Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch

[twf]

In another thread we were discussing the complex, and often sad, history that has led to five Patriarchs of Antioch, three of whom are Catholic. In general, how do Eastern / Oriental Catholics feel about this very anomalous situation? Considering that Antioch, in the ancient Church, ranked third after Rome and Alexandria, and was considered one of the three Petrine sees with primacy in Asia, is it problematic that we as Catholics can’t refer to “THE Patriarch of Antioch”?

 

[Vico]

In another thread we were discussing the complex, and often sad, history that has led to five Patriarchs of Antioch, three of whom are Catholic. In general, how do Eastern / Oriental Catholics feel about this very anomalous situation? Considering that Antioch, in the ancient Church, ranked third after Rome and Alexandria, and was considered one of the three Petrine sees with primacy in Asia, is it problematic that we as Catholics can’t refer to “THE Patriarch of Antioch”?

Although Antiochene in tradition, the seat of the various Patriarchs is now in three different cities. This represents three different communions, so there is are different views on what is the valid Patriarchial succession.

• Damascus, Syria - Greek-Melkite Catholic, Syrian (Oriental) Orthodox, and Antiochian (Eastern) Orthodox
• Beirut, Lebanon - Syrian Catholic
• Bkerke, Lebanon - Maronite Catholic

 

[dmar198]

Considering that Antioch, in the ancient Church, ranked third after Rome and Alexandria, and was considered one of the three Petrine sees with primacy in Asia, is it problematic that we as Catholics can’t refer to “THE Patriarch of Antioch”?

“Problematic” is an interesting word choice. From a doctrinal perspective I don’t think it is problematic, because I don’t think the patriarchates, as ecclesiastical positions, are connected to Catholic doctrine at all. At various times in Church history, patriarchates have been added, and I suppose they could be removed. In the Catholic Church there are currently 15 bishops who bear the title “Patriarch,” including a patriarch of Venice and a patriarch of the East Indies.

Like the position of “monsignor,” I think the patriarchates are ecclesiastical positions that can be changed or modified as necessary. Unless I’ve misunderstood something, the pope could even abolish the position of “patriarch” today if he wanted to, in the same way he recently announced that there would be no more monsignors.

From a perspective of historical nicety, I think it is either negative or positive that there are three Catholic patriarchs of Antioch, depending on how you look at it. On the negative side, it reflects the schisms that have affected Catholic history in the Antiochene church. On the positive side, it reminds us of the missions that converted large bodies of Christians back to the faith. These ancient sees had gone into schism first with Rome and then with each other until there were three major divisions in the Antiochene Church, but the Church went to great lengths to achieve unity. The Church allowed three distinct bodies of the faithful to maintain a bishop with the title “patriarch of Antioch” so long as they returned to the bosom of their Lord. To me, that is an impressive testament to the value the Church places on unity above historical nicety.

Let there be six hundred patriarchs of Antioch if it will save one more soul.

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[twf]

Dmar:
Thanks for your response. I don’t quite agree. Within the Catholic communion both Latin and Eastern theologies are considered valid expressions of the faith. I don’t think Eastern theologians, Catholic or Orthodox, would agree with your assessment. Certainly if the Pope were to attempt to abolish the office of Patriarch the Orthodox would be extremely skeptical of future chances of reunion. It would be a gross abuse of papal power at the very least- and would quite possibly lead to schism. Is the office of Patriarch dogmatic? No… But it is not a mere honour in eastern theology. The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch accepted Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy, but only with the following clause added to the document he and his bishops signed: "without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the patriarchs of the East. Pope St Gregory the Great definitely believed that he, as pope of Rome, held universal primacy, but he also spoke of the primacy of Alexandria, within Africa, and of Antioch, within Asia, as being derived from their Petrine heritage (St Peter was bishop in Antioch before go on to Rome and he sent his disciple St Mark to found the Alexandrian see). Is this dogma? No but it was clearly a belief of the ancient Church. I think it is unwise of us Latins to dismiss Eastern tradition in these matters so quickly.

