www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Pope and the Eastern Bishops

Just a couple of notes. The term "Antiochian Orthodox" is a North American term. Patriarch Ignatius is "The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East". God Bless the Melkites for continuing to refer to themselves as "Greek Catholics".

In the Greek Archdiocese, they follow the titles of the Byzantine usage of the Autocephalous Churches of Greece, Cyprus and Albania (and canonically disputed Autonomous or Autocephalous FYR of Macedonia). Thus Metropolitan Methodios is in Boston. The title of Archbishop is reserved for the primate, Archbishop Demetrios.

Regarding the Patriarchal elections in Antioch, the Melkite Schism established a situation that was only corrected by Russian intervention at the end of the 19th Century. Under Jesuit influence, the Holy Synod elected Cyril Tannous as Patriarch over Sylvester the Cypriot. Thus, the Melkites USED TO SAY that the legitimate line of Sts. Peter and Paul went through them and not the Orthodox because their Patriarch received more votes. That changed here under Archbishop Tawil and Fathers King and Karami. The Melkites now admit that they would join the Orthodox Patriarchate and resign their sees if full Communion was reestablished.

In the election that led to the split, the only canonically acceptable candidate to both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was the Orthodox candidate Sylvester (who was installed by Constantinople for the roughly 2/3 that remained Orthodox). Cyril Tannous was 16 years old and canonically unacceptable by any objective set of canonical standards. Thus, the Melkites now say that the only really legitimate candidate for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch at the time of the Schism was Sylvester the Cypriot.

Hi Neil!

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Is And Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

This is sad.

The Melkite situation cries out for correction.

But as I have heard, the Melkites at one time came under the Patriarch of Constantinople's jurisdiction. Thus, the Patriarch of Constantinople had the right to appoint Melkite Patriarchs, didn't he? Or is this a true abuse of power that was done by the Patiarch of Constantinople?

An abuse, of the cry out for correction variety.

So it was an abuse by the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time? Also, what is meant by "of the cry out for correction variety"?

Thanks

At that time the Melkites were under the EP, was the time of the Ottoman Empire. The Ecumenical Patriarch was the head of the "Roman" or Orthodox Millet or nationality. Thus, all church offices had to be appointed from his positon on down. The same held true for the Jerusalem Patriarch, etc. This was the way the Ottomans had set up the millet system. This is why the Melkite Patriarch cam under Rome in 1724. That and for the opportunity to have non Greek Leadership over them. I know this is an over-simplification of what happened. It took the Patriarchate of Antioch (Orthodox) about 175 years to realize non-greek leadership, and to have an incumbent elected from within the membership of its own church.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

An abuse of similar significance to the one that Hesychios seems so very concerned about.

An abuse Yes, but unfortunately it was the law of the empire at that time. It was not until the fall of the empire that it fell away in most cases. The Church of Jerusalem is still influence from this, though no reason for it exist at this time.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Does the Pope pick bishops for every jurisdiction in the ECC, or only for Melkites?

Thanks.

True, but we must be fair the situation is far better under Rome where ratification seems to be the norm of a person the Melkites themselves elect rather than a Greek being forced upon the church as their leaders when the church is middle eastern in culture.

I think Neil�s explanation was well done.

All else is conspiracy theory - rumor - and slandar.


If the Melkite church wishes to honor Peter - who is anyone else - to infringe on its independence to do so?

No one infringes on the Orthodox right to withhold some degrees of honor from Peter. Why should anyone - anyone - infringe upon the Melkites for the same independent right to voluntarily honor Peter? and at the same time adhere to the Eastern cannons (called the 'Orthodox cannons')?

Who - is anyone - to suggest that the Melkite hierarch is composed of fools who bow to any number of worldly causes and do not hold to Christ!?

If the Melkite hierarchy has decided to voluntarily honor Peter - isn�t all else - conspiracy theory - rumor - and a dishonor - even slander - to the legitimate decision of the legitimate hierarchy of an independent church? Of course it is. Laity - pretending to have the same grace granted to hiarchy.

