Who is the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wandile

Guest
Since 1783 the Syrian Catholics were members
of the Miaphysite Church of Antioch who were
returning to communion with Rome

The Antiochan Orthodox Church’s newly enthroned Patriarch in 1724 Cyril VI Tanas, declared that he was in communion with Rome

the Maronite Catholic Church never broke communion with Rome

So who is the legitimate patriarch of Antioch?

Gregory III Laham of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Maronite
Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rahi بشارة بطرس الراعي
Or Syrian Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Yonan ?
 
All are legitimate.

The Maronite and Melkite could claim primacy of honor over the Syriac, theoretically due to being in Union longer. On the other hand, the Syriac Rite is older than either the Maronite (Syriac-latinized) or Melkite (they supressed the Syriac Rite and adopted the Byzantine).

What is the criterion for recognizing legitimacy, and why should that count over any other criteria?
 
Wandile said:
Since 1783 the Syrian Catholics were members
of the Miaphysite Church of Antioch who were
returning to communion with Rome

The Antiochan Orthodox Church’s newly enthroned Patriarch in 1724 Cyril VI Tanas, declared that he was in communion with Rome

the Maronite Catholic Church never broke communion with Rome

So who is the legitimate patriarch of Antioch?

Gregory III Laham of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Maronite
Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rahi بشارة بطرس الراعي
Or Syrian Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Yonan ?
Click to expand...
This is a trick question as we all know the answer is

me !
 
SyroMalankara said:
All are legitimate.

The Maronite and Melkite could claim primacy of honor over the Syriac, theoretically due to being in Union longer. On the other hand, the Syriac Rite is older than either the Maronite (Syriac-latinized) or Melkite (they supressed the Syriac Rite and adopted the Byzantine).

What is the criterion for recognizing legitimacy, and why should that count over any other criteria?
Click to expand...
That liturgical history is a bit off. The Maronite rite does not equate to Syriac + latinizations. The Maronite rite is a primarily Western Syriac rite mixed with some Eastern Syriac and random unique elements that was incidentally latinized much later after it’s actual development. Also by that logic, the Syriac Catholic rite is newer since their rite is also terribly latinized (perhaps not as bad as us Maronites) but chronologically later in comparison to the Maronite rite. But in the words of malphono “I digress.”

This question is actually a good one because it points to the issue of violating the prescriptions of “one bishop, one city.” However, in current ecclesiology, it’s like asking who’s the more legitimate bishop of Brooklyn, Bishop DiMarzio (the Latin bishop) or Bishop Mansour (the Maronite bishop) or the Armenian bishop (whose name escapes me). The answer is they’re equally legitimate.
 
You could also follow the line “How the (local) church decided?” This would say that “patriarchal succesion” is in favour of Melchites when compared with Antiochean Orthodox. You could be uncertain about the canonicity of the “birth” of Maronite patriarchal church. Or discuss that majority of the Syriac synod once decided to be Catholic but later there was gap in lineage of catholic patriarchs so maybe their “precedence” over oriental ones ceased. And there would be the “first question” about “church’s decidion” after Chalcedon where it coul be more difficult to solve because of catholic / orthodox tendencies to be in favour of their opinion and somehow cut off “patriarchal lineage” going to miaphysite branch. So…
 
Do any Eastern Catholics find the existence of three Patriarchs of Antioch within the Catholic Communion problematic? It has come up on a few threads that the Orthodox do consider this situation unacceptable.
What if each of the three Catholic Churches of Antioch were headed by a Catholicos, elected by their own respective synods (Maronite, Melkite, Syriac), but all united under a single Patriarch of Antioch elected by a joint session of all three synods - in which case the reigning Patriarch of Antioch would likely rotate between the three positions…
Just a thought.
 
As was said here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10866204&posted=1 catholicos should be the head of an area (or now a specific group of people once conecting with such a territory) and is more head of a local church than “number two” of the whole patriarchal church. So under Antioch there should be Babylon, India, Armenia, and Georgia.

So I would prefer to addopt Syriac title mafrian also for these other patriarchal churches. They would still remain patriarchal, not catholicosatical and during the period when the patriarch is from another church sui iuris, the church would be headed by mafrian who is a “number two” office or “something like cardinal-dean”.

