Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[josethomas2005]

And BTW, the so-called “Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch” was an invention of Constantinople.

Dear Ignatios
Will you give an explanation to the above statement. Is it right? After Patriarch Severus was deposed, what happened? What was the language used at that time? Greek or Syriac. Was Greek orthodox patriarch an invention of Constantinople?

 

[Ignatios]

syroMalankara:

Notice the bolded portion of the the quote in your previous post.

In any case, my involvement in this tangent of the current thread is now over. It is merely going around in circles and is certainly not productive. I should have known better than to get involved in the first place.

yes I did , but why not include what I have underlined namely where it says “*…The line may be further continued to the Byzantine Rite " it seems like you ducked for that one and how the Book that it explains it more accurately than the rest?----->>> "… the Antiochian Family (including the Western Syrian [Antiochian, Jerusalem, Byzantine, Maronite and Armenian”

And then, your last bolded portion namely the “…these no longer concern the Church of Antioch” I agree, We as Antiochians Eastern and Oriental are not concerned about those issues as dividing any more.

Dear Ignatios
Will you give an explanation to the above statement. Is it right? After Patriarch Severus was deposed, what happened? What was the language used at that time? Greek or Syriac. Was Greek orthodox patriarch an invention of Constantinople?

Dear joseThomas,

A brief answer to this would be the other way around after removing the word “invention” why and how? simply it is the history take one for an instnace:

" … In its general form it can be taken as representative of the rite of Antioch in the late fourth century, from which that of Constantinople ultimately derived."liturgica.com/html/litEOLitEarly.jsp

Also with the following is 2birds in one stone if you know what I mean:
“…The two liturgical rites of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil in the Eastern Church became the norm by the end of the reign of Justinian. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was probably the liturgy used originally by St. John while Bishop of Antioch, and which he carried to Constantinople upon becoming Patriarch. It was, therefore, originally a West Syrian liturgical rite…”

The last couple Issues of this thread were very delicate and can be very confusing to many as we observed the case was with last few posts with all due respect to all, as for this statement above " Greek orthodox patriarch an invention of Constantinople" it is not an erudite sign at all that, the least to say about, it is not an invite to an erudite discussion, however it points to many other ancient issues that some groups might still hold in which it no longer concern the Orthodox Oriental and/or Eastern.

But to give an Idea, without going into this, if it is true that the “so-called” Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch is an invention, why not give on what ground it is so? what is the base of this idea? and if it is an invention of Constantinople, than the Syriac Catholic is an invention of whom? Then, if we were to agree with you for the sake of argument ONLY that it is an invention of Constantinople, why Constantinople? why not the one who you left your Church ( Syriac Orthodox Church) for and you submit yourself to it namely Rome, since the Pope was the one who presided in that Council?

However, the Greek language indeed was the language that the Antiochian Church spoke and celebrated the Liturgy in from the early times, since most of the people of Antioch were Greek and spoke the Greek language and the others were Aramaic and spoke the Greek language as well ( those who were from the CITY of Antioch itself but not the suburbs )
…After the persecutions and the Gentile missions, the Church became primarily composed of Greek-speaking Gentiles for whom Greek culture and music were the norm. Thus began the introduction of Greek language and musical style onto the foundation of Jewish worship structure. The earliest rites in the Eastern Church include the Jerusalem liturgy of St. James, the Alexandrian liturgy of St. Mark, the East Syrian liturgy, the West Syrian liturgy of Antioch, the Armenian liturgy, and the Coptic liturgy. Most liturgical scholars accept that in the Eastern Orthodox Church, three principal rites emerged over time: the East Syrian, the West Syrian and the Alexandrian. These liturgies were far more similar than different from one another…liturgica.com/html/litEOLitEarly.jsp]

and the Syriac Divine Liturgy of Saint James did not come to an existence until after the schism, the history says that the Aramaic modified it and translated it to their own after the schism to combat the Hellenization fo the Aramaic nation, ( in whom I might be one of) , and the Byzantine Liturgical Rite is of the Greek Divine Liturgy of Saint James i.e the original.
I rest my case

GOD bless †††**

 

[Ghosty]

Dear Ignatios
Will you give an explanation to the above statement. Is it right? After Patriarch Severus was deposed, what happened? What was the language used at that time? Greek or Syriac. Was Greek orthodox patriarch an invention of Constantinople?