 

[dmar198]

Dmar:
Thanks for your response. I don’t quite agree. Within the Catholic communion both Latin and Eastern theologies are considered valid expressions of the faith. I don’t think Eastern theologians, Catholic or Orthodox, would agree with your assessment. Certainly if the Pope were to attempt to abolish the office of Patriarch the Orthodox would be extremely skeptical of future chances of reunion. It would be a gross abuse of papal power at the very least- and would quite possibly lead to schism. Is the office of Patriarch dogmatic? No… But it is not a mere honour in eastern theology. The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch accepted Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy, but only with the following clause added to the document he and his bishops signed: "without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the patriarchs of the East. Pope St Gregory the Great definitely believed that he, as pope of Rome, held universal primacy, but he also spoke of the primacy of Alexandria, within Africa, and of Antioch, within Asia, as being derived from their Petrine heritage (St Peter was bishop in Antioch before go on to Rome and he sent his disciple St Mark to found the Alexandrian see). Is this dogma? No but it was clearly a belief of the ancient Church. I think it is unwise of us Latins to dismiss Eastern tradition in these matters so quickly.

I hope I didn’t sound dismissive in my response. I think abolishing the patriarchies would be a horrible, egregious mistake, barring a set of circumstances that perhaps I can’t imagine. It would be like saying “History doesn’t matter. Continuity is dumb.” But I don’t think the patriarchies, as positions, are connected to dogma. That’s the main thing I was trying to get at in the first part of my reply.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But I don’t think the patriarchies, as positions, are connected to dogma.

Dogma, no, but canon law, yes. A Patriarchal Church is a recognized ecclesial body that has distinctive rights of self-governance.

Here are some highlights …

CCEO - TITLE 4

The Patriarchal Churches

Canon 55

According to the most ancient tradition of the Church, already recognized by the first ecumenical councils, the patriarchal institution has existed in the Church; for this reason a special honor is to be accorded to the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, each of whom presides over his patriarchal Church as father and head.

Canon 56

A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.

Canon 58

Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 63

A patriarch is canonically elected in the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church. (i.e not by the Pope).

 

[Peter_J]

“Problematic” is an interesting word choice. From a doctrinal perspective I don’t think it is problematic, because I don’t think the patriarchates, as ecclesiastical positions, are connected to Catholic doctrine at all. At various times in Church history, patriarchates have been added, and I suppose they could be removed. In the Catholic Church there are currently 15 bishops who bear the title “Patriarch,” including a patriarch of Venice and a patriarch of the East Indies.

Like the position of “monsignor,” I think the patriarchates are ecclesiastical positions that can be changed or modified as necessary. Unless I’ve misunderstood something, the pope could even abolish the position of “patriarch” today if he wanted to, in the same way he recently announced that there would be no more monsignors.

From a perspective of historical nicety, I think it is either negative or positive that there are three Catholic patriarchs of Antioch, depending on how you look at it. On the negative side, it reflects the schisms that have affected Catholic history in the Antiochene church. On the positive side, it reminds us of the missions that converted large bodies of Christians back to the faith. These ancient sees had gone into schism first with Rome and then with each other until there were three major divisions in the Antiochene Church, but the Church went to great lengths to achieve unity. The Church allowed three distinct bodies of the faithful to maintain a bishop with the title “patriarch of Antioch” so long as they returned to the bosom of their Lord. To me, that is an impressive testament to the value the Church places on unity above historical nicety.

Let there be six hundred patriarchs of Antioch if it will save one more soul.

I hope that helps. God bless!

Thanks for reminding me why I try to stay off the EC forum.

 

[dmar198]

Thanks for reminding me why I try to stay off the EC forum.

I think I must have sounded very insensitive when I posted that, because the responses to it have sounded shocked. I’m very sorry for anything I said that is offensive or dumb or unthinking or unconcerned with the Eastern Churches and their tradition, which deserves more submission than I have given it.

If the pope or an ecumenical Council abolished the patriarchate, under present circumstances that would seen to show a complete indeference to history and Tradition. For me to talk about it the way I did perhaps suggests that I think I know more than history because I’ve read the Catechism and that makes me an expert, or some such nonsense. I apologize and retract it.