It says a lot when we are called by the indigenous churches of Syria and Egypt "Melchites", doesn't it?
Indigneous? Both Alexandria and Antioch were Greek founded cities.
It doesn't tell us much when they are calling themselves "Orthodox" and "Catholic."
Historically, Orthodoxy is the heir of the imperial church. We also happen to believe that that's the right faith, as well, but you can't deny the times when we were closely associated with an empire.Yeah, when the emperors were iconoclasts and monothelites.
Do not pretend you don't know what I mean: most of the non-helenized population of both Alexandria and Antioch enthusiastically went into schism from what they saw as the emperor's church.
LOL. Got news for you: many Hellenized Romans were just as enthusiastic, even in Constantinople.
Which one of the churches of Alexandria used mostly Coptic, which one mostly Greek?
At the time, there was no difference. Until the 13th century both EO and OO used the same rites. The OO Coptic Fathers continued writing in Greek. To this day much of the Coptic DL is in pure Greek-the Trisagion, with the "Miaphysite additions", is all Greek, except before the last "Eleison imas," they say "O Holy Trinity":the "O" is the only Coptic in the entire hymn.
The same about Antioch, except that we talk about Syriac vs Greek there?
Except that you have even less evidence for your alleged point: the Syriac speakers had a large number of Chalcedonians. One large group indeed was imperial:they adopted the emperor's favorite heresy of montheletism and went on to dominate the area as the Maronites, who use Aramaic and Syriac to this day. Btw, the Aramaic speaking villages in the mountains of Syria/Lebanon are and have been Chalcedonian. In Palestine Aramaic/Syriac (and Arabic) prevailed as did Chalcedonianism: Syriac Chalcedonian literature flourished there and in Sinai. On this threadhttp://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22261.0.html
we were dealing with the Arab Orthodox, but the Syriac Chalcedonian Orthodox and Chalcedonian use of Syriac was mentioned.
Severus wrote everything in Greek I believe. That much only survives today in Syriac doesn't change that. IIRC many of the signatures of Chalcedon are in Syriac.
Now let's see who's more indigenous, the helenized metropolis or the Coptic/Syriac speaking countryside?
The Coptic/Syriac speaking countryside. But since both those countrysides supported the Greek speeking Severus, who hailed from Asia Minor, well within Roman territory throughout the empire's history, you point?
Yeah, I also know that some Syriac speaking christians stayed with our church, to this day, but that's rather the exception, not the rule.
In fact, it is possible that the majority of the Syriac/Aramaic speakers (as witnessed by the Maronite numbers) stayed with Chalcedon.
Monothelism&iconoclasm were just inconsequential episodes as to how the church saw herself in relation with the empire.
Not really: from Nicea I to until Theodosios I, Arianism dominated the empire, Theodosios II supported both Nestorius and Eutyches, the emperors wavered on Chalcedon. Btw, the iconoclast emperors are the ones which transferred the Balkans, including Greece, from the jurisidictiom of Rome to Constantinople.
Had they won the day, we might as well ended in a minority situation, somehow like one of the non-chalcedonian churches, relegated to some nook of the empire. It just didn't happen that way.
Or we could have ended up in submission to the Vatican, as many emperors wanted....