I’m not Malphono, but I think I can answer this. What he is refering to is most likely the creation of the Antiochian Orthodox Church after the Patriarch and Synod voted to re-Commune with Rome in the 18th century. The vast majority of Byzantine Antiochians and clergy became Catholic at that time, so Constantinople created a new Synod and hand-picked a new Patriarch (and was supported by the Ottoman Empire which controlled the territories in question). The Antiochian Orthodox Church was then under the control of Constantinople until about a century ago.

The original Byzantine Antiochian Church, called the Melkite Church, became Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

I’m not Malphono, but I think I can answer this. What he is refering to is most likely the creation of the Antiochian Orthodox Church after the Patriarch and Synod voted to re-Commune with Rome in the 18th century. The vast majority of Byzantine Antiochians and clergy became Catholic at that time, so Constantinople created a new Synod and hand-picked a new Patriarch (and was supported by the Ottoman Empire which controlled the territories in question). The Antiochian Orthodox Church was then under the control of Constantinople until about a century ago.

The original Byzantine Antiochian Church, called the Melkite Church, became Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

… Shakespeare once said “… words words words”
for some odd reason I get the feeling in this thread, that few trying to pit the EO against the OO and/or against the Melkite Catholic Church, OO and Melkite Catholic are our truly brothers and sisters in CHRIST though separated so far, let it be known that the disputed Issues between us and them now are very insignificant to a point that It doesn’t matter anymore, as for the above theory, why not look up some information from the Melkite Catholic Church itself and then compare them to the above statement, and let everyone draw his/her conclusion from it.

" …The new move is an effort to build better relations with the Orthodox. "Seeing the necessity of the local Church, I find it´s better that we go back to the other calendar," Gregory III explained.
The patriarch said he hopes that other rites will follow and that eventually the whole Catholic Church will celebrate Easter together with the Orthodox"mliles.com/melkite/latinsynodbishops.shtml

"*** … At the Second Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh spoke forcefully against the latinization of the Eastern Catholic churches, and urged a greater receptivity to the eastern Christian traditions, especially in the area of ecclesiology. Today the Melkite bishops, including Patriarch Maximos IV, support the idea that, in the event of a reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, their church should be reintegrated into the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch*. A bilateral commission for dialogue between the Melkites and Antiochene Orthodox was established in 1995, and both sides expressed the firm intention to heal the schism of 1724 [see the Patriarchate of Antioch]**."faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Melkite.html

those great Patriarchs of the Melkite church knew what they were talking about. otherwise why reintegrated into the “Orthodox Church of Antioch”?

***" Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Patriarchs & List
Twentieth in the line of Greek- Melkite Catholic Patriarchs since 1724

1724-1760: Cyril VI Tanas
1760-1761: Maximos II Hakim
1761-1788: Theodosius V Dahan
1788-1794: Athanasius IV Jawhar
1794-1796: Cyril VII Siage
1796-1812: Agapios II Matar
1812 : Ignatius IV Sarrouf
1813-1814 : Athanasius V Matar
1814-1815 : Macarios IV Tawil
1816-1833 : Ignatius V Cattan
1833-1855 : Maximos III Mazloum
1856-1864 : Clement Bahous
1864-1897 : Gregorios II Youssef- Sayour
1898-1902 : Peter IV Geraigiry
1902-1916 : Cyril VIII Geha
1919-1925: Dimitrios I Cadi
1925-1947: Cyril IX Moghabghab
1947-1967 : Maximos Sayegh
1967-2000 : Maximos V Hakim
2000- : Gregorios III Laham "***pgc-lb.org/english/Church5.shtml

I rest my case.

I think the above from our truly brothers and sisters in the Melkite Catholic Church is great testimony to shut down the door on any instigatation between us,

Salutation, Love and respect to our brothers and sisters in the Melkite Catholic Church from your brothers and sisters in the Orthodox Church of Antioch, In CHRIST †††

GOD bless †††

 

[neverleft]

Oh boy…having read and heard alot about our “differences” …each and every comment(opinion) leaves me scratching my head and rubbing my chin! It ALWAYS appears to me that everyone is trying to be very polite…or more likely, POLITICALLY CORRECT,
by never coming out and telling it like it is…less they appear arrogant (righteous?) in proclaiming to be THE ONE TRUE CHURCH!! …God forbid…this SURELY would give those protestants and other anit-Catholic groups more fuel for their fire huh?

I’m really getting sick of this…even the “top brass” runs scared…forever using euphamisms like “our brethern in Christ”

Does anybody else feel this way?

