Acts Done by the Europeans on the Syriac Churches During the Previous Centuries

  • Thread starter Thread starter amalthomas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dzheremi said:
What do you mean he ordained the entire hierarchy? And what’s your source on that? Because he wasn’t even ordained bishop of Edessa until c.543, i.e., about 100 years after Chalcedon. Do you mean to say that the Syriac Orthodox Church did not exist until that time? That’s an odd position for a Syro-Malankaran to hold…I figure you guys would know a church so related to your own history a bit better than that, but maybe you can’t acknowledge it now that you’ve come under Rome and have to tow the Chalcedonian line. Sad. I guess you’ve forgotten about its earlier patriarchs like St. Severus (exiled from the See in 518 AD), et al.
Click to expand...
Slow down. Don’t you think you are jumping to a conclusion without waiting for me to answer?

After Chalcedon, did not the majority of the hierarchy and laity switch to the Imperial Church’s communion, whether by crookedness or virtue? Then slowly accept the Byzantine Liturgical Tradition?

Here’s a Coptic viewpoint, one that I mostly agree with:


A Syriac view, also in agreement with above:
monachos.net/library/index.php/patristics/themes/252-severus-of-antiochs-objections-to-the-council-of-chalcedon-a-re-assessment

The Syriac Orthodox perspective is as follows (sor.cua.edu/Intro/):🙂
“As the Emperor supported the Chalcedonian camp, the Syriac Church came under much persecution. Many bishops were sent to exile, most notably Patriarch Mor Severius, who was later given the epithet togho d-suryoye, ‘Crown of the Syriacs’. Mor Severius died in exile in 538. By the year 544, the Syriac Church was in an abysmal situation with only three bishops remaining. It was at this time that Mor Yacqub Burd`ono (Jacob Baradeus) emerged to rejuvenate the Church. Mor Yacqub traveled to Constantinople for an audience with Empress Theodora, the daughter of a Syriac Orthodox priest from Mabbug according to Syriac Orthodox sources, and wife of Emperor Justinian. Theodora used her influence to get Jacob ordained as bishop in 544. Later, Mor Yacqub would travel across the entire land reviving the Church. He managed to consecrate 27 bishops and hundreds of priests and deacons. For this, the Syriac Orthodox Church honors this saint on July 30 of every year, the day of his death in 578. A few centuries later, adversaries labeled the Syriac Orthodox Church ‘Jacobite’ after St. Jacob. The Syriac Orthodox Church rejects this belittling label which wrongly suggests that the Church was founded by Mor Yacqub.”

All the Churches of Antioch agree that the hierarchy came under the Chalcedonians, so how can the Syriac Orthodox claim to be more legitimate than the Melkites/Antiochians? How are they defending that - Liturgy? Yes, they kept the true Liturgy of Antioch, with Alexandrian influences.
 
Where is this SyroMalankara, why don’t you answer my questions. I am waiting for days.
 
amalthomas said:
ioch has primacy
Then SyroMalankra,
My question is
Suppose all the scholars and historians conclude that Antioch has primacy, Rome has nothing to do with apostle Peter, and Syriac orthodox is the genuine Antiochine church. I again say this is just an assumption. Then even if Antioch has primacy(just an assumption), what are the difficulties in the current situation to make it happen? Can you point out the difficulties currently with such a thing to happen. For example I found that Melkite catholic patriarch of antioch, Gregore iii laham, visited India two years before and advised and stressed in his speech that it is necessary to be under Rome. What are the practical problems church fear in these situations?
For example whether it has anything to do with economy of Europe, whether it has anything to do with economy of the catholic church, whether it has anything to do with Islam (since Syriac church of Antioch might be responsible for the spread of Islam in the middle east), whether it will affect the current power balance of the world and Christianity as a whole. Can you please elaborate by assuming that Antioch has primacy.
Click to expand...
This was my question.
 
The difficulty is that even Antioch has disclaimed primacy, so how can scholars claim it? Before Chalcedon, the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch shared a tri-partrite Primacy of sorts, based on the a common Petrine origin. If not Rome, then Alexandria should have primacy - according to the pre-Chalcedonian Council of Nicae model (Canons 6 and 7) which the Oriental Orthodox accept. For the Syriac Patriarch to claim primacy, it would first have to knock off Rome, then Alexandria.
 
SyroMalankara said:
The difficulty is that even Antioch has disclaimed primacy, so how can scholars claim it? Before Chalcedon, the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch shared a tri-partrite Primacy of sorts, based on the a common Petrine origin. If not Rome, then Alexandria should have primacy - according to the pre-Chalcedonian Council of Nicae model (Canons 6 and 7) which the Oriental Orthodox accept. For the Syriac Patriarch to claim primacy, it would first have to knock off Rome, then Alexandria.
Click to expand...
But as from the following picture Alexandria already recognises it,
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
amalthomas said:
But as from the following picture Alexandria already recognises it,
Click to expand...
Sorry to intrude on this, but no, I don’t think it demonstrates anything of the sort. What that photo shows is (a) that the Churches are in communion, and (b) that HH Tawdros respects Moran Mor Zakka as an elder and a senior in his position.
 
How does that photo show that, AmalThomas? I agree with Malphono. The Syriac Orthodox Church and its Patriarch are afforded enormous respect in the Coptic Orthodox Church (IIRC, the Syriac patriarch and the Eritrean patriarch are the only ones explicitly mentioned in diptych in every liturgy, though others may be mentioned if context and manners dictate, e.g., whenever we have Ethiopians visiting us, the Patriarch of Ethiopia is also mentioned), but this does not extend to or include the recognition of any kind of Petrine supremacy or whatever you think that picture shows.
 
But as far as I know, in 1970 when Coptic patriarch of alexandria, Shenouda was enthroned, syriac patriarch of Antioch Ignatius Yakoob was the main celebrant.
Now in 2012, when Coptic patriarch of alexandria Tewedros was enthroned, syriac patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius Zakka was the main celebrant as shown above.

But when Syriac patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius yakoob was entoned in 1957, coptic church sent its represnetatives, the coptic patriarch did not attend (also coptic see was vacant).
Also when Syriac patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius Zakka was enthroned in 1980, coptic church sent its representatives. Coptic patriarch Shenouda did not attend.

From the newspapers at that time of recent coptic patriarch entronement, I found that syriac patriarch of Antioch was the chief celebrant because Antioch is the petrine see and alexandria is the see of St Mark and St MArk is a disciple of Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top