Uniting the Patriarchs of Antioch

[Badaliyyah]

I don’t follow these things very closely, so pardon me if I have some information wrong. But the last I heard (and this was a while back), the Syrian Catholic Church had not filled their Patriarchal seat and there was some talk of electing the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch.

Is there any long term thought of uniting the various Churches that look to Antioch as their Apostolic See under one Patriarch? This would seem to me to include Maronites, Syrian, (maybe Malakaran?) and ultimately the Melkites as well. I don’t see any particular reason the various particular Churches should have to give up their status for this to happen. And if there was worry about one community dominating another through the office of the Patriarch, there could be something like an informal agreement to rotate the office through the various communions.

Having multiple Patriarchs when the Churches are not in communion with one another is bad enough (e.g., Catholic and Orthodox Melkites, Syrian Orthodox Church, etc.), but when there is communion it seems downright silly and even problematic. The Patriarch ought to embrace all the churches that have their roots in that Apostolic seat. This seems to be part and parcel of the undermining of the Patriarchal office within Catholicism.

Anyway, just a few thoughts while I am avoiding work…

salaam.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t follow these things very closely, so pardon me if I have some information wrong. But the last I heard (and this was a while back), the Syrian Catholic Church had not filled their Patriarchal seat and there was some talk of electing the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch.

Is there any long term thought of uniting the various Churches that look to Antioch as their Apostolic See under one Patriarch? This would seem to me to include Maronites, Syrian, (maybe Malakaran?) and ultimately the Melkites as well. I don’t see any particular reason the various particular Churches should have to give up their status for this to happen. And if there was worry about one community dominating another through the office of the Patriarch, there could be something like an informal agreement to rotate the office through the various communions.

Having multiple Patriarchs when the Churches are not in communion with one another is bad enough (e.g., Catholic and Orthodox Melkites, Syrian Orthodox Church, etc.), but when there is communion it seems downright silly and even problematic. The Patriarch ought to embrace all the churches that have their roots in that Apostolic seat. This seems to be part and parcel of the undermining of the Patriarchal office within Catholicism.

Anyway, just a few thoughts while I am avoiding work…

salaam.

I haven’t heard anything about this but I have been hoping that it would happen. Having multiple patriarchs is contradictory to the Catholicity and unity of the Church. As St. Ignatius of Antioch said, there is to be one bishop in the city. I don’t see why the various churches of the east could not get along under one patriarch. The only way I would have a problem with it would be if a Latin patriarch was chosen, which would be the destruction of our Churches. There is no reason why the various traditions and Churches can’t get along.

 

[Ghosty]

I haven’t heard anything about this but I have been hoping that it would happen. Having multiple patriarchs is contradictory to the Catholicity and unity of the Church. As St. Ignatius of Antioch said, there is to be one bishop in the city. I don’t see why the various churches of the east could not get along under one patriarch. The only way I would have a problem with it would be if a Latin patriarch was chosen, which would be the destruction of our Churches. There is no reason why the various traditions and Churches can’t get along.

Why only Latin patriarchs? It was the Greeks of Constantinople who “deformed” the Syriac tradition into the Melkite one, after all.

I’m of the opinion that having a single Patriarch for multiple Churches and traditions is a bad idea, as it has always historically led to the destruction of the distinct traditions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Multiple Patriarchs is just a symptom of a much larger issue.

That of multiple bishops over a city.

But seeing, as pointed out by Ghosty, when there is only one there seems to be issues with allowing other traditions that the one is not of.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Why only Latin patriarchs? It was the Greeks of Constantinople who “deformed” the Syriac tradition into the Melkite one, after all.

I’m of the opinion that having a single Patriarch for multiple Churches and traditions is a bad idea, as it has always historically led to the destruction of the distinct traditions.

Peace and God bless!

How do you think Constantinople deformed the tradition. My impression was that urban Antioch was primarily of Greek speakers, and thus the Byzantine tradition. And the country-side was primarily Syriac speaking, thus the Syrian tradition. Independent traditions existing side by side. Not always peacefully of course. But, could it really be any worse than the Dominicans and Franciscans in the middle ages? Talk about snippy. (Or were you just talking about the fact that Constantinople meddled causing the split between Orthodox and Catholic Melkites?)

I am just not clear how one can theologically justify multiple Patriarchs for common Apostolic churches.

That said, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. There is always a tendency for whomever is in power to play favorites. Practically I understand the problems that could arise. This was why I suggested that the Patriarchate be rotated through the particular churches.

Just as a side note…my experience here is limited but I am already aware of, specifically, Maronite and Melkites coming together when they are otherwise isolated here in the States. It seems there is already a sense of a common heritage.