 

[josethomas2005]

I’m not Malphono, but I think I can answer this. What he is refering to is most likely the creation of the Antiochian Orthodox Church after the Patriarch and Synod voted to re-Commune with Rome in the 18th century. The vast majority of Byzantine Antiochians and clergy became Catholic at that time, so Constantinople created a new Synod and hand-picked a new Patriarch (and was supported by the Ottoman Empire which controlled the territories in question). The Antiochian Orthodox Church was then under the control of Constantinople until about a century ago.

The original Byzantine Antiochian Church, called the Melkite Church, became Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ignatios,
It is found that there was not at all a greek orthodox patriarch between the perios 1823 to 1843. The seat was vacant or it is that all those orthodox in 1823 joined the catholic church. Then the word invention can be somewhat right?

 

[Ignatios]

Dear Ignatios,
It is found that there was not at all a greek orthodox patriarch between the perios 1823 to 1843. The seat was vacant or it is that all those orthodox in 1823 joined the catholic church. Then the word invention can be somewhat right?

Dear Jose,

loooooool… forgive me, but, is this for real? I will try to answer this on the basis that your statement above is not a joke but a sincere one.

1. there is no evidence from the Melkite Church that the Orthodox came to the Melkite Catholic and then returned to Orthodox Church between that period of time
   .
2. Nor there is any indication from the Ecumenical Patriarch to point that such a thing took place in the year 1823-1843.
3. the 1800’s are a recent history, I don’t think something on this magnitude could be lost or hidden or even confused. ( Just to show how recent it is for us, My grandfather whom held me when I was little boy was born in the year 1879 and fell asleep in the LORD in the year 1964.)
4. there was at least a couple of times where the Patriarchate was vacant for even longer time than the above at one time, does that denotes that they became something else?
5. in that time the Melkite Catholic Church was still outlawed, and their Patriarch was in exile, so the only legitimate Church was the Orthodox Church, and according to the Ottoman even their Bishops were still under the Orthodox Church, until the year 1848 where the Ottoman recognized the Melkite catholic as minority church.

BUT now if you ask me why was the Orthodox Patriarchate vacant for that long, some of the record that I was able to look at shows, that during that time, The Orthodox fell out of favor from the Ottoman Sultan, because revolts erupted in various parts against the Ottoman rulers 1821, ( this only two years prior to the vacancy of the Antiochian Patriarchate) The Ecumenical Patriarch was excuted by hanging from the gate of the Patriarchate during that time, because he failed to convince the Orthodox from stoping the revolution against the Ottomans, So as you see the Orthodox Patriarchs were under pressure from the Ottomans, and with this situation still emerging the Synods of Antioch thought it would be wise to hold off until the existing situation, back then, has settled, In 1832 Greece was recognized as independent state, BUT was that the end of it ? NO, this whole region was unstable, let us look at some of the things that was taking place during then:

'… But a disagreement between Mohammed Ali and the sultan gives Ibrahim a more subversive role. In 1832 he marches north from Egypt to invade the Ottoman province of Syria.
Read more: historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=msc#ixzz0MhD73ENe

“…In 1839 the Turkish sultan attempts to recover Syria by military means, in what proves a disastrous failure. Ibrahim Pasha wins another victory at Nizip, this time so convincingly that the Ottoman fleet changes sides and joins the Egyptians. At this point the western powers intervene, fearful as ever of the collapse of the Ottoman empire. At a treaty in London in 1840 it is agreed that Mohammed Ali will restore Syria and Adana to the sultan. In return he is granted the hereditary rule of Egypt, though the province remains within the sultan’s empire.”
Read more: historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=msc#ixzz0MhGXYtRg

( Notice that new Patriarch was elected after that 1840 that is when all this has ended)

So, as you see my friend after that the synods by the guidance of the Holy Spirit assembled and new Patriarch was picked.

GOD bless †††

 

[Ghosty]

… Shakespeare once said “… words words words”
for some odd reason I get the feeling in this thread, that few trying to pit the EO against the OO and/or against the Melkite Catholic Church, OO and Melkite Catholic are our truly brothers and sisters in CHRIST though separated so far, let it be known that the disputed Issues between us and them now are very insignificant to a point that It doesn’t matter anymore, as for the above theory, why not look up some information from the Melkite Catholic Church itself and then compare them to the above statement, and let everyone draw his/her conclusion from it.

