Patriarch Cyril VI and Melkite/Antiochian History

[Zekariya]

Thank you for the information on St. Peter the Apostle Zekariya, though all the churches listed above are of apostolic origin, for the purpose of this thread and in relation to it, I believe the first bishop of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church would be Cyril VI Tanas.. I’m sorry I didn’t get to include Melkites in this thread, I couldn’t find any portrayals of Patriarch Cyril Tanas.

Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople illegally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch even though Jeremias III had no jurisdiction over Antioch. Jeremias illegally appointed Sylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch even though that See was legally held by Cyril VI. Jeremias illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (why not in Antioch?) and placed him illegally into the territory of Antioch on October 8, 1724.

Ergo, the Melkites came into full communion with Rome, following the true Patriarch of Antioch. They were not a splinter group from Antioch; the Antiochian Orthodox are the splinter group (that is why we kept the historical name Melkite which the non-Chalcedonians gave us).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople illegally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch even though Jeremias III had no jurisdiction over Antioch. Jeremias illegally appointed Sylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch even though that See was legally held by Cyril VI. Jeremias illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (why not in Antioch?) and placed him illegally into the territory of Antioch on October 8, 1724.

Ergo, the Melkites came into full communion with Rome, following the true Patriarch of Antioch. They were not a splinter group from Antioch; the Antiochian Orthodox are the splinter group (that is why we kept the historical name Melkite which the non-Chalcedonians gave us).

Having spoken to priests from Lebanon, I can say that in my experience, the Antiochians self-identify as Melkite, (similarly they also self-identify as Syrian). Indeed, from what I have been told by Middle Easterners, Melkite to them is a vague term which could refer to several Chalcedonian churches.

Also, the events leading up to the schism within the Antiochian patriarchate are far more complicated than the above presentation of things. There was an entire dimension of ecclesiastical subterfuge effected by the Jesuits that is not being addressed here (Metropolitan Kallistos goes into it in his book Eustratios Argenti), a game of ecclesiastical subterfuge to which Cyril VI was privy (he even consecrated a rival bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to create a similar schism in the Alexandrian Patriarchate, but he ultimately failed). From the Orthodox perspective, because Cyril VI eventually left the Church, any questions concerning his legitimacy were settled by that fact (that is to say, legitimacy does not work like magic where it stays with a bishop no matter what; bishops who have gone into schism have no legitimacy, a principle which is even operative in Roman canon law). We view, therefore, Patriarch Jeremias’ intervention in replacing the patriarch of Antioch with another who had not been elected by an openly pro-Roman (and therefore schismatic, from our perspective) party (as Cyril IV was) as a legitimate act of extraordinary mediate jurisdiction.

 

[Zekariya]

I know the Eastern Orthodox opinion. I am not stupid. I also know that the Catholic Church considers Patriarch Cyril VI to be legitimate. Cyril VI did not found the Melkite Church, he merely brought her into full Communion with Rome. Also, the great majority of Greek Antioch came into full Communion with him. Only in more recent times have Antiochians outnumbered the Melkites.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know the Eastern Orthodox opinion. I am not stupid. I also know that the Catholic Church considers Patriarch Cyril VI to be legitimate. Cyril VI did not found the Melkite Church, he merely brought her into full Communion with Rome. Also, the great majority of Greek Antioch came into full Communion with him. Only in more recent times have Antiochians outnumbered the Melkites.

Well, then to be fair, I think the fact that Jesuits encouraged Orthodox Christians to make secret acts of submission to the Pope while still living as if they had not defected should be mentioned, as this was instrumental in forming a pro-Roman party in Antioch large enough to create a lasting schism. Your earlier claim that the modern Melkites are not a splinter group from the historical Antiochian Patriarchate is certainly quite debatable given the circumstances. I myself find it hard to think that the ecclesiological position of Cyril IV was in line with the historic ecclesiology of the Antiochian Patriarchate, as the Antiochian Patriarchate in 1443 broke communion with Patriarch Metrophanes in Constantinople for holding to similar unionist policies.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Well, then to be fair, I think the fact that Jesuits encouraged Orthodox Christians to make secret acts of submission to the Pope while still living as if they had not defected should be mentioned, as this was instrumental in forming a pro-Roman party in Antioch large enough to create a lasting schism. Your earlier claim that the modern Melkites are not a splinter group from the historical Antiochian Patriarchate is certainly quite debatable given the circumstances. I myself find it hard to think that the ecclesiological position of Cyril IV was in line with the historic ecclesiology of the Antiochian Patriarchate, as the Antiochian Patriarchate in 1443 broke communion with Patriarch Metrophanes in Constantinople for holding to similar unionist policies.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “secret acts of submission”, at least from the then-Jesuit perspective. It was a matter of: Rome and Constantinople had a formal break - this need not extend to Russia, Antioch, Alexandria or any other See - here are examples of Latins and EO Communing together in the 11-17th Cent. etc.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think it’s a matter of “secret acts of submission”, at least from the then-Jesuit perspective. It was a matter of: Rome and Constantinople had a formal break - this need not extend to Russia, Antioch, Alexandria or any other See - here are examples of Latins and EO Communing together in the 11-17th Cent. etc.

The fact that there was sometimes intercommunion does not negate the fact that Rome was not in union with Russia and the four Eastern Patriarchates but instead they were in a formal state of schism. Indeed, the four Eastern Patriarchates approved in 1484 a service for the reception of Latins which involved anointing them with chrism (something one would not do unless he considered the one being received either an apostate or in schism), and Russia from 1620 until the late 1660s even went so far as to baptize all Latins.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The fact that it took 300 years for the rest of the EO Patriarchs (lets not forget the OO also have Patriarchs in their original regions, before Constantinople installed Byzantine Patriarchs in those areas) to formally accept the reception of Latins liturgy, and longer for Russia, proves that the Schism with Constantinople need not necessary apply.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The fact that it took 300 years for the rest of the EO Patriarchs (lets not forget the OO also have Patriarchs in their original regions, before Constantinople installed Byzantine Patriarchs in those areas) to formally accept the reception of Latins liturgy, and longer for Russia, proves that the Schism with Constantinople need not necessary apply.

Not true at all. The schism goes back even further, but I was merely giving those points in history as definitive proof that these churches did not perceive the schism just to be a thing between Constantinople and Rome. For example, there was the Council of Florence, which though supported in Constantinople by imperial policy, was rejected by the three other Eastern Patriarchates. As for it taking nearly 300 years, that is certainly not true in the case of Antioch. Ever since the creation of the Latin Patriarch of Antioch (late 11th century/early 12th century), the Patriarchate of Antioch was in some form of schism with Rome. The Russians were definitely in schism as well, because by the time when the four Eastern Patriarchs had broken communion with Rome, the Russians were not autocephalous but only autonomous, still depending on the East for the installation of their metropolitan.