Legitimate line of Patriarchs

[Wandile]

I just read that In 1782 the Syriac Orthodox Holy Synod elected Metropolitan Michael Jarweh of Aleppo as Patriarch. Shortly after he was enthroned, he declared himself Catholic and in unity with the Pope of Rome. After this declaration Jarweh took refuge in Lebanon and built the still-extant monastery of Our Lady at Sharfeh. Since Jarweh there has been an unbroken succession of Syriac Catholic Patriarchs.

This is interesting because it seems like the exact same situation as the Melkites. So is the Syriac Catholic line of Patriarchs the legitimate continuation of the Syrian patriarchate and the Syriac Orthodox line the continuation of rival line erected in reaction the Patriarch Michael Jarweh ?

 

[Wandile]

Really? Nobody?

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s not a cut and dry question. What are the terms for legitimacy? Having an “original” lineage? Maintaining the faith? Being influenced by Jesuits, or resisting that influence? Being recognized by Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I just read that In 1782 the Syriac Orthodox Holy Synod elected Metropolitan Michael Jarweh of Aleppo as Patriarch. Shortly after he was enthroned, he declared himself Catholic and in unity with the Pope of Rome. After this declaration Jarweh took refuge in Lebanon and built the still-extant monastery of Our Lady at Sharfeh. Since Jarweh there has been an unbroken succession of Syriac Catholic Patriarchs.

This is interesting because it seems like the exact same situation as the Melkites. So is the Syriac Catholic line of Patriarchs the legitimate continuation of the Syrian patriarchate and the Syriac Orthodox line the continuation of rival line erected in reaction the Patriarch Michael Jarweh ?

Also – this is how the Melkites, Syriacs, Chaldeans and Armenian Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia came unto union with Rome. The “legitimacy” question aside.

 

[dzheremi]

It strikes me that if the logic of the OP were maintained in cases where conversion happened the other way around, paradoxically Roman Catholicism in Goa would be legitimately represented by the Malankara Orthodox Church thanks to the conversion of Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvares (a.k.a. Julius Mar Alvares), as he was thereafter elevated to Metropolitan of Goa and Ceylon, not all that much differently than how Jarweh was after his own conversion bestowed a kind of “legitimacy” in the eyes of the Catholic faction.

So then, because someone on “the other side” continued on in some capacity in their new church after converting, the legitimacy they had via their previous church and tradition is maintained even after they’d left it, no? Methinks the OP may change his tune regarding this kind of mechanical “legitimacy” in that case. (Or who knows…maybe I can be the Roman Pope someday, still. Get ready to fast, O my subjects…and boy do I have some encyclicals for you! )

While we’re at it, doesn’t the Queen of England still carry the title of Fidei Defensor in some official capacity? Maybe that legitimizes the Anglican Church too…after all, they were Catholics before they stopped being so, so the “line” is still there, so long as you ignore absolutely everything that happened subsequently to her being given that title by Rome.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It strikes me that if the logic of the OP were maintained in cases where conversion happened the other way around, paradoxically Roman Catholicism in Goa would be legitimately represented by the Malankara Orthodox Church thanks to the conversion of Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvares (a.k.a. Julius Mar Alvares), as he was thereafter elevated to Metropolitan of Goa and Ceylon, not all that much differently than how Jarweh was after his own conversion bestowed a kind of “legitimacy” in the eyes of the Catholic faction.

So then, because someone on “the other side” continued on in some capacity in their new church after converting, the legitimacy they had via their previous church and tradition is maintained even after they’d left it, no? Methinks the OP may change his tune regarding this kind of mechanical “legitimacy” in that case. (Or who knows…maybe I can be the Roman Pope someday, still. Get ready to fast, O my subjects…and boy do I have some encyclicals for you! )

While we’re at it, doesn’t the Queen of England still carry the title of Fidei Defensor in some official capacity? Maybe that legitimizes the Anglican Church too…after all, they were Catholics before they stopped being so, so the “line” is still there, so long as you ignore absolutely everything that happened subsequently to her being given that title by Rome.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here… but Moran Mor Michael was Patriarch and elected by the Holy Synod, his union with Rome and the subsequent formation of the Syriac Church in union with Rome is a bit different than Mor Alvares being an excommunicated Roman priest, then ordained bishop by the Jacobite Orthodox Church in India, initially as a Western Rite within that Church.