And then there could also be a Latin patriarch and rotating system could solve problem with Latin Catholics – there is too many of them so including them into patriarchal schemes according to territory make worries if they would not prevail. In this way not and also would not be discriminated.
But now how to include “lower” patriarchs (~ catholicoi) of Babylon and Armenia and two major archbishops (~ catholicoi) in India?

I think this topic is a little bit fanthastic. But we can dream, can’t we? 🙂

I am sorry I did not help with answer but I have at least shown that this problematic could be (or is?) more complicated or at least more tricky…
 
twf said:
Do any Eastern Catholics find the existence of three Patriarchs of Antioch within the Catholic Communion problematic? It has come up on a few threads that the Orthodox do consider this situation unacceptable.
What if each of the three Catholic Churches of Antioch were headed by a Catholicos, elected by their own respective synods (Maronite, Melkite, Syriac), but all united under a single Patriarch of Antioch elected by a joint session of all three synods - in which case the reigning Patriarch of Antioch would likely rotate between the three positions…
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting dynamic, because it is easy to secede to one bishop, but each of the three Patriarchs in the Catholic communion serve a different ritual tradition. So how can you have one unified Patriarch serving three different traditions?

It would be interesting too how this is handled in the Orthodox Church should the EO and OO reunite.
 
ConstantineTG said:
twf;10871838:
Do any Eastern Catholics find the existence of three Patriarchs of Antioch within the Catholic Communion problematic? It has come up on a few threads that the Orthodox do consider this situation unacceptable.
What if each of the three Catholic Churches of Antioch were headed by a Catholicos, elected by their own respective synods (Maronite, Melkite, Syriac), but all united under a single Patriarch of Antioch elected by a joint session of all three synods - in which case the reigning Patriarch of Antioch would likely rotate between the three positions…
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting dynamic, because it is easy to secede to one bishop, but each of the three Patriarchs in the Catholic communion serve a different ritual tradition. So how can you have one unified Patriarch serving three different traditions?

It would be interesting too how this is handled in the Orthodox Church should the EO and OO reunite.
Click to expand...
As I stated above I would prefer to have three mafrians (they are by virtue “numbres two” in structure) than to call them catholicoi (who are by virtue heads of autonomous churches and often de facto patriarchs). What’s more mafrian is office in patriarchal church but having catholicoi would be in a way attacking patriarchal status of church and in a way would change in into catholicosal churches.

I think it would not be great problem to have three-ritual patriach.

Pope is often understood to be omniritual and there is no problem to have one head for many catholic rites. Popes = Patriarchs of West have been for centuries Latins (Romans or Ambrosians) but within their westen church there have been (in past more than now) Romans, Ambrosians, Mosarabians, Bragans, Galicans… rites of orders… English Use… and it all have seemed to be cca OK. Pope is in a way also patriarch for ItaloGreeks / Italo-Albanians who are Byzantines. (I know they are sui iuris but I hope it is possible to catch the message I want to give by mentioning Italo-Greeks.)

Before establishing office of catholicos in Seleucia-Ktesifon they were just under patriarch of Antioch (and later de iure too, at least until declaration of independence of that church) and this Antiochian patriarch was with more than one rite under him. Also Alexandria – Copts and Ethiopians (before separation).
 
Nestor_kea said:
As I stated above I would prefer to have three mafrians (they are by virtue “numbres two” in structure) than to call them catholicoi (who are by virtue heads of autonomous churches and often de facto patriarchs). What’s more mafrian is office in patriarchal church but having catholicoi would be in a way attacking patriarchal status of church and in a way would change in into catholicosal churches.

I think it would not be great problem to have three-ritual patriach.

Pope is often understood to be omniritual and there is no problem to have one head for many catholic rites. Popes = Patriarchs of West have been for centuries Latins (Romans or Ambrosians) but within their westen church there have been (in past more than now) Romans, Ambrosians, Mosarabians, Bragans, Galicans… rites of orders… English Use… and it all have seemed to be cca OK. Pope is in a way also patriarch for ItaloGreeks / Italo-Albanians who are Byzantines. (I know they are sui iuris but I hope it is possible to catch the message I want to give by mentioning Italo-Greeks.)