" …The new move is an effort to build better relations with the Orthodox. "Seeing the necessity of the local Church, I find it´s better that we go back to the other calendar," Gregory III explained.
The patriarch said he hopes that other rites will follow and that eventually the whole Catholic Church will celebrate Easter together with the Orthodox"mliles.com/melkite/latinsynodbishops.shtml

"*** … At the Second Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh spoke forcefully against the latinization of the Eastern Catholic churches, and urged a greater receptivity to the eastern Christian traditions, especially in the area of ecclesiology. Today the Melkite bishops, including Patriarch Maximos IV, support the idea that, in the event of a reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, their church should be reintegrated into the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch***. A bilateral commission for dialogue between the Melkites and Antiochene Orthodox was established in 1995, and both sides expressed the firm intention to heal the schism of 1724 [see the Patriarchate of Antioch]."faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Melkite.html

those great Patriarchs of the Melkite church knew what they were talking about. otherwise why reintegrated into the “Orthodox Church of Antioch”?

" Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Patriarchs & List
Twentieth in the line of Greek- Melkite Catholic Patriarchs since 1724

1724-1760: Cyril VI Tanas
1760-1761: Maximos II Hakim
1761-1788: Theodosius V Dahan
1788-1794: Athanasius IV Jawhar
1794-1796: Cyril VII Siage
1796-1812: Agapios II Matar
1812 : Ignatius IV Sarrouf
1813-1814 : Athanasius V Matar
1814-1815 : Macarios IV Tawil
1816-1833 : Ignatius V Cattan
1833-1855 : Maximos III Mazloum
1856-1864 : Clement Bahous
1864-1897 : Gregorios II Youssef- Sayour
1898-1902 : Peter IV Geraigiry
1902-1916 : Cyril VIII Geha
1919-1925: Dimitrios I Cadi
1925-1947: Cyril IX Moghabghab
1947-1967 : Maximos Sayegh
1967-2000 : Maximos V Hakim
2000- : Gregorios III Laham "pgc-lb.org/english/Church5.shtml

I rest my case.

I think the above from our truly brothers and sisters in the Melkite Catholic Church is great testimony to shut down the door on any instigatation between us,

Salutation, Love and respect to our brothers and sisters in the Melkite Catholic Church from your brothers and sisters in the Orthodox Church of Antioch, In CHRIST †††

GOD bless †††

I want reunion as much as the next Melkite, but I’m talking about historical fact. The Antiochian Synod and Patriarch reunited with Rome in 1724, leaving a gap in the Eastern Orthodox Communion that was filled by Constantinople appointing a new Patriarch of Antioch.

That just history 101.

Peace and God bless!

 

[John_Larocque]

I was complaining about the Orthodox obsession Augstine with an Orthodox correspondent and he pointed me to check out a series of blogs linked off of this site:

orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

Ephrem Hugh Bensusan’s Razilaženje

The POV on the blog is that the differences between the RCC teaching on original sin - especially under the last two pontiffs and the CCC - and that of the EO as more of degree than of kind. He describes it as a false dichotomy. The blog even quotes from the old Baltimore Catechism. The pre-Vatican II catechisms describe the “concupiscence” or tendency to sin as what we inherit from Adam.

 

[Ignatios]

I want reunion as much as the next Melkite, but I’m talking about historical fact. The Antiochian Synod and Patriarch reunited with Rome in 1724, leaving a gap in the Eastern Orthodox Communion that was filled by Constantinople appointing a new Patriarch of Antioch.

That just history 101.

Peace and God bless!

Wrong again,

That was PART of the history and another part was wrong and then, a small fraction was right, in which it can at least create a fog to dilute the truth,

It was the Patriarch who was reunited with Rome NOT the SYNODS, the Synods did not reach an agreement on this issue, the vast majority of the People rejected this ( which is a canonical requirement) the Synods split, the Damascus Party Majority were were for the Patriarch and the Aleppo Party was against unity with Rome, Read below from the Melkite Catholic Church website:

"…The Latin mentality assumes, of course, that if a bishop or Patriarch orders something to be done, then, it is done. In the Melkite tradition of collegiality, however, the Patriarch consorts with his bishops especially when such a momentous decision like re-union is at stake. To complicate matters, Tanas was a graduate of the Propaganda College in Rome and hardly could have been objective in his deliberations.

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch. His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus – a nephew of the deceased Patriarch – and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new “schismatic’s.”

