St Nathanael: relationship of his confession to St Peter's?

[Acácio]

Dear friends

Some Westerner theologians have always enjoyed saying the Pope of Rome bears }}the Apostolic Primacy (or Supremacy) due to the St Peter´s confession of faith on Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

But, what to say about Apostle Nathanael? If we pay more attention, Apostle Nathanael made the same Statement on the Divine Sonship of Our Lord as soon as he was introduced to Him by St Apostle Philip (John 1: 49).

So, St. Nathanael should have Primacy among the Apostles, shouldn´t he? Because he was the first one to say: “Rabi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel”

It is only curiosity I would like to share with all of you

In XC

Acácio

[Vasilis Kirikos]

"Some Westerner theologians have always enjoyed saying the Pope of Rome bears the Apostolic Primacy (or Supremacy) due to the St Peter´s confession of faith on Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, Our Lord. In XC Acácio"

Anyway, the Bible in the Book of Acts recites that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch; not Rome. And so far as I have read the Bible never mentions St. Peter ever being bishop of Rome. So how do "they" come up with such an idea that St. Peter was bishop of Rome and the popes of Rome are his successors in the first place?? Vasilis

[Alex Haig]

Nathanael answered and said to Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (John 1:49)

Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16)

Nathanael's confession is not the same as Peter's: Nathanael addresses Christ as a man, a King who can overthrow the rule of the Romans whereas Peter addresses Christ as He is, the God Man, the Messiah and the Son of God.

The difference between the two confessions is further made evident: you can almost hear Christ laughing as He replies to Nathanel "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these" (John 1:50), but to Peter He recognises that "flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17).

With love in Christ

Alex

[Margaret Mueller]

Anyway, the Bible in the Book of Acts recites that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch; not Rome. And so far as I have read the Bible never mentions St. Peter ever being bishop of Rome. So how do "they" come up with such an idea that St. Peter was bishop of Rome and the popes of Rome are his successors in the first place?? Vasilis

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have failed to find a reference of St. Peter being referred to as the "episkopos" of Antioch in the book of Acts. It has been my understanding that the Apostles were Apostles, and that they ordained "episkopos" from either one of the Seventy traveling with them, who then remained in that community, or from someone found worthy in the new community. I don't believe that any of the Apostles were ever considered "episkopos," but that those they ordained were.

Therefore, the first bishop of neither Rome nor Antioch was St. Peter.

The concept that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and his glorification in the West has its roots in the pride of the Latin people in the capitol of the Roman Empire, St. Peter's martyrdom in Rome, and "upon this rock I will build my church." (the Orthodox understanding being that Christ was referring to "faith" which is essential to the Church, not to an individual). Rome can certainly claim Apostolic Succession from either Peter or Paul.

[John Charmley]

Dear Margaret,

As with so many things, the statements that St. Peter was bishop of Antioch and later Bishop of Rome are based upon the oral tradition of the Church, as is so much else, so we should not rush to discount it because 'it is not in the Bible'; there is much in the Bible that we only understand as we do because of the traditions of the Church.

Of course, the western Church did, indeed, choose to take a certain interpretation of Peter's role for its own purposes, but the tradition that Peter spent many years in Rome and was martyred there is so ancient that we should, surely, believe it; even if Orthodox Christians do not take the doctrine of Petrine supremacy in the way the Roman Catholic Church has interpreted it?

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Margaret, you wrote:


Therefore, the first bishop of neither Rome nor Antioch was St. Peter.

The concept that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and his glorification in the West has its roots in the pride of the Latin people in the capitol of the Roman Empire, St. Peter's martyrdom in Rome, and "upon this rock I will build my church." (the Orthodox understanding being that Christ was referring to "faith" which is essential to the Church, not to an individual). Rome can certainly claim Apostolic Succession from either Peter or Paul.

With due deference and respect, I do think this is a touch unfair and inaccurate. Referring to Peter as the first bishop of Rome was current at least as far back as St Irenaeus in the mid-second century.

As to the question of 'upon this rock...', as to whether it refers to the person of Peter or his confession, the Orthodox Church has never espoused the singular reading that it refers to the latter, rather than the former. Profession that this is 'the Orthodox view' of this passage is, I think, largely reactionary. The fathers of the Church are fairly clear that it is both the confession and Peter's person to whom Christ refers. (It would be worth doing a search of this forum on this topic: I know it is one we have discussed at length in the past.)

On the matter of apostles vis-a-vis bishops: surely there is a distinction, in that none of the subsequent bishops of the Church have been apostles in the same way that the original eleven were; but in most ecclesial writing and custom the apostles are understood to be the archetypal episkopoi, rather than predecessors to the first bishops. The Church sees them not so much as initiating a new office in ordaining their followers, but in handing on their episcopacy to successors.

INXC, Matthew

[Antonios]

Dear Margaret,

Just to echo what Matthew wrote: When one thinks on the life of St. Peter, that is, his experiences and his intimate encounters and relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as his tremendous contributions and works performed in the infancy of the Church, it becomes more and more clear that the 'rock', the foundation to which the Lord would begin to build his Church, was both in his confession of faith and from his very lips. We should never deny nor even minimize his influence and leading role in the early Church. The problem arises when this become extrapolated, centuries later, into a concept of Vicar of Christ, a title St. Peter himself would never have assumed, having had his dirty feet washed by the Lord of Hosts hours before His passion and death.

[Margaret Mueller]

We should never deny nor even minimize his influence and leading role in the early Church. The problem arises when this become extrapolated, centuries later, into a concept of Vicar of Christ, a title St. Peter himself would never have assumed, having had his dirty feet washed by the Lord of Hosts hours before His passion and death.

Every homily I have heard that mentions Peter has minimized his position. The Orthodox books I have read do not mention Peter's leadership. The erroneous impression I have is that Peter's contribution was not more or less than any of the other Apostles or the Seventy. I would guess that all of the Apostles shared in the Lord's example of humlity,and Peter would be uncomfortable at the very least with how his name is used. So, where do I find information on Peter that does tell me what I need to know?