www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Solution to the issue of multiple Patriarchs of Antioch

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

As many of you here know there are multiple Patriarchs of Antioch and All the East. To those of us within the Patriarchate it has been an issue and today I think I have come up with a way of resolving it and keeping everyone for the most part happy. Here is my solution. Have all the Churches that desend from the Patriarchate of Antioch headed by Catholicos!. That way there will be only one Patriarch of Antioch with multiple Catholicos serving under him. So here is how are Patriarchate would be formulated.

H.B. The Patriarch of Antioch and All the East;
H.B. The Catholicos of the Assyrian-Chaldean Church;
H.B. The Catholicos of the Maronite Church;
H.B. The Catholicos of the Melkite Greek Church;
H.B. The Catholicos of the Syriac Church;
H.B. The Catholicos of the Syro-Malabar Church; and
H.B. The Catholicos of the Syro-Malankara Church.

Not only does this work for our Patriarchate but it would work for all of them with Church unification. Further, the office of Catholicos which is used by the Antiochene Churches would also serve as a solution to the issue of what to do about the Churches in the New World.

Please tell me what you all think on this. I am thinking of forwarding it to my Patriarch.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

So, come under Patriarch Ignatius IV and your problems are solved!



Alexandr

I see no problem. There is only one Patriarch of Antioch.

In ICXC
John

Maybe they can rotate who holds the Patriarchate. Or maybe they can form a volleyball team?

Considering that Yuhannon was serious in his suggestion and asked for our comments , I hardly think he was wanting that sort of comment .

I have no problem with the concept. I do see, in Slavipodvizhnik's and Ad Orientem's comments, the foundation for numerous problems of implementation, in light of which, rotation does not seem like a bad idea in the near term, with the senior Catholicos rising to the rank of Patriarch. Regarding volleyball teams, perhaps if we all approached these seemingly intractable ecclesiastical issues with a considerable dose of levity, we might be able to resolve them more easily. Or am I the only one who sees the absurdity in no fewer than seven people claiming to be the Patriarch of the same city?

"Or am I the only one who sees the absurdity in no fewer than seven people claiming to be the Patriarch of the same city?"

Perhaps we can write a play in the line of Samuel Beckett's theatre of the absurd.

As for serious comments, I can add none.

Well, I believe if the issue was as trivial as some of the comments suggest, we wouldn't have an issue to begin with.

It is obvious that this issue is important to some people.

I do not expect my solution would be well received, but here it goes: Let "The 13th Apostle" be not the one who holds the best claim to a Title or a See, but he who serves the most.

As Church, let's evangelize our people (including the hierarchs) well enough that they aspire to serve each other as Christ did, instead of collecting fancy titles (which Christ did not).

Shalom,
Memo

Please forgive me, but there is only 1 Patriarch in Antioch, and that is His Holiness Ignatius IV.

You have not offended me in the least - but might I inquire when Patriarch Ignatius IV was last in Antioch? He lives in Damascus (which is where I've met him) a five-minute walk down the Street Called Straight from the Greek-Catholic Patriarchate.

Meanwhile, the plural of Catholicos is Catholicoi.

The Greek-Catholics of the Patriarchate of Antioch are not looking for a Catholicos; their goal is to have just one Patriarch of Antioch and they are prepared to receive (joyfully) Patriarch Ignatius IV, when other problems are solved.

Fr. Serge

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Sorry for the delay, but as most of you know I do not have a stable housing situation. As to the subject at hand.

By having the Catholicoi we would help bring the Patriarchate back together. For us Antiochenes it is important to have one "father".

As to joining under the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch, I do not see any form of triumpantism as being positive for the Church of Antioch. If the electors are based on population then the probability of someone from the Eastern Orthodox Tradition holding the seat are slim since they are a very small minority of the faithful.

What I see happening, as I do with all the other historic sees is that each of the major Holy Traditions will be based out of their historic sees. Therefore Eastern Orthodoxy will only hold Constantinople and maybe Jerusalem. Antioch will be held by someone from the Antiochene-Edessan Tradition. Alexandria - Coptic; Rome by the Latin Church.

As I had written before, I would hope that the Patriarch of Jerusalem would be held by someone from the Armenian Tradition so that the historic Pentarchy would be held by members of each major Church Tradition.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

I don't think any of the Orthodox suggested that there needed to be an election... There is already one Patriarch of Antioch, Patriarch Ignatius IV.


Sorry, but Orthodoxy is not just some local tradition. Dogma is not custom.

"Sorry, but Orthodoxy is not just some local tradition. Dogma is not custom."

Might we not assume, for purpose of discussion, that all the hierarchs involved uphold the same catholic faith and orthodox dogma? I'm enjoying the thread and find the proposals interesting.

Somehow or other, all the various Patriarchs of Antioch located in Syria managed to put together a common catechism for use by all their Church schools. How do you think they managed that?