Unified Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch?

[Wandile]

What do you guys think of a unified Catholic patriarchate of Antioch.

Currently there are thre Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch :

His Beautitude Moran Mor Ignatius Joseph III Yonan (Syriac Catholic)
His Beatitude Moran Mor Bechara Boutros al-Rahi (Maronite)
Gregory III Laham (Melkite Greek Catholics)

What if they all step down and elect one bishop in a unified synod to be the Patrarch of Antioch? And then have vicars or something of that sort who act as minor patriarchs for each of the respective traditions to cater for the needs of the Byzantine and Syriac branches of the unified church of Antioch?

Just an idea. You have any other suggestions?

 

[Catholic4Christ]

I’m not an expert on this matter but I doubt that the Melkites, Maronites, and Syriacs would go for this. I would imagine that it is important to them that their separate traditions have separate leadership so that their own customs and traditions do not merge. The non-Latin churches have had to face the issues of Latinization due to the vast majority of Catholics being Latin Catholics. If, say, a Maronite was elected the patriarch of all three churches in Antioch, I could easily see the Melkites and Syriacs being concerned that their churches would experience “Maronitization.” Your idea of separate vicars for each church seems to me to add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy in the Church. These three churches and all the others find their spiritual unity in Christ and their corporate unity in the Pope. I’m not sure why a single Patriarchate for all the Antioch churches is needed.

 

[Wandile]

I’m not sure why a single Patriarchate for all the Antioch churches is needed.

I just believe that the antiochan patriarchate has one bishop as we all know until the various schisms in the first millennium occurred. It’s only proper that Antioch has one bishop again. I personally think it’s scandalous to have more than one bishop for the same location. I understand why they exist though and the status quo is kept. I just thought that maybe returning one would be more apostolic and traditional

 

[MorEphrem]

I just believe that the antiochan patriarchate has one bishop as

You mean since 518? Possibly before then? That’s when the Melkites starting appointing patriarchs at Antioch after the Orientals were excommunicated in 451. There have been at least 2 patriarchs of Antioch for about 1500 years because after Chalcedon there arose the Melkites (in the actual sense of the word, i.e. supporters of the king) and those who were not Melkites (little to do with Christology, a lot to do with politics).

It’s only proper that Antioch has one bishop again. I personally think it’s scandalous to have more than one bishop for the same location. I understand why they exist though and the status quo is kept. I just thought that maybe returning one would be more apostolic and traditional

Why? What is your criteria of tradition? There have been multiple patriarchs of Antioch for triple the length as a single patriarch. Most people (i.e. probably 99%) who belong to these Churches have never even thought to express the existence of multiple patriarchs as scandalous. It would create a slew of problems far worse than the failure to enforce a canon that essentially hasn’t been enforced since it was written.

Catholic4Christ hits the nail on the head. While I doubt Syriac Catholics would have a problem being governed by Maronites, Melkites and Maronites would certainly be at odds. Maronites would also not accept a Syriac Catholic patriarch (for reasons I will not go into). And I would not wish to inflict the Maronite Church upon them.

 

[oliver927]

I personally think it’s scandalous to have more than one bishop for the same location.

Brooklyn NY has two bishops, Is this also scandalous? I am sure there are many other places that technically have two Bishops. This is just one example I know of.

Bishop Gregory John Mansour, Bishop of the Eparchy of St. Maron of Brooklyn
Bishop Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio, Bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn

 

[oliver927]

Here is another example

Archbishop Stefan Soroka, Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia

Archbishop Charles Joseph Chaput, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia

I am not seeing the scandal here.

 

[twf]

Brooklyn NY has two bishops, Is this also scandalous? I am sure there are many other places that technically have two Bishops. This is just one example I know of.

Bishop Gregory John Mansour, Bishop of the Eparchy of St. Maron of Brooklyn
Bishop Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio, Bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn

According to the ancient canons of the Church, there should be a single bishop per city… but this is no longer the status quo in the Catholic Church due to the diaspora of various traditions.

 

[Brendan]

Brooklyn NY has two bishops, Is this also scandalous? I am sure there are many other places that technically have two Bishops. This is just one example I know of.

We have the same here in Detroit.

Archbishop Allen Vigneron, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit (Roman)
Bishop Frank Kalabat, Eparchy of St. Thomas the Apostle ( Chaldean)

Even our Seminary is bi-ritual, instructing seminarians for both Churches.

 

[Brendan]

According to the ancient canons of the Church, there should be a single bishop per city… but this is no longer the status quo in the Catholic Church due to the diaspora of various traditions.

It is more than just ‘traditions’, the Churches being referenced are sui Juris Churches of their own right, and may create diocese\eparchies as the needs of the faithful require.

And the faithful have the right to be lead by a bishop of their own Church.

You are correct that the primary reason is the diaspora of the faithful are what now requires these new diocese\eparchies, but doing so violates no Canons of the Church.

 

[porthos11]

We are no longer in the times of the Pentarchy. History is a fact: those churches have evolved into what they are now. They are Catholic; that is the important thing. Let them be.

 

[Vico]

What do you guys think of a unified Catholic patriarchate of Antioch.

Currently there are thre Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch :

His Beautitude Moran Mor Ignatius Joseph III Yonan (Syriac Catholic)
His Beatitude Moran Mor Bechara Boutros al-Rahi (Maronite)
Gregory III Laham (Melkite Greek Catholics)

What if they all step down and elect one bishop in a unified synod to be the Patrarch of Antioch? And then have vicars or something of that sort who act as minor patriarchs for each of the respective traditions to cater for the needs of the Byzantine and Syriac branches of the unified church of Antioch?

Just an idea. You have any other suggestions?

The proper city of each Patriarchate is:

• Syrian, Patriarch Ignatius Younan, Beirut Lebanon
• Maronite, Patriarch Bechara Rei, Bkerke Lebanon
• Greek-Melkite, Patriarch Gregory Laham, Damas Syria

 

[kdbueno]

I understand. A patriarch allows you believe in the supernatural truth. The bishop of Rome knows this, and allows you to believe in Rome in a most amiable sense.