Let us � let � the Melkite hierarch act as it sees fit - without guessing alternative motives to them. Let us do this in the very same way that we let the Orthodox churches do as they please in their own independence.

What troops does the Pope have poised to attack or imprison? None.

And if Pope did have strom troopers... are the Melkites of God to be assumed no grace to withstand intimidation?

What doctrine of theology has the Pope demanded that Orthodox churches must change? None.

What charge of heresy has the Latin church leveled at the Orthodox churches? None.

So I ask you - where is - this Latin tyrant who �necessitates� his approval?? or what punishment will he meat out??

I am often amazed at what grand authority and power - that some separated churches - assume the Pope to have. Yet they themselves by the very fact of thier voluntary separation prove that the Pope has no such authority and power as they claim he taken to himself.

Some claim the Papacy later grew into a vast authority and power far beyond what it originally had in the early church. And I say - are you blind??

In the early church Peter was honored as Chief apostle - by all - and the successors of that office (the Bishop of Rome) was so honored by all churches. That was thee early church down to the change that took place with the Byzantine Empire when a tug of war for head of the church took place. Who would be head of the church ?? the new Ceasar of new Rome or the old Pope of old Rome??

This the Orthodox readily admit. And - now - the role of Peter has been far lessened by the very fact that many of the independent churches now withhold that honor that had been vouluntarily given to Peter since day one.

There is the change (!) he has far less influence that he had in the early church. What used to be universal is now limited to a portion.

So Peter once had the entire church - and now he only has a portion - how then is that now a greater power and autrhity than before??? when now only a portion of the entire church pays him any attention??

What nonsense in logic.

As regards the Melkites - which Neil is - and represents here to us here - why would anyone - dishonor his explanation of his church?

"We ask - but we do not want to know - we wish rather to prove our point - so Neil is a pawn to that point."

Why would anyone - assume that they know the motives of the Melkite heiarchy better than the Melkites themselves. Who would be such a fool?

We should not claim the honor of independence for ourselves - and then without the honor of independence from others - without becoming - disingenuous.

Dear Neil: A wonderful explanation including the early cannons about how one church should operate within another church�s administrative area. I had just recently been reading these early cannons in the Orthodox cannons themselves� and it appears to me that the Melkites follow these cannons well while other some other Eastern churches completely disregard them.

Bravo - for this accurate description of the Eastern cannons on the matter.

-ray

"Under the current provisions of Canon Law, the Holy Synods of sui iuris Churches only have the authority to elect or appoint hierarchs to Sees within the historical territories of the Patriarchate (or Major Archepiscopate in the case of Churches of that status). The authority of the Church's primatial hierarch in the diaspora is limited, technically, to matters liturgical. In the instance of a vacancy in the non-patriarchal territories, the Church's Holy Synod ordinarily chooses three names in order of preference and submits the list, called the terna to Rome, which appoints the new bishop."

Is this an ECC Canon, or an Eastern Canon of the Early Church?

Of course it is not as simple as this :0 but here is a portion of the Orthodox Canon.

Ray,

Thank you for the kind words - but, please don't misunderstand me. Neither I, nor most Melkites of my acquaintance who are conversant with the present situation vis-a-vis appointment of hierarchs in the diaspora, are pleased with the process as it is currently played out.

That point being that we believe His Beatitude, the Patriarch of Antioch & All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem of the Melkites, in concert with the Holy Synod of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, should name hierarchs to our vacant Sees, regardless of the geographical siting of those Sees, without any intervention from Rome.

That such is not presently the case is a matter of no small dismay to us, very likely more so than it is to many of the other patriarchal Churches or the major archepiscopal Churches (the Ukrainians aside, as I know it has been an issue of major concern for them, as well).

Many years,

Neil

What I don't get is why Rome doesn't stop what they are doing. I'm sure they know many don't like it, yet they continue to do it.

Why is this the case?