 

[Wandile]

It strikes me that if the logic of the OP were maintained in cases where conversion happened the other way around, paradoxically Roman Catholicism in Goa would be legitimately represented by the Malankara Orthodox Church thanks to the conversion of Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvares (a.k.a. Julius Mar Alvares), as he was thereafter elevated to Metropolitan of Goa and Ceylon, not all that much differently than how Jarweh was after his own conversion bestowed a kind of “legitimacy” in the eyes of the Catholic faction.

So then, because someone on “the other side” continued on in some capacity in their new church after converting, the legitimacy they had via their previous church and tradition is maintained even after they’d left it, no? Methinks the OP may change his tune regarding this kind of mechanical “legitimacy” in that case. (Or who knows…maybe I can be the Roman Pope someday, still. Get ready to fast, O my subjects…and boy do I have some encyclicals for you! )

While we’re at it, doesn’t the Queen of England still carry the title of Fidei Defensor in some official capacity? Maybe that legitimizes the Anglican Church too…after all, they were Catholics before they stopped being so, so the “line” is still there, so long as you ignore absolutely everything that happened subsequently to her being given that title by Rome.

You mention the Anglicans… Yes they Anglican church is the legitimate continuation of the Church of England

 

[Wandile]

It’s not a cut and dry question. What are the terms for legitimacy? Having an “original” lineage? Maintaining the faith? Being influenced by Jesuits, or resisting that influence? Being recognized by Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria?

I’m using legitimate in the sense of the line that continues the original line of patriarchs versus the rival line erected.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m using legitimate in the sense of the line that continues the original line of patriarchs versus the rival line erected.

If this is the criteria, neither the Melkites, Antiochian Orthodox, Alexandrian Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East Catholicoi-Patriarchs, etc have any claim. However, this ‘sense of line’ that you are using is rather arbitrary - what’s original? Original in faith, original in Rite/Tradition, original in the what way? Some of the Patriarchates, such as the Chaldean and Assyrian were at some point strictly hereditary - Uncle to Nephew; this is no longer the case in either of the two - are they both then non-original?

 

[Wandile]

If this is the criteria, neither the Melkites, Antiochian Orthodox, Alexandrian Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East Catholicoi-Patriarchs, etc have any claim. However, this ‘sense of line’ that you are using is rather arbitrary - what’s original? Original in faith, original in Rite/Tradition, original in the what way? Some of the Patriarchates, such as the Chaldean and Assyrian were at some point strictly hereditary - Uncle to Nephew; this is no longer the case in either of the two - are they both then non-original?

You misunderstand…

Look with the Melkites, the Chalcedonian church of Antioch was orthodox and had a schism as we know. It formed two lines that exist today, one catholic and the other orthodox. However the Melkites carry legitimate succession in the Chalcedonian Church of antioch as it was Patriarch Cyril Tannas who was elected ny the Antiochan synod and together with a huge number of the synod and faithful, opted to commune with Rome. The modern Antiochan Orthodox Church gains its line of succession from Sylvester who was elected by Constantinople as a rival to the already elected and legitimate patriarch Cyril.

Another example is the Church of Alexandria. There are two realistic claimants to that Church, the Greek and Coptic Patriarchs. However I think it can safely be held that the Coptic Patriarch is the legitimate successor of the Patriarchal line of Alexandria as the Greek line was erected as a rival to the stubborn resistance of Coptic Patriarchs who had an unbroken line from Patriarch Cyril all the way to St.Mark…

Do you see my thought patter here? Maybe it might help you understand what I mean by “legitimate”

Btw even before the schism in the Syrian church, there had already been one or two,patriarchs of catholic faith , same as in Antioch. It seems that the faith of the patriarch didn’t really mean too much as I suspect that back then it was seen that the Latins held a pretty much identical faith to the orthodox bar one or two things…

