www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Solution to the issue of multiple Patriarchs of Antioch

That's truly wonderful and remarkable. What is more, we do not have to assume their catholicity and orthodoxy even for purpose of discussion. Sounds to me like they're working through all the politico-ecclesial messiness, and stand as an example to all. Thanks for that encouraging information. The Church benefits.

StuartK:

Christ is in our midst!!

They didn't. The Holy Spirit did it.

BOB

They didn't. The Holy Spirit did it.

But He had their full cooperation. Synergia in action.

Shlomo Utroque,

You are correct that I was assuming that all of the hierarchs involved uphold the same catholic faith and orthodox dogma. When unity comes then we need to look at how we are going to deal with 5 Patriarchs of Antioch, 3 of Alexandria, 2 of Constantinople and 4 of Jerusalem.

When unity comes, the Byzantine Church must realize that they will lose having control of the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria, and in most likelihood Jerusalem.

The situation in Antioch is also complicated because of the East/West division of the Aramaic Churches. My solution see the abolition of the Chaldean and Assyrian Patrirarchates, but who knows; maybe those Churches would prefer to continue to have a Patriarchate and therefore what you would have is the following.

The Western Aramaic Church within the Patriarchate of Antioch would contain the Maronite, Syriac (both Catholic and Orthodox) and Antiochene Greek (both Orthodox and Catholic) Churches. The Eastern Aramaic Church would have the Chaldean, Assyrian, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches. If we decide to use this organizational model then the Antiochene Patriarchate would lose "And All The East" from its title.

I would hope that my first model would be used since it better represents the Antiochene Church and the daughter Churches that sprang from it.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Of what local Church was the first patriarch of Antioch, of Jerusalem, of Antioch? Then, in a reunited Church, let his successor be the patriarch of that city. [And pastorally, let the various multiple patriarchs of the place serve until death.] There could be bishops under the single patriarch, one each for the Assyrian-Chaldeans, Byzantines, the Maronites, the Syriacs, the Syro-Malabars, the Syro-Malankars, and the Latins (and whoever else needs one). True, it would not totally resolve the need for one bishop per city, but it would be a step in that direction and allow equality among the local Churches.

Although I would not object to assigning one major Church Tradition to each of the ancient patriarchates.

The Syro-Malankara Church is West Syriac and has its own Catholicos.

Shlomo,

What I see my solution doing is the same as you, but keeping each of the Churches having a more autonomous structure by having the Catholicoi in place than just by having bishops under the Patriarch.

The reason that I assigned the Jerusalem Patriarchate to the Armenians is that all the other ancient Patriarchates already are under each Holy Tradition if we allow for number of followers.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Aho Michael_Thoma,

Yes I do understand that, the point I was making was if we were going to divide the Antiochene Patriarchate into two, then geographically the Syro-Malankara Church would be within the Eastern part.

The point you make is one of the reasons that I say when unity comes then we sould be one Patriarchate with Catholicoi serving as the heads of the ancient and historic Churches within it.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I am wondering how Catholic believers would feel, if the Patriarch of Constantinople sent a Bishop to Rome and crowned him the Western Rite Orthodox Pope of Rome...

I tend to think there would be an outcry against any such action.

Why than should a similar action be tolerated the other way around.

If it is as His Holiness Pope Benedict teaches, and if we are in fact "sister Churches", why is there a need for a Catholic Patriarch in the territory of a Canonical Orthodox Patriarchate?

I just don't get it.

Shlomo Deacon Borislav,

I do not see what your post has to do with this topic. If you wish to start a new thread, then that would be better.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I don't understand how Deacon Borislav's question does not deal with the topic at hand. There is already a Antiocian Patriarch. Why do we need another?

Alexandr

Yuhannon,

I presume with this thread that you mean, at least for now, an end to multiple Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch, and building a framework which could also work if/when unity is restored throughout the Patriarchate of Antioch?

If so, I'm personally for it, but there are a number of hang-ups. First of course is whether or not people would be willing to give up "their" positions for a united structure of this sort. Some would also wonder if a single Patriarch would have as much clout (in general or in Rome) as multiple Patriarchs. On this, I think true unity between a Patriarch and multiple Catholicoi would be good for Antioch's standing.

