Melkites, Maronites, and Reunion

[John_of_Patmos]

The Melkite Church, if I am correct is the equivalent to the GO Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. If the EO and Oriental Orthodox all were to rejoin the Catholic Church, what would happen to the Melkites, or the GO Churches of Antioch,and Alexandria (presuming that the Copts and Syrians are in control in their respectives sees in the reunited church)? What about the Maronites, would they disappear? In other words, would Antioch have one patriarch, or, one for the Maronites, one for the melkites, one for the GO, and one for the Syriac Catholics/Orthodox?

 

[Peter_J]

The Melkite Church, if I am correct is the equivalent to the GO Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. If the EO and Oriental Orthodox all were to rejoin the Catholic Church, what would happen to the Melkites, or the GO Churches of Antioch,and Alexandria (presuming that the Copts and Syrians are in control in their respectives sees in the reunited church)? What about the Maronites, would they disappear? In other words, would Antioch have one patriarch, or, one for the Maronites, one for the melkites, one for the GO, and one for the Syriac Catholics/Orthodox?

I suppose the answer to that would vary from one “Reunion Proposal” to another.

 

[Vico]

The Melkite Church, if I am correct is the equivalent to the GO Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. If the EO and Oriental Orthodox all were to rejoin the Catholic Church, what would happen to the Melkites, or the GO Churches of Antioch,and Alexandria (presuming that the Copts and Syrians are in control in their respectives sees in the reunited church)? What about the Maronites, would they disappear? In other words, would Antioch have one patriarch, or, one for the Maronites, one for the melkites, one for the GO, and one for the Syriac Catholics/Orthodox?

It would need to be agreed upon since there are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox involved. I imagine it could be one Patriarch for each Patriarchate, but that would mean different liturgical traditions in each.

Historically Complex:

Antioch Patriarchate​

Syrian Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian)
Syrian Catholic (from non-Chalcedonian)
Greek Orthodox Melkite
Catholic Melkite
Catholic Maronite

Alexandria Patriarchate​

Coptic Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian)
Coptic Catholic (from non-Chalcedonian)
Greek Orthodox Melkite

Jerusalem Patriarchate​

Greek Orthodox Melkite
Armenian Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian)
Latin Catholic

 

[John_of_Patmos]

It would need to be agreed upon since there are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox involved. I imagine it could be one Patriarch for each Patriarchate, but that would mean different liturgical traditions in each.

Historically Complex:

Antioch Patriarchate​

Syrian Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian)
Syrian Catholic (from non-Chalcedonian)
Greek Orthodox Melkite
Catholic Melkite
Catholic Maronite

Alexandria Patriarchate​

Coptic Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian)
Coptic Catholic (from non-Chalcedonian)
Greek Orthodox Melkite

Jerusalem Patriarchate​

Greek Orthodox Melkite
Armenian Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian)
Latin Catholic

So, in the reunited Catholic church, would the Copts alone have Alexandria, and the Antiocheans alone have Antioch? Or would we keep this “historically complex” system of Greek and Latin Patriarchs all over the place?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I think that one city should have one bishop.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I think that one city should have one bishop.

The problem with that, is that in today’s society, we do infact have Greeks in historically Latin territory, and are much more ethnically spread out than Christians were in 40 AD.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Well, these are the facts:

The Orientals and the Catholics are separate since 451 AD. That is 1561 years.

The Orthodox and Catholics are separate since 1054. That is 958 years.

The chance of reunion is very very small, the chance of it happening during or lifetime is even smaller. Only a wonder could cause the reunion. And if it will ever take place, I think that everyone should keep his own rite under one bishop per diocese. All these bishops should agree on ONE faith so there will be no theological differences between them. But as I said, only a wonder could bring this about.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Well, these are the facts:

The Orientals and the Catholics are separate since 451 AD. That is 1561 years.

The Orthodox and Catholics are separate since 1054. That is 958 years.

The chance of reunion is very very small, the chance of it happening during or lifetime is even smaller. Only a wonder could cause the reunion. And if it will ever take place, I think that everyone should keep his own rite under one bishop per diocese. All these bishops should agree on ONE faith so there will be no theological differences between them. But as I said, only a wonder could bring this about.

Call me a radical optimist, but I expect possible reunion within my lifetime…
If the EO join the Catholics, the Orientals would follow suit, at least I hope…
Many of the EC Churches show that one can be truly eastern AND Catholic.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Call me a radical optimist, but I expect possible reunion within my lifetime…
I****f the EO join the Catholics, the Orientals would follow suit, at least I hope…
Many of the EC Churches show that one can be truly eastern AND Catholic.

That is a very big if. And even then, the OO didn’t join the Catholics between 451 and 1054, so why would they in case of a reunified RC-EO Church?

Honestly, if TRUE reunion, not reunion a la Florence or Lyons happens, it will be the happiest day of my life.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

That is a very big if. And even then, the OO didn’t join the Catholics between 451 and 1054, so why would they in case of a reunified RC-EO Church?

Honestly, if TRUE reunion, not reunion a la Florence or Lyons happens, it will be the happiest day of my life.