 

[SyroMalankara]

You misunderstand…

Look with the Melkites, the Chalcedonian church of Antioch was orthodox and had a schism as we know. It formed two lines that exist today, one catholic and the other orthodox. However the Melkites carry legitimate succession in the Chalcedonian Church of antioch as it was Patriarch Cyril Tannas who was elected ny the Antiochan synod and together with a huge number of the synod and faithful, opted to commune with Rome. The modern Antiochan Orthodox Church gains its line of succession from Sylvester who was elected by Constantinople as a rival to the already elected and legitimate patriarch Cyril

Down the rabbit hole…

Why would the Melkites, who lost their Syriac Rites and follow the Rite of Greece, have any claim - why not the Syriacs?

 

[dzheremi]

Playing Devil’s Advocate here… but Moran Mor Michael was Patriarch and elected by the Holy Synod, his union with Rome and the subsequent formation of the Syriac Church in union with Rome is a bit different than Mor Alvares being an excommunicated Roman priest, then ordained bishop by the Jacobite Orthodox Church in India, initially as a Western Rite within that Church.

Hahaha. That’s ridiculous…as though the synod elected him in order to become a Catholic, or as though his election came with no conditions by which it could be invalidated (weren’t you the one who recently posted HH Moran Mor Ignatius Aphrem II’s statement of faith, together with the history behind the Syriac tradition of patriarchs being asked to write the same that long predates Jarweh’s apostasy? It is indeed required of any who would be elected Patriarch in any of our churches that they uphold the faith. The deposing of the likes of Proterius and Yusab II in my own church show this clearly; the mere fact of being elected by the Synod doesn’t stop you from subsequent mistakes or discipline by that same synod; as I suspect you know, in the Orthodox Church that’s precisely the governing body which may censure, depose, or otherwise discipline the Patriarch of the church). Hahaha. It’s actually exactly the same on that level as Mor Alvares being an excommunicated RC priest, as becoming Catholic automatically placed Jarweh outside of the Church not any less than Mor Alvares’ conversion to Orthodoxy placed him outside of his former church. Were that not the case, the Orthodox Church would not have replaced Jarweh that same year (1783) by electing Moran Mor Ignatius Matthew.

Whenever anyone says they’re playing devil’s advocate, they’re about to say something silly.

 

[malphono]

I’ve heard arguments about Moran Moran Michael Jarweh before, and as I see it, it’s not really the same thing as the Melkites. In the Melkite case, union with Rome was the result of a majority Synodal vote. The dissenters balked (and of course there was pressure for them to do this from the Ottoman overlords) and thus a parallel Synod was created. Ergo, the strongest argument would seem to be that the Melkite lineage is the “legitimate” one, with the AOC being the artificially created one.

OTOH, in the Syriac case, it was Moran Mor Michael who made a “profession of faith” leading to his union with Rome. Some bishops followed suit, but it was NOT the result of Synodal action. IOW, those who effected union with Rome essentially left the Synod to follow the Patriarch. In this case, it would therefore seem that the SOC lineage is “legitimate” since, based on the lack of Synodal vote on the matter in the first place, the “dissenters” (meaning the SOC) had every right to elect a Patriarch.

Just my unsolicited :twocents: and likely worth less than half that.

 

[Wandile]

Down the rabbit hole…

Why would the Melkites, who lost their Syriac Rites and follow the Rite of Greece, have any claim - why not the Syriacs?

Because the Syrians weren’t Chalcedonian unless I’m mistaken… I’m specifically speaking about the Chalcedonian Church of Antioch in my example.

I’m talking about the claim of legitimacy to the line of Chalcedonian patriarchs of Antioch. I’m not speaking about the whole patriarchate of Antioch ans who among the 5 claimants rightly is the legitimate line. I was speaking solely about the Chalcedonian Antiochan schism that happens around the 17th century.

 

[Wandile]

I’ve heard arguments about Moran Moran Michael Jarweh before, and as I see it, it’s not really the same thing as the Melkites. In the Melkite case, union with Rome was the result of a majority Synodal vote. The dissenters balked (and of course there was pressure for them to do this from the Ottoman overlords) and thus a parallel Synod was created. Ergo, the strongest argument would seem to be that the Melkite lineage is the “legitimate” one, with the AOC being the artificially created one.

OTOH, in the Syriac case, it was Moran Mor Michael who made a “profession of faith” leading to his union with Rome. Some bishops followed suit, but it was NOT the result of Synodal action. IOW, those who effected union with Rome essentially left the Synod to follow the Patriarch. In this case, it would therefore seem that the SOC lineage is “legitimate” since, based on the lack of Synodal vote on the matter in the first place, the “dissenters” (meaning the SOC) had every right to elect a Patriarch.

Just my unsolicited :twocents: and likely worth less than half that.

Thank you a million times for this answer it really clarifies the whole issue for me. If there is anything else you can contribute please do so

 

[dzheremi]

Why is it not sufficient, ecclesiologically-speaking or whatever, to simply take the dates of the various unions with Rome (which are readily available basically everywhere on this here internet) as the beginning of the Eastern Catholic churches? There isn’t a single Eastern Catholic church (yes, fine…with the possible exception of the Maronites and the Italo-Albanians, depending on whose history you believe; I basically have to mention them to keep mods and OP happy) that did not begin with a schism from some preexisting larger body, whether Eastern or Oriental. Why this strange need to try to reach back before that in an effort to prove…something…to those who did not accept the unions in the first place, whether they had been in the majority or not?

I have not seen anyone in the Oriental Orthodox communion, for instance, claim that the French or British Orthodox churches are some kind of “unbroken line” back to the Orthodox days of the West. That would be silly. They are clearly recent creations resulting from voluntary union of indigenous French and English people with the Oriental Orthodox Church via their incorporation into the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Europe. This does not make them illegitimate in the least. Legitimate is not synonymous with “the position that the majority agreed with at a given time”, nor is it a synonym for old, or else we’d all be using the canon of Marcion (since it predates the Orthodox Catholic canon by centuries), and the vast majority of churches (not Alexandria, though! Yeaaaaah! ) would be professing some sort of Arianism.

I do not get it.

 

[Wandile]

Why is it not sufficient, ecclesiologically-speaking or whatever, to simply take the dates of the various unions with Rome (which are readily available basically everywhere on this here internet) as the beginning of the Eastern Catholic churches? There isn’t a single Eastern Catholic church (yes, fine…with the possible exception of the Maronites and the Italo-Albanians, depending on whose history you believe; I basically have to mention them to keep mods and OP happy) that did not begin with a schism from some preexisting larger body, whether Eastern or Oriental. Why this strange need to try to reach back before that in an effort to prove…something…to those who did not accept the unions in the first place, whether they had been in the majority or not?

I have not seen anyone in the Oriental Orthodox communion, for instance, claim that the French or British Orthodox churches are some kind of “unbroken line” back to the Orthodox days of the West. That would be silly. They are clearly recent creations resulting from voluntary union of indigenous French and English people with the Oriental Orthodox Church via their incorporation into the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Europe. This does not make them illegitimate in the least. Legitimate is not synonymous with “the position that the majority agreed with at a given time”, nor is it a synonym for old, or else we’d all be using the canon of Marcion (since it predates the Orthodox Catholic canon by centuries), and the vast majority of churches (not Alexandria, though! Yeaaaaah! ) would be professing some sort of Arianism.

I do not get it.

Because some of the dates are historically inaccurate. Case in the point: the Melkites. It just helps me understand their history better.

 

[ronyodish]

Friends,

Because of the Catholic Church’s teaching on Apostolic Succession, the Church maintains that all of the following Particular Churches:

• The Latin, Eastern, and Oriental Catholic Churches,
• The Eastern Orthodox Churches,
• The Oriental Orthodox Churches,
• The Assyrian, and Ancient Churches of the East

Are built upon Apostolic origins, and have their lines of succession back to the Apostles. Therefore, all of these particular lines of succession are legitimate lines, that is, they all originate with the Apostles.