Second, do you envison one Antiochian synod? Or multiple (i.e. a Melkite, a Maronite....) synods under each Catholicos and then one bigger synod of the Catholicoi?

Finally, do you really think division along "ritual" lines is the best way to do this? Would this ease ritual tension? Or exacerbate it?

In the end, what the different "Rites" are are different rules of prayer, or if you will different typika. The point of a Rite or typikon is to order, arrange, or regulate (if you will) our worship of God and the gifts we receive from Him thereof. If you acknowledge that the other group is (small o) orthodox, then you're basically saying that they way they pray is "as good as" yours.

However, history has shown several examples where multiple "rites" within one independent jurisdiction didn't work and led to conflicts. My concern is that your proposal might just be window dressing on a larger problem. I'd suggest that there be general, written agreement on why the different Rites exist in the Patriarchate, what things each must do in common (e.g. Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy on Sundays), specific rules/structures be in place to preserve/guarantee existing Rites, and programs to breed appreciation among them. Ideas include regular visits among congregations, biritual liturgical study in seminaries, or mandatory service in another rite for one year for major and minor clergy. (I'm up to learn Maronite chant..... )

Just my thoughts. Maybe I'm overstating the problems that this might encounter - I'm ethnically Greek, living in America, and have little idea of what the situation is actually like in the Middle East.

Father Deacon Borislav,

There are three Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch, the product of the the Vatican's recognition of a Maronite patriarch in the 1100s as well as the uniatist (in the modern sense of the word) policies of the 15-1700s. My impression is that Yuhannon is proposing one Patriarch per communion - i.e. a united Catholic Patriarchate, and then one Patriarch if/when communion is reestablished with the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches. Personally, I don't think local Antiochene unity will happen before broader Rome-Oriental Orthodox or Rome-Orthodox unity.


Apologies if I misread anyone's position or thoughts.

Markos

Shlomo Alexandr,

The reason that Deacon Borislav's post does not deal with this thread is that it is non sequitur. To quote:
Rome, nor I, am proposing that a "new" Catholic Patriarch for Antioch be appointed or elected. What I am proposing is a formula that will unify the Catholic Churches within the Patriarchate under one Patriarch and recognize their autonomy. Further, this same forumula would work when the Catholic and its Eastern, Oriental and Church of the East sisters unify.

As to your and Deacon Borislav's point above; I would say that the Eastern Orthodox Church has the weakest claim to the Patriarchal Throne both canonically, historically and in membership.

The Syriac Churches have a much stronger claim than the Eastern Orthodox which I can get into if you wish, and with the election of 1724 the Melkite Greek Catholic Church within the Antiochene Byzantine Church has the legitimate electoral claim if you wish to dispute the Syriac Churches.

I will be more than happy to outline my reasoning if you wish, but many members here have a full understanding of the history of this Patriarchate, plus this has been written on before.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Markos,


That is correct.


I believe that an Antiochene Patriarch with strong Churches under him would have much more clout than a bunch of Churches clamoring.


I see both. Each Church would still have its Holy Synod under its Catholicos, one large one based on propostional representation under the Patriarch.


I see this as easing tensions. No Church will have to be "screficed" to any other, and the Patriarchate would be stronger in terms of intra Church and Muslim-Christian relations.


You are correct. And as a matter of fact all of the Churches within the Antiochene Patriarchate agree with this; Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East.


As a matter of fact what you have outlined is already in place in Syria and Lebanon. There are Churches where you have Sunday services all day long since you have every single Holy Tradition using it for their services. Baalbek is one such town in Lebanon where this is happening.


Your points are valid. The thing is in the Middle East we know that if we do not hang together we will truly hang alone. Neither the Muslims nor the Jews are our friends in the end. Only we are to ourselves.


My points exactly.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I fail to see how continuing to put Catholic Bishops in Orthodox areas i.e. Ukraine and Antioch will help to bring us together. I fail to see how proselytizing and attempting to convert Orthodox Believers to Eastern Rite Catholicism will bring us together.

In fact this will only continue to push us further apart.