Replies

This has been an interesting discussion to follow, everything from HTM's icons to St. Peter's clout. Just two hopefully helpful comments as follows:
1) When the state dictates religious teaching, this is erastianism, not Caesaropapism. Caeseropapism is the Pope, e.g. Pope Benedict VIII or Pope Innocent III, acting as if he were the Roman Emperor.
2) Another good read, but unfortunately out of print, is The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome 3d ed., rev. and enl. Puller, Frederick William, 1843-1938. Another good one, but much more feisty (too feisty for my taste!), is THE PAPACY: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations With the Eastern Churches by the Abbe Guettee. It's in print and also now on line.

A question. Granted that St. Peter was the leader of the holy apostles, so what? After all, he founded at least TWO episcopal sees. Tactually, therefore, the Patriarch of Antioch is as much a successor of St. Peter as was the Patriarch of the West.

Another question. How does the Church of Rome pope a pope? In Alexandria, the Pope of Alexandria is "poped" by being consecrated/ordained bishop of Alexandria. In Carthage, the Pope of Carthage is "poped" by being consecrated/ordained bishop of Carthage. So how is the Pope of Rome "poped"?

A question. Granted that St. Peter was the leader of the holy apostles, so what? After all, he founded at least TWO episcopal sees. Tactually, therefore, the Patriarch of Antioch is as much a successor of St. Peter as was the Patriarch of the West.

I have heard this mentioned as precisely the justification for the exalted status of the 3 patriarchates--in that they were founded by Peter (Alexandria through St. Mark.) Whether this is an idea of the Fathers, or a much later concept, I'm not sure.

But to answer your question about Antioch, I'm not aware of any Patristic evidence that it ever conceived of an equal status with Rome. In fact, Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans is rather deferential:

[to the Church] which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love
Ye have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others].
Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love

Contrast the decidedly more authoritarian tone that Clement of Rome took to the Corinthians. Even the Protestant editor of the Penguin edition noted it.

"When the state dictates religious teaching, this is erastianism, not Caesaropapism. Caeseropapism is the Pope, e.g. Pope Benedict VIII or Pope Innocent III, acting as if he were the Roman Emperor."

Sir, you are mistaken. Caeseropapism is when a secular ruler, the Emperor, for example, assumes a form of ecclesiastical authority. Again, I say this was rampant in the East during the first 1000 years of Christianity. Also, I have seen articles that see Putin in Russia exercising the same authority in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Regards