Antioch never split from Rome?

[thephilosopher6]

I have read that Antioch never actually accepted the Great Schism and up until 1724 was actually still in communion with both Rome and Constantinople. But then in 1724 there was a huge split and eventually two sides came out of it with one side siding soley with Rome (Melkite Catholic Church) and the other side siding soley with Constantinople (Orthodox Church of Antioch). So, technically this must mean that the Melkites (along with the Maronite’s and Italo-Albanians) never split from the Catholic Church? Right? Can anybody give a good explanation of what the situation was?

 

[JurisPrudens]

I think, you understand that you can’t be in communion with two entities which are not in communion with each other…

 

[SyroMalankara]

I have read that Antioch never actually accepted the Great Schism and up until 1724 was actually still in communion with both Rome and Constantinople. But then in 1724 there was a huge split and eventually two sides came out of it with one side siding soley with Rome (Melkite Catholic Church) and the other side siding soley with Constantinople (Orthodox Church of Antioch). So, technically this must mean that the Melkites (along with the Maronite’s and Italo-Albanians) never split from the Catholic Church? Right? Can anybody give a good explanation of what the situation was?

Not exactly, but - someone correct me if I’m wrong - the Patriarch (Cyril VI) and the entire Holy Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch accepted union with Rome and Pope Benedict XIII accepted communion in 1724. The original Byzantine community in Antioch were originally perjoratively called “Melkite” by the non-Chalcedonian Antiochians (later called Syriac Orthodox/Catholic) because of their loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor (who was considered oppressive by the non-Chalcedonians). The Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch was reconstituted by the Ecumenical Patriarch when he ordained Monk Sylvester to deacon, gave him authority over those that disagreed with the union and soon after ordained Hierodeacon Sylvester to Hieromonk and Bishop.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Not exactly, but - someone correct me if I’m wrong - the Patriarch (Cyril VI) and the entire Holy Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch accepted union with Rome and Pope Benedict XIII accepted communion in 1724. The original Byzantine community in Antioch were originally perjoratively called “Melkite” by the non-Chalcedonian Antiochians (later called Syriac Orthodox/Catholic) because of their loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor (who was considered oppressive by the non-Chalcedonians). The Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch was reconstituted by the Ecumenical Patriarch when he ordained Monk Sylvester to deacon, gave him authority over those that disagreed with the union and soon after ordained Hierodeacon Sylvester to Hieromonk and Bishop.

That’s the history presented by the great scholar Cyril Korolevsky.

 

[Vico]

I have read that Antioch never actually accepted the Great Schism and up until 1724 was actually still in communion with both Rome and Constantinople. But then in 1724 there was a huge split and eventually two sides came out of it with one side siding soley with Rome (Melkite Catholic Church) and the other side siding soley with Constantinople (Orthodox Church of Antioch). So, technically this must mean that the Melkites (along with the Maronite’s and Italo-Albanians) never split from the Catholic Church? Right? Can anybody give a good explanation of what the situation was?

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 lead to a split in the Antioch community, eventually formed the Syrian Orthodox Church. Saint John Maron was the first Patriarch of Maronites in 686, See of Antioch. There was no schism from Rome. The same is true of the Byzantine Church in Italy.