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

My brother, we all have a right to disagree with each other.

Your opinion that unity in the Eastern community should come last. I, as someone who thirsts to be reunited with my Eastern brethren think it should be the first step.

There really is no need to get frustrated and angry at one another.

Please forgive me, because I seem to have offended you.

But others do not believe that there is a single Patriarch of Antioch. Actually, the excellent relationship between the Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholic patriarchs, bishops, clergy and laity suggest that the Orthodox might actually understand the situation and see that is more complicated than those Orthodox who might believe the Greek Catholic patriarch and the bishops and laymen under him are no more then an unbaptized laymen.

Certainly claiming that there is no Grace in Catholic baptism is a rather ridiculous stance for even the most traditional Orthodox communities.

As long as the person is baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, even Protestant Baptism is and should be excepted.

There are radicals on our side. I do not disagree with this statement of fact.

Thank you for your kind words, Father Deacon.

I understand your desire for reunion with the Eastern Catholics. Please know that we Latin Catholics also long for reunion with all our Eastern brethren.

But, I trust you will agree that reunion can never be forced or "directed", it must be voluntary, the result of brotherly love and an act of free will.

Please forgive me for getting angry.

I am not angry my friend.

Not one bit. Maybe I was for a second, but that is because I am a bit hot headed. Sometimes I let my emotions get the best of me and I ask for your prayers. I need to control this to be a better Deacon and servant of God

I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church, although I disagree with my Western brethren on many key issues...

In fact, and I think most people here will be interested in this, my Polish wife (yeah I know I am lucky) is a distant relative of the Pope John Paul of blessed memory. I will ask her exactly how a bit later, because i think it is very distant and rather complex.



Either way...

We will agree to disagree for now and pray for each other, right?

You are a lucky man, indeed.

Let us pray for each other!

Fr. Deacon Borislav,

It is brought up time and again that the Orthodox and Catholics do not share the same faith 100% and of course it is a matter of debate as to what percentage we share. However, if even we share 99% and the 1% disagreement is the Pope's role it would indeed be a violation of the consciences of Eastern Catholics if their Churches are dissolved and they were told to join the Orthodox Church. This however, is exactly what has been suggested by some Orthodox hierachs most notably the Greek Orthodox who have been least affected by the Unia.

To say there is already a single Patriarch of Antioch is also a bit simplistic. Even if the three Catholic Patriarchs are excepted, there remain two Orthodox Patriarchs, one Chalcedonian and one Non-Chalcedonian. In fact, in each of the four ancient Eastern patriarchal sees there are two Orthodox Patriarchs, one Chalcedonian and one Non-Chalcedonian. Since there is already limited but sanctioned inter-communion between these two Communions, why don't the Chalcedonians vacate Alexandria and Antioch?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Shlomo Deacon Borislav,

I would point out that your stance is not unpopular as it is unsupportable. Eastern Orthodoxy claims to the Antiochene Patriarchate are not supported either by canon law nor by the vast majority of Christians within the Patriarchate.

First, canonically since the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes that the Syriac Orthodox Church is not in heresy this Church has a strong claim to the Patriarchal Throne. Following this line then the Syriac Catholic Church is the legitmate claimate since they elected a Patriarch of this unified Church in 1662 that came to support unity with Rome. This line is unbroken except for a few exceptions.

Second if you are going to argue that because of the Chalcedonian controversy that Syriac Orthodox Church's line is negated, then the Maronite Church has proper claim since it has always been "orthodox". With the election of St. John Maron to the Patriarchal Throne after a vacancy of over 80 years. At this time the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was apointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and served in his court. No Byzantine Patriarch of Antioch was physically present in the Patriarchate until after the conquest of Constantinople.

Lastly, if you want to still argue that the Maronite Patriarch is not legitimate then the Melkiet Patriarch has to be since in 1724 the Byzantine Antiochene Church elected a Patriarch that decided to join the Catholic Church. The only reason that Eastern Orthodoxy even exists in this Patriarchate is that the Patriarch of Constantinople and other Eastern Orthodox used the Ottomans to persecute those that supported the Catholic party. Again, Constantinople appointed a Patriarch for Antioch to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church; so please tell me how Antioch by jurisdiction, canons, or believers can be claimed to be legitimately historical part of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

A rather far fetched claim, don't you think?

I wonder if one can make a claim that when the Franks took Rome, deposed a canonically elected Pope and installed their own Frankish Pope they broke canons of the Church making all subsequent Popes un-Canonical and without Grace...

Please understand that I don't actually believe the above, but I heard the claim made, and I think it is about as valid as your claims that the Eastern Church does not rightfully hold the throne of Antioch.

Shlomo Fr. Deacon Lance,

You have put into simple words what I have pontifficated about. I would also point out that inter-communion between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches is quite extensive.

I look forward to seeing the answer to your questions above.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

No I am telling you that the Maronite Church has the best claim to the Throne of Antioch, if you want to look at degrees of claim then the Eastern Orthodox have the lest.

As for my points being ridiculous they are backed up with facts that even the Eastern Orthodox of the Antiochene Patriarchate recognize including the present Patriarch. I would ask that you actually read what I wrote, research and then comment.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

The Maronite Church is not Orthodox, it is Catholic thus I understood what you stated rather clearly.

Shlomo Deacon Borislav,

My point is that you were trying to be insulting. My Church is part of the Catholic Communion but it is still a legitmate Church just as the Russian Orthodox is a legitimate part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The Roman Church has no claim to the Patriarchate of Antioch, and has renounced any claims to such.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

The fact that you are insulted does not mean that I was trying to be insulting, but I am sorry if you are.

Shlomo Deacon Borislav,

As I have asked please look at all of my arguements. Each one is strong, but all together they smash any claim the Eastern Orthodox Church has to Patriarchal Throne. To help you understand here is a better formula. As you will see, No matter what based on Canon Law, the Eastern Orthodox Church has no claim to the Throne of Antioch:

1. If Flavian II was Patriarch until his death in 518, then -

the Melkite, Greek Orthodox or Maronite Patriarchs are the successors of the See, and
Severus (who died before Falvian) was not Patriarch at any time and thus the Syriac Catholic and Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs are not the successors of the See.

2. If Flavian II was legally deposed and Severus was the legal successor, then -

the Syriac Catholic or Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs are the successors of the See.
the Melkite, Greek Orthodox and Maronite Patriarchs are not the successors of the See.

3. Further, if John Maron was legally elected Patriarch in 685 and the actions of the Byzantine Emperor to depose him were illegal then the current legal successor of the Patriarchate is the Maronite Patriarch.

4. The Melkite versus the Greek Orthodox Patriarchs - The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches both recognize that Cyril VI was legally elected Patriarch in 1724 and that that current Greek Orthodox church of Antioch was a later creation to serve the faithful that did not choose to enter full communion with Rome. As such, the Melkite Patriarch has the legal claim to the Patriarchate.

5. The Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholic both recognize that Andrew Akhidjan was legally elected Patriarch in 1662 who re-entered communion with Rome but later Patriarchs severed that Communion. Later Michael Jarweh was elected Patriarch in 1782 and he again re-entered communion with Rome which caused those that opposed union to separate and form a new ecclesial body that today is called the Syriac Orthodox Church. As such, the Syriac Catholic Patriach has the legal status as the continuation of the original See of Antioch over the Syriac Orthodox Church provided of course that Severus was indeed legally elected Patriach which the Catholic Church does not accept.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon