OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 12:35:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Church of Antioch after schism  (Read 656 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« on: November 22, 2011, 01:04:10 PM »

I am a catechumen in the Western rite of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I  found the  following on a RC website. just curious what response of some of you steeped in history respond. Nothing to do  with my upcoming Chrismation but  just curious. Sounds like the usual depends on whos telling the story. I know that there are several bishops claiming Antioch Other than His Beatitude Ignatius IV.

"The Melkites never participated in the schism, in fact, the Melkite Patriarch Peter III of Antioch