What we have now is an unbelievable paradox: two authentic and legitimate Patriarchs of Antioch one Catholic and the other Orthodox. Cyril VI was elected by the clergy who favored union and Patriarch Seraphim had the support of those who did not.*** Cyril could not order all the bishops into union (as Rome supposed and/or hoped*) and Seraphim could not hope that all would stay Orthodox. Each group did as it saw necessary. All we can say is that the time was not right for a total union of the two churches.**stannmelkite.homestead.com/History.html

And again Please Note that my answers to this are not from the Orthodox but all from the Melkite Catholic Church.

GOD Bless †††

 

[Ignatios]

I have just got news that Sayedna Metropolite †Qorban the Bishop of Tripolis and Koura (north Lebanon) just passed away ††† May his memory be eternal.
Please share with us in prayer for his soul. I will be off for the next 7 days at least

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Hesychios]

Sayedna Metropolite †Qorban the Bishop of Tripolis and Koura

Eternal Memory!

 

[Ignatios]

Metropolite †Elias Qorban:
youtube.com/watch?v=sjZtKup-1Jk&feature=related

 

[Ghosty]

First, let me say: Sayedna Metropolite †Qorban the Bishop of Tripolis and Koura, may his memory be Eternal!

Wrong again,

That was PART of the history and another part was wrong and then, a small fraction was right, in which it can at least create a fog to dilute the truth,

It was the Patriarch who was reunited with Rome NOT the SYNODS, the Synods did not reach an agreement on this issue, the vast majority of the People rejected this ( which is a canonical requirement) the Synods split, the Damascus Party Majority were were for the Patriarch and the Aleppo Party was against unity with Rome, Read below from the Melkite Catholic Church website:

"…The Latin mentality assumes, of course, that if a bishop or Patriarch orders something to be done, then, it is done. In the Melkite tradition of collegiality, however, the Patriarch consorts with his bishops especially when such a momentous decision like re-union is at stake. To complicate matters, Tanas was a graduate of the Propaganda College in Rome and hardly could have been objective in his deliberations.

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch. His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus – a nephew of the deceased Patriarch – and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new “schismatic’s.”

What we have now is an unbelievable paradox: two authentic and legitimate Patriarchs of Antioch one Catholic and the other Orthodox. Cyril VI was elected by the clergy who favored union and Patriarch Seraphim had the support of those who did not.*** Cyril could not order all the bishops into union (as Rome supposed and/or hoped***) and Seraphim could not hope that all would stay Orthodox. Each group did as it saw necessary. All we can say is that the time was not right for a total union of the two churches.stannmelkite.homestead.com/History.html

And again Please Note that my answers to this are not from the Orthodox but all from the Melkite Catholic Church.

GOD Bless †††

Your citation says everything I said, and even more firmly. Let me bold the relevant portion that you neglected:

At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch.His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus – a nephew of the deceased Patriarch – and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic’s."

He was elected by the Synod AND the laity. The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead, and sent him to “reclaim and punish” the new “schismatics”. The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn’t like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.

Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church. The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome. This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[josethomas2005]

http://www.stmarysbayarea.org/gallery2/d/90-2/Bava.jpg

 

[Ignatios]

First, let me say: Sayedna Metropolite †Qorban the Bishop of Tripolis and Koura, may his memory be Eternal!

Thank you and may GOD have mercy on the souls of your beloved ones who departed this life.

citation says everything I said, and even more firmly. Let me bold the relevant portion that you neglected:

He was elected by the Synod AND the laity. The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead, and sent him to “reclaim and punish” the new “schismatics”. The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn’t like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.

I do not believe that I neglected that portion at all, but it was IRRELEVANT to what we are talking about.
Show me where I said otherwise or even commented on the supposedly " neglected" portion.

If you pay heed, you will find out that I commented about the Re-unification with Rome, and I said that, It was NOT the Patriarch and the Synods… (as you have said before, my reply was to the following of yours:
"…The Antiochian Synod and Patriarch reunited with Rome in 1724"forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5504948&postcount=178) … who reunited with Rome BUT ONLY the Patriarch WITHOUT the Synods, and his move created a schism within the Antiochian Church, because he hoped that all the Synods would follow his lead but that did not happen,
Here let me repost that portion for you and bold it since you have lost track of what we are talking about:

"…The Latin mentality assumes, of course, that if a bishop or Patriarch orders something to be done, then, it is done. In the Melkite tradition of collegiality, however, the Patriarch consorts with his bishops especially when such a momentous decision like re-union is at stake. To complicate matters, Tanas was a graduate of the Propaganda College in Rome and hardly could have been objective in his deliberations."