In some way Antioch would need to understand that it was not just Byzantine (or Syriac, depending), but that it was the fountain from which flows many streams. This strikes me a compliment to Antioch, not a burden.

salaam.

 

[Ghosty]

How do you think Constantinople deformed the tradition. My impression was that urban Antioch was primarily of Greek speakers, and thus the Byzantine tradition. And the country-side was primarily Syriac speaking, thus the Syrian tradition. Independent traditions existing side by side. Not always peacefully of course. But, could it really be any worse than the Dominicans and Franciscans in the middle ages? Talk about snippy. (Or were you just talking about the fact that Constantinople meddled causing the split between Orthodox and Catholic Melkites?)

I am just not clear how one can theologically justify multiple Patriarchs for common Apostolic churches.

That said, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. There is always a tendency for whomever is in power to play favorites. Practically I understand the problems that could arise. This was why I suggested that the Patriarchate be rotated through the particular churches.

Just as a side note…my experience here is limited but I am already aware of, specifically, Maronite and Melkites coming together when they are otherwise isolated here in the States. It seems there is already a sense of a common heritage.

In some way Antioch would need to understand that it was not just Byzantine (or Syriac, depending), but that it was the fountain from which flows many streams. This strikes me a compliment to Antioch, not a burden.

salaam.

I don’t actually think there was any deformation, that was more of a sarcastic emphasis on my part. If I thought it was deformation, I wouldn’t be Melkite.

You might indeed be right, that there was a gap between the urban folk and the country folk; I just know that two distinctly different traditions grew up from the same See, and the rise or fall of one or the other can be directly linked to which culture had the Patriarch “in power” at the time. That’s why I think that it’s best to have each tradition have a set Patriarch, so the Catholicity of our Faith can be sheparded and defended.

As for Constantinople meddling, I was refering to the general split between Syriac and Antiochian/Melkite, which is a glaring sign of one culture and tradition being divided from another in the same region.

As for theological justification of multiple Patriarchs, I don’t think there’s theological justification for Patriarchs in general. By that I mean that the role of Patriarch is not originated from God (theos), but is rather a necessary application of the Bishop role across a wide territory and encompassing a whole tradition and Church unit (the latter aspects being developments of recent centuries).

The only Patriarch who I DO believe is divinely ordained is St. Peter, who was told by Christ Himself that he would confirm the Faith of all Christians. That’s his job, and that’s theological because God Himself made it so. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe that the role of the Patriarch is not essential, or that we are called to be Roman first and foremost, I just mean that the only God-ordained ecclesial role outside of the Sacramental Priesthood is that of Peter. Incidently, I also believe that this Petrine role IS shared by all the Bishops, but that the Roman Bishop has a unique place in that role, and is indeed the centerpoint and head.

Finally, the Melkite Mission I attend is actually a mixed Melkite/Maronite community, served by a Melkite priest, so I definitely know what you mean by the cooperation between the cultures.

Peace and God bless!

 

[twf]

ByzCath:

Multiple Patriarchs is just a symptom of a much larger issue.

That of multiple bishops over a city.

Having two or more Catholic bishops for many major cities has always bothered me as well. I do, however, understand why it is a pastoral necessity. In my city there are two Catholic ordinaries, Latin and Ukrainian, but technically the problem of multiple bishops is avoided as the Latin archbishop’s see is the main city and the Urkainian eparch’s see is a near-by suburb. (So while their jurisdictions overlap, on paper they are bishops of different cities).

 

[ASimpleSinner]

In my city there are two Catholic ordinaries, Latin and Ukrainian, but technically the problem of multiple bishops is avoided as the Latin archbishop’s see is the main city and the Urkainian eparch’s see is a near-by suburb. (So while their jurisdictions overlap, on paper they are bishops of different cities).

In Parma, OH, there are two Greek Catholic bishops in the same suburb!

Ah well…

Personally, I am not really bothered by it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

Having two or more Catholic bishops for many major cities has always bothered me as well. I do, however, understand why it is a pastoral necessity. In my city there are two Catholic ordinaries, Latin and Ukrainian, but technically the problem of multiple bishops is avoided as the Latin archbishop’s see is the main city and the Urkainian eparch’s see is a near-by suburb. (So while their jurisdictions overlap, on paper they are bishops of different cities).

As I said, the multiple patriarchs is just a symptom of something larger.

In the early Church there was just one bishop per city. That bishop took care of all the rites that were within his territory. If we are to do away with multiple patriarchs then we should do away with multiple bishops.

 

[Badaliyyah]

As I said, the multiple patriarchs is just a symptom of something larger.

