Byzantium...."

 

An essay on the subject : http://www.myriobibl.../milton1_4.html


Edited by Lakis Papas, 02 September 2013 - 12:48 PM.


#8 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,027 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:38 PM

In antiquity, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov were 'Greek lakes' edged by Greek colonies.  To this day, places around, for example Odessa, have Greek names.  These colonies extended into the Dnieper basin and the area around where the River Don (the word 'don' coming from the Scythian for 'river') flows into the Sea of Azov.  It is not so improbable that St Andrew went up the Dnieper as far as where Kiev now stands.  In apostolic times, Byzantium had been long established as a city and for Apostle Andrew to have been there is perfectly feasible. 



#9 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,516 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:21 AM

An essay on the subject : http://www.myriobibl.../milton1_4.html

 

 

The above essay gives some historical information on this issue. But it doesn't go into depth. In 382 a purported council in Rome under Pope Damasus invented the petrine theory. That Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were connected as these three Sees all were associated with Peter. The title of "Apostolic See" dates back to Pope Damasus and with reason. The entire reason for this newly formed petrine theory and the new title is that the the 2nd Ecumenical Council raised Constantinople to the second place eclipsing Alexandria and Antioch in the Nicene rankings. 

 

Byzantium was originally a small greek colony and was not known as having been found by apostles. In the East it did not matter as the pentarchy was never based on apostolic foundations, it was simply based on the importance of the city to the empire. 

 

The truth is the concept of an "Apostolic See' is a 4th century innovation itself, of the approximate 42 apostolic churches, Byzantium was not on that list. So what better way to lessen its importance than to always remind everyone it was not apostolic?

 

 

The 'Decree of Damasus' demonstrates a newly-created rivalry between Constantinople and Rome, Elder Rome and New Rome created a sibling rivalry:

 

 


1. After the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the catholic churches (note the plural) diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'.

2. In addition there is also the presence of the blessed apostle Paul, 'the chosen vessel', who not in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world.

3. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter 'having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]'.

However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truthdirected by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom.

Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came  to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.

 

 

 

Historically. Peter himself was never known to have been the head bishop ruling from Rome, only that he visited in the latter end where he was eventually martyred. Infact we know exactly where Peter made his residence and that was in Corinth. Not only does Paul's epistle to the Corinthians spells this out, its confirmed by Dionysios of Corinth in 180 AD ,when he wrote his epistle to the Roman Church explaining their common heritage.

 

From this ridiculous Petrine Theory, even nestorian- minded bishops from Antioch attempted to argue their superior theology compared to the monophysite theology of Alexandria!:

 


 

"But this man (Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria) will not abide by the decrees (of Nicaea), but brings forward at every turn that his is the ****Throne of Mark****; and yet he knows well that the great city of Antioch has the Throne of Peter, who was both teacher of Mark, and the first and the leader (coryphaeus) of the choir of the Apostles." (Theodoret, T. iv. Ep. lxxxvi.).

 

 

 

Regardless, the early christians of the Asia Minor region (and neighboring areas) have always considered John, Andrew and Philip as the apostles that laid the foundations of the Church in their region.  Infact the early christians of Asia Minor also held the daughters of Philip in the highest esteem as they were long-remembered and venerated as prophetesses in the region. Byzantium would have been within that hegemony. Hence the Gospel of John gives the story of how greeks sought out Christ by turning to Philip who in turn told Andrew and both brought the message to Christ. Christ responded by saying, 'the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified' (Jn 12.20-36). Also unique in John's gospel is that Andrew's name is placed before Peter's name which is quite telling. Its the only place in the gospel that this occurs and gives us historical insight that in Ephesus Andrew held a special place in their hearts:

 

The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, “Follow Me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. (Jn 1.43)


#10 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 September 2013 - 12:21 PM

Thanks, Kosta, for explaining John 12:20-23.  You are the only person I have seen point this out. 



#11 xenovia

xenovia

    New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 25 September 2013 - 07:53 AM

I always believed that Andrew was definitely the First called.Since my parents were From Ukraine I always believed

it and read it in the Bible.. Thus I named my first born son Andrew after my Father and Grandfather



#12 Vasily

Vasily

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 06:42 PM

Glory to Jesus Christ,

 

 All of the responses to my post are great. One more question. St. Andrew appointed St. Stachys as bishop of Byzantium, but legend or records show that St.Andrew was not in Byzantium. Why does the typicon of Hagia Sophia not have a feast of St. Stachys.  My reasoning for all of this, is that I am in constant battle (for a better word) with catholics and feel it is necessitates my defending the Orthodox faith.

Thank you again for the input.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users