I think its kind of like this: The OO started as Monophysites, but now are not (correct me if I’m wrong). There is no reason why they wouldn’t join the Catholic now. I think they let history get in their way of a reunited Catholic Church, maybe some are scared of taking a leap of faith to join the Catholic Church. I hope this makes sense.

 

[Ignatios]

Reunification is starting by unifying Eester ( IMO) look at this:
shweir.com/easter_unification.htm

Make sure you scroll down for English translation.

 

[RyanBlack]

I think its kind of like this: The OO started as Monophysites, but now are not (correct me if I’m wrong). There is no reason why they wouldn’t join the Catholic now. I think they let history get in their way of a reunited Catholic Church, maybe some are scared of taking a leap of faith to join the Catholic Church. I hope this makes sense.

The Oriental Orthodox never were Monophysites. They never have denied that Christ has a nature consubstantial with ours, which was the heretical teaching of Eutyches that led to the Council of Chalcedon. Rather, they could not reconcile the Definition of Chalcedon with the christological teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (something I believe to have been more of a misunderstanding than a true difference in faith). This led to their rejection of Chalcedon and schism from those Churches that did accept Chalcedon.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

The Oriental Orthodox never were Monophysites. They never have denied that Christ has a nature consubstantial with ours, which was the heretical teaching of Eutyches that led to the Council of Chalcedon. Rather, they could not reconcile the Definition of Chalcedon with the christological teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (something I believe to have been more of a misunderstanding than a true difference in faith). This led to their rejection of Chalcedon and schism from those Churches that did accept Chalcedon.

Thanks!
I am rather partial to our OO brothers.

 

[Peter_J]

So, in the reunited Catholic church, would the Copts alone have Alexandria, and the Antiocheans alone have Antioch? Or would we keep this “historically complex” system of Greek and Latin Patriarchs all over the place?

Well, it’s like asking “If the USA and Canada become a single country, will each Canadian province become one state?” The answer varies from one “Reunion Proposal” to another.

 

[Vico]

So, in the reunited Catholic church, would the Copts alone have Alexandria, and the Antiocheans alone have Antioch? Or would we keep this “historically complex” system of Greek and Latin Patriarchs all over the place?

The overlapping jurisdictions already exist so I think it would be very difficult to merge, particularly considering that there are about 45 churches involved.

Just in North America there are the Latin, and 10 sui iuris eastern churches with jurisdictions and then these:

Eastern:
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of N. America
Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church
Jerusalem Patriarchate in North and South America
Orthodox Church in America
Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America & Canada
Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
Serbian Orthodox Midwestern American Metropolitante
Serbian Orthodox New Gracanica Metropolitanate
Ecumenical Patriarch:
Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America
Carpatho Russian Orthodox Diocese in the USA
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto (Canada)
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA

Oriental:
Armenian Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church
Syrian Orthodox Church

Assyrian:
Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East

 

[Peter_J]

Call me a radical optimist, but I expect possible reunion within my lifetime…
If the EO join the Catholics, the Orientals would follow suit, at least I hope…
Many of the EC Churches show that one can be truly eastern AND Catholic.

Well I don’t know about that, but I’m reminded of this quote I read:

Father Richard John Neuhaus eloquently spoke for this Roman Catholic assessment at the Rose Hill Conference in South Carolina last May, when he declared that the only thing really separating the two groups was the bare act of removing the separation. Then, in a moving Protestant response to this suggestion, S. M. Hutchens addressed the Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”

Read more: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e#ixzz1oxfdVqQy

 

[BVT]

Historically the church at antioch was a greek church ie liturgy in Greek …the center of Syriac Christianity was Edesa.

 

[Ghosty]

Historically the church at antioch was a greek church ie liturgy in Greek …the center of Syriac Christianity was Edesa.

Actually, the Antiochian Church only became “Greek” much later, under pressure from the Byzantine Empire and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now whether or not the language used originally was Greek I can’t say, but the Liturgy certainly wasn’t what we’d call Eastern Orthodox today.

cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=15&IndexView&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=US&pageno=1

As for reunion, it’s hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[malphono]

BVT;9066855:

Historically the church at antioch was a greek church ie liturgy in Greek …the center of Syriac Christianity was Edesa.

Actually, the Antiochian Church only became “Greek” much later, under pressure from the Byzantine Empire and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now whether or not the language used originally was Greek I can’t say, but the Liturgy certainly wasn’t what we’d call Eastern Orthodox today.

The city of Antioch was actually bilingual: the “upper classes” spoke Greek while the “locals” spoke Syriac, so liturgy there would have been found in both languages. The surrounding countryside, however, was another matter: it was strictly Syriac-speaking.

That said, BVT is correct that Syriac Christianity (both Eastern & Western) has its original roots in the School of Edessa. While the usage of the Western branch was modified early on in Antioch, there are, nonetheless, some things which are common both.

 

[Art321]

Well I don’t know about that, but I’m reminded of this quote I read:

Wow. Just wow.

That sure is an interesting article. I suppose the things that the writer wrote on is true. Most Orthodox Chirstians just don’t like the idea of a possible reunion with Rome and honestly this article really paints a dim view if you know what I mean.

But I suppose you have to face the facts, right?
Still like I’ve said before, let us hope reunion will come to pass even if it takes a really long time.