And also the following:

**"…What we have now is an unbelievable paradox: two authentic and legitimate Patriarchs of Antioch one Catholic and the other Orthodox. Cyril VI was elected by the clergy who favored union and Patriarch Seraphim had the support of those who did not. Cyril could not order all the bishops into union (as Rome supposed and/or hoped) and Seraphim could not hope that all would stay Orthodox. Each group did as it saw necessary. All we can say is that the time was not right for a total union of the two churches"
**stannmelkite.homestead.com/History.html

Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church. The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome. This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.

Peace and God bless!

Again, I am not discussing whether Contantinople was right or not, besides there is many things that it was not done right by that Patriarch, such as acting on his own with the reunification issue where the Synods did not vote for reunification and the majority were against it as the Melkite Catholic Church said ( by the way this is where our discussion is) and not to mention that in the Orthodox church the recognition of the state for newly elected Patriarch is canonical in which the Ottoman empire turned the thumb down for the new Patriarch, and that is why there was no Patriarch for the Melkite catholic church in the eyes of the law until the 1800s as I have showed in my previous post.
So to correct you, my contention was NOT about the whether the newly elected Patriarch was canonical or not BUT it was about your comments that the Orthodox Church was the Created one and that all of the Church went with Rome including the Clergy and the Laity, and that the reunification with Rome was uncanonical, and as some great bishops from the Melkite catholic Church said " It was a mistake".

GOD bless †††

 

[Aramis]

The information I’ve seen shows the majority of the Antiochian Orthodox Synod (about 60%) went catholic with the Patriarch. That makes the schismatic sect those who remained behind, and elected the new patriarch.

 

[Ghosty]

who reunited with Rome BUT ONLY the Patriarch WITHOUT the Synods, and his move created a schism within the Antiochian Church, because he hoped that all the Synods would follow his lead but that did not happen

You’re simply factually incorrect here. There were a few bishops who did not go along, but the Synodal majority certainly were with the Reunion. Who was the duly elected Patriarch? Cyril, the Patriarch who favored reunion. It was a minority faction who opposed reunion, and Constantinople imposed its own Patriarch upon them without any election, and continued to do so for over a century and a half.

Those are the plain facts of history.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

The information I’ve seen shows the majority of the Antiochian Orthodox Synod (about 60%) went catholic with the Patriarch. That makes the schismatic sect those who remained behind, and elected the new patriarch.

You’re simply factually incorrect here. There were a few bishops who did not go along, but the Synodal majority certainly were with the Reunion. Who was the duly elected Patriarch? Cyril, the Patriarch who favored reunion. It was a minority faction who opposed reunion, and Constantinople imposed its own Patriarch upon them without any election, and continued to do so for over a century and a half.

Those are the plain facts of history.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty, you still yet to show us for once at least a “simple fact” to proof that your facts are factually correct.

Again, I could say that both of you are wrong, Only 60% of the Synod in DAMASCUS ( the Damascus Party) was for reunion with Rome and the Other 40 % of the same Party did not support that Idea, where the Aleppo Party was 100% against the reunion with Rome So if you combine the two Parties together the majority would be on the Orthodox side, the facts were seen on the ground and it is still apparent until our days, about two third or greater of the Antiochian Church are Orthodox and one third or less are Catholic, thanks to the Papacy for doing a good job on dividing the one Church

… That makes the schismatic sect those who remained behind, and elected the new patriarch.

We Do not see the Melkite Catholic as “schismatics” nor do we wish to call them as such, BUT our truly brothers and sisters though separated but not for too long GOD willing. And I hope that the Slavic byzantine Catholic would one day get the same courage as the Melkite Catholic did, and stand up forthemselves and take a bold moves towards unity with the Church that they departed from, such as the Melkite Catholics did, in which now they stand up ALONE as giant, where the other eastern Rites still like to run back and forth to Rome every time they want to say a word. GOD Bless you all and especially our Brothers and sisters the Melkite catholics †††

 

[marymol]

Seeing one good reason as to why God would have allowed Obama to win with a majority vote from Catholics - may be to let many in The Church know how 'popular vote ’ and councils can be so misled …and how would any authority in a Church that depend on such poular opinion be able to stand up and proclaim truths such as of Humanae Vitae …

There are also other examples of money and politics as major influences in the factions and divisions in other similar Churches that also follow the leader … …

Gives deeper menaing to Bl.Mother’s words, in Fatima , on caution of the errors that would be spread through such mothers …

Thank God that the truth stands out and shines well enough …