In the early Church there was just one bishop per city. That bishop took care of all the rites that were within his territory. If we are to do away with multiple patriarchs then we should do away with multiple bishops.

I don’t have a terribly rational response to this, but there seems to me to be something different about the traditions that look back to the Apostolic foundation of Antioch being split amongst multiple Patriarchs (all claiming the seat of Antioch, and thus Peter) and the overlapping of bishoprics between say the Latin bishop of Cleveland and the Eparchy of Parma.

For example, if Rome installed a Latin bishop of Antioch, because there were enough Latin Catholics in the city of Antakya, Turkey to justify it (haha, now we are really in the realm of science fiction), I wouldn’t have the same problem with it. If they called him a Patriarch, that would mostly be good for a chuckle (and indicative of a misunderstanding of the role of the Patriarchs!). What it would say is that Latin Christianity had found a home in Turkey. And there is no reason to complain about that.

But when the traditions that historically belong to Antioch are divided, this just seems to be a false situation.

To continue on along that same line of thought, the overlapping of Ruthenian and Ukrainian eparchies in the US seems to me a much more serious concern than that of Ukrainian and Latin or Maronite, etc…because the Ruthenians and Ukrainians are rooted in the great conversion of Vladimir, Equal to the Apostles (who I think they recently celebrated), and the baptism of Rus.

Like I said before, I am not sure I can provide a justification, but it does not seem as immediately desirable to reduce every geographic location to one bishop when there are multiple Apostolic Churches represented. (Of course where the numbers don’t justify it, we see it happen all the time…Latins under the care of the Ethiopian Church in Africa, various eastern Catholics under the care of Latin bishops, etc…that seems reasonable enough, your local bishop handing you over to the care of another bishop who is closer an can look after you).

All this is so much thinking out loud if you will. Thanks for helping me procrastinate when I ought to be working.

salaam.

p.s. Ghosty, that is exactly the situation I have run into as well a couple of times in the States…joint parish (Maronite/Melkite), usually under the leadership of one or the other.

 

[LRThunder]

Does this also refer to auxiliary bishops like in major archdioceses like New York or Los Angeles or merely actual diocesan bishops/archbishops?

 

[Amadeus]

This is a splendid idea!

Restoring the Church of Antioch in its full glory, with a single Patriarch and composed of the following particular Churches: the Melkites, the Maronites, the Syrians, and the Malankarese is a dream that sholud be pursued.

The Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch will then be reconstituted by joining all the senior Bishops of each particular Church and electing therefrom the next Patriarch. (In the interim, the chief hierarchs of the 4 Churches can meet in seclusion and elect from among themselves the first Patriarch of the reunited Church of Antioch; giving seniority a hand!)

Thereafter, the chief hierarch of each of the 4 particular Churches shall be titled a Major Archbishop.

Is it doable?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t have a terribly rational response to this, but there seems to me to be something different about the traditions that look back to the Apostolic foundation of Antioch being split amongst multiple Patriarchs (all claiming the seat of Antioch, and thus Peter) and the overlapping of bishoprics between say the Latin bishop of Cleveland and the Eparchy of Parma.

But the Church recognizes this as a problem as there is only one bishop per city.

For example there are two bishops that have the seat of their see in Parma, OH. A Ruthenian and a Ukrainian. The Ruthenian bishop is titled the Bishop of Parma, the Ukrainian bishop is titled the Bishop of St Josaphat in Parma.

There is only one Eparchy (or diocese) of Parma yet two bishops reside in Parma.

This is a problem that the early Church never had along with not having multiple patriarchs. I hold to the idea that the multiple patriarchs is just the logical extension of having multiple bishops holding juristiction over a city.

 

[jimmy]

Multiple Patriarchs is just a symptom of a much larger issue.

That of multiple bishops over a city.

But seeing, as pointed out by Ghosty, when there is only one there seems to be issues with allowing other traditions that the one is not of.

I realize that and I wish that we could have one bishop per city in all cities. To have two bishops, and especially two patriarchs, or even three per city is division within the Church. And this is part of the reason why I hate the dogmatic approach of the west; it makes it impossible for the various traditions to work together. What I think is ideal is if the various traditions could mesh together and form local traditions. But the problem with this is that the latin tradition tends to be dogmatic and would smother all other traditions without even considering them if there was any attempt to mesh the traditions. Ultimately there should be one tradition and one bishop per city. But that would require that the west simplify its approach very much.

Regarding just the patriarchate of Antioch. I think that the Melkites and the Maronites and Syriacs could get along very well under one patriarchate. I really think that as Badaliyah said this is a bigger issue and an easier one to solve. What we are choosing is the head bishop of a synod. If we can have the pope as the head of a synod with multiple traditions then why couldn’t we have a patriarch as the head of multiple traditions? I would think the patriarch would be less harmful since he does not claim infallibility and universal jurisdiction over the other bishops.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

This is a splendid idea!