From the Catholic Church’s perspective, those bishops of the above Churches, who historically have separated from other bishops, whether to go away from Catholic Communion, or to go towards Catholic Communion, did not, therefore, cease to be bishops, or cease to be successors of the Apostles.

The non-Catholics have issues with our Catholic lines of succession, seeing them as devoid of orthodoxy, legitimacy, authenticity, grace, or whatever term they wish to use in order to maintain that our lines are apostate, heretical, or heterodox. The Catholic Church, however, does not officially regard the non-Catholic lines in like manner.

So, for us, there is nothing wrong in saying that these non-Catholics are indeed legitimate Patriarchs and Churches. So long as they have the Holy Mystery or Sacrament of the Priesthood, which they do, then their lines of succession are legitimate and Apostolic in origin.

God bless,

Rony

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why is it not sufficient, ecclesiologically-speaking or whatever, to simply take the dates of the various unions with Rome (which are readily available basically everywhere on this here internet) as the beginning of the Eastern Catholic churches? There isn’t a single Eastern Catholic church (yes, fine…with the possible exception of the Maronites and the Italo-Albanians, depending on whose history you believe; I basically have to mention them to keep mods and OP happy) that did not begin with a schism from some preexisting larger body, whether Eastern or Oriental. Why this strange need to try to reach back before that in an effort to prove…something…to those who did not accept the unions in the first place, whether they had been in the majority or not?

I have not seen anyone in the Oriental Orthodox communion, for instance, claim that the French or British Orthodox churches are some kind of “unbroken line” back to the Orthodox days of the West. That would be silly. They are clearly recent creations resulting from voluntary union of indigenous French and English people with the Oriental Orthodox Church via their incorporation into the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Europe. This does not make them illegitimate in the least. Legitimate is not synonymous with “the position that the majority agreed with at a given time”, nor is it a synonym for old, or else we’d all be using the canon of Marcion (since it predates the Orthodox Catholic canon by centuries), and the vast majority of churches (not Alexandria, though! Yeaaaaah! ) would be professing some sort of Arianism.

I do not get it.

I’ve heard the “unbroken” line among Orthodox in Ireland - “pre-Roman Ireland had some form of Celtic Christianity”, and also that the Church in pre-Roman England had “ties to the East”. It’s not only the ECs that make such claims.

 

[dzheremi]

Sure, but claiming that there was Orthodoxy in a given place a long time ago is different than claiming that there’s some sort of unbroken line going back to the Orthodox/pre-schism church in that place, which is what it seems like these Catholic attempts to discover/prove the “legitimate” line of Patriarchs as being continued by those who united with Rome (presumably in attempt to invalidate the claims of Orthodox Christians in a given place or church) are about. You know, “our guy was validly ordained/elected by/in the Orthodox Church and then became Catholic, therefore the Catholic Church continues the true/legitimate line of Patriarchs of church X, not the Orthodox Church that scrambled to elect a rival so as to stay out of union with Rome”, or some such reasoning.

I mean, the British Orthodox Church has published a bit on the connections that supposedly existed between the Coptic Church and the church in the British Isles before the Roman realignment, sure, but that does not stop them from telling their history properly and admitting that their current canonical ecclesiastical status was established in 1994, rather than inventing some kind of fantasy whereby they are some unbroken line of true Orthodox bishops or whatever dating back to St. Columba or something.

That’s why I asked that question in the manner that I did. For instance, for the Syriac Catholic Church that is the OP’s example, it was established when Jarweh converted to Catholicism and was proclaimed Patriarch of the then-newly established church made up of him and his like-minded compatriots in 1782-83. Thus it’s lineage is not traceable all the way back to the apostles, but to Michael Jarweh. 1782 is not 37 AD. I don’t know why that is not acceptable to admit and instead people must try to prove that somehow the distinctly ‘Catholic’ line somehow runs through the Orthodox episcopate which has, in this view, abandoned its claim to legitimate succession by not following one man or a group of men into schism for the sake of uniting with Rome.