Before establishing office of catholicos in Seleucia-Ktesifon they were just under patriarch of Antioch (and later de iure too, at least until declaration of independence of that church) and this Antiochian patriarch was with more than one rite under him. Also Alexandria – Copts and Ethiopians (before separation).
Click to expand...
These are excellent points. It is true that the Pope of Rome acts as “patriarch” for a number of ritual traditions…and at least one, the Anglican Use, is growing by the day alongside its Roman sister.
 
While the both the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Communions have accepted multiple ritual Traditions as legitimate, the Eastern Orthodox Communion seems to be having a difficult time doing so. Even within individual Churches, multiple Traditions are not easily accepted and take years (sometimes centuries) to be recognized - see the Old Rite Russians vs. post-Nikonian or EO Antioch and Alexandria suppressing the Syriac and Coptic Traditions for the Byzantine.
 
Nestor_kea said:
Pope is often understood to be omniritual
Click to expand...
Actually, I’ve never heard of this claim outside of CAF. Somebody here deduced that because the Pope is the universal supreme pontiff, he can just go out and celebrate in any Rite he so wishes. While technically true, if you look at tradition it is true for all bishops. In the early Church there was a formula for the Anaphora which every bishop follows, but then everything else is pretty much each bishop’s discretion on how to do the Liturgy. As time went by and bishops started comparing notes, the Liturgy became more standards. Then when Churches were organized into Metropolias and later on into Patriarchates, even more standardization came in. Also at the same time some notable bishops of the Church started writing Anaphoras which gained universal acceptance, such as those written by St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom. But basically a bishop can choose to implement their own Rite if they so choose. A mandates standard is only unique to the Roman Church after Trent. I don’t know of any canon in the Orthodox Church that mandates the use of the Divine Liturgies of Sts. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great on specific times of the year. It is followed as a matter of tradition. This is why today there is the Western Rite, and even the Western Rite varies from parish to parish. I’ve heard some parishes are more Anglican Book of Common Prayer, while others are more Tridentine.

But if we are to go with following tradition, the Bishop of Rome of course follows the Roman Rite. That is the ritual tradition of his Church, therefore that is the Rite of the Pope of Rome. He is not omniritual in a sense that the other Rites are not the ritual traditions of his Church. But there is nothing really preventing him or any other bishop from celebrating in any other Rite.
 
SyroMalankara said:
While the both the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Communions have accepted multiple ritual Traditions as legitimate, the Eastern Orthodox Communion seems to be having a difficult time doing so. Even within individual Churches, multiple Traditions are not easily accepted and take years (sometimes centuries) to be recognized - see the Old Rite Russians vs. post-Nikonian or EO Antioch and Alexandria suppressing the Syriac and Coptic Traditions for the Byzantine.
Click to expand...
Yet we have the Western Rite.
 
In the following video, taken in 1960’s mass is celebrated by Patriarch of Alexandria (coptic), Patriarch of Antioch (syriac orthodox) and Patriarch of Ethiopean church (orthodox).
youtube.com/watch?v=1yF_zjxtFsQ
In this mass, it is seen that syriac orthodox patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius Jacob III is in the center position (at time 0:06:40)
 
amalthomas said:
In the following video, taken in 1960’s mass is celebrated by Patriarch of Alexandria (coptic), Patriarch of Antioch (syriac orthodox) and Patriarch of Ethiopean church (orthodox).
youtube.com/watch?v=1yF_zjxtFsQ
In this mass, it is seen that syriac orthodox patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius Jacob III is in the center position (at time 0:06:40)
Click to expand...
Makes sense, Antioch is ahead of Alexandria in honor.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Yet we have the Western Rite.
Click to expand...
As you know, the Western Rite is a controversial subject in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental Orthodox have and had the Western Rite for centuries with no controversy and no question of legitimacy. As to whether it lasts, only time will tell - God willing, it will continue to bear fruit, but historically it has been one failed experiment after another.
 
SyroMalankara said:
As you know, the Western Rite is a controversial subject in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental Orthodox have and had the Western Rite for centuries with no controversy and no question of legitimacy. As to whether it lasts, only time will tell - God willing, it will continue to bear fruit, but historically it has been one failed experiment after another.
Click to expand...
Controversy or not, my point was that we are not as closed off to other Rites as claimed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top