Restoring the Church of Antioch in its full glory, with a single Patriarch and composed of the following particular Churches: the Melkites, the Maronites, the Syrians, and the Malankarese is a dream that sholud be pursued.

The Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch will then be reconstituted by joining all the senior Bishops of each particular Church and electing therefrom the next Patriarch. (In the interim, the chief hierarchs of the 4 Churches can meet in seclusion and elect from among themselves the first Patriarch of the reunited Church of Antioch; giving seniority a hand!)

Thereafter, the chief hierarch of each of the 4 particular Churches shall be titled a Major Archbishop.

Is it doable?

Well, i don’t know… There is the issue of different rites to hammer out… Its certainly possible to have different rites in the same Church; however, i think reuniting these different churches after so long would lead to a great deal of rivalry. I imagine the faitful of one rite would be rather upset if a patriarch of another rite seemed to disfavor them, or if the smallest Church was bullied by the larger, etc…

But that kind of stuff can be worked out. I have only one thing i would change in your suggestion: I think the best way to re-unite them would be as the multiple claimants die. Basically, if each group allowed their patriarchal sees to remain vacant until the last claimant dies, and then they could all, together, elect the next patriarch to govern a united patriarchy.

I think the best way, but very unlikely because it would require some churches to “admit” that they have a weaker claim than others, would be to choose which church has the strongest claim to the see, and then have the other churches elect the patriarch of THAT church as their own patriarch.

I wonder, though, if they do that, wouldnt it just be liek the same man holding two different offices, or would the offices unite… I’m thinking medeival politcs here… Uniting spain… England and Scotland… could be weird.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I realize that and I wish that we could have one bishop per city in all cities. To have two bishops, and especially two patriarchs, or even three per city is division within the Church. And this is part of the reason why I hate the dogmatic approach of the west;

That is part of the dogmatic approach to the west?

Jimmy, I give you credit! You never skip a beat!

 

[jimmy]

That is part of the dogmatic approach to the west?

Maybe you should read my post rather than cherry pick. You cut the sentence in half in your quote and you expect people to listen to what you say? You could atleast quote me properly.

Jimmy, I give you credit! You never skip a beat!

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Maybe you should read my post rather than cherry pick. You cut the sentence in half in your quote and you expect people to listen to what you say? You could atleast quote me properly.

So put out the full quote and then explain how the “dogmatic approach of ‘the west’” is relevent here. I will do it for you and see how things change.

I realize that and I wish that we could have one bishop per city in all cities. To have two bishops, and especially two patriarchs, or even three per city is division within the Church. And this is part of the reason why I hate the dogmatic approach of the west; it makes it impossible for the various traditions to work together. What I think is ideal is if the various traditions could mesh together and form local traditions. But the problem with this is that the latin tradition tends to be dogmatic and would smother all other traditions without even considering them if there was any attempt to mesh the traditions. Ultimately there should be one tradition and one bishop per city. But that would require that the west simplify its approach very much.

How many of the patriarchates of the non-Byzantine East got replicated by the dogmatic approach of the Greek East post-chalcedon? Is the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (with an all-time high of 300,000 faithful today) over and above the Coptic Patriarch of 6M - 10M souls less of an expression of Eastern dogmaticism? Why did they rush to create new Patriarchates and have a multi-bishop-per-city system too?

I don’t see how it is particularly “Western dogmatic” for a church to erect a bishopric for its own faithful in a land otherwise or previously dominated by a majority coming from an ecclesial tradition no longer in communion with them. The Byzantine Orthodox never skipped a beat or blinked at creating an ecclesial structure for their own over and above and on top of the boundaries of those with whom they were not in communion. Most of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem are NOT Catholic!

Forgive if I read too much, I just don’t see anything particularly “dogmatic western” here except a chance to take a shot at it.

What is that supposed to mean?

Consistency. Any opportunity that presents itself to take a pot shot at “the west” you seize. Opportunities for contradistinction and contradefinition - even when hardly applicable - are NEVER missed.

 

[twf]

I agree with ASimpleSinner. Jimmy’s claim is, with all due respect, absurd. I find that the Eastern Orthodox are much more inflexible when it comes to compromises than the Latin Church. Remember that the Latin Church varies considerably from one region to another…there are various localized traditions, calendars, and to some extent liturgies, within the Latin Church.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Remember that the Latin Church varies considerably from one region to another…there are various localized traditions, calendars, and to some extent liturgies, within the Latin Church.

…and that’s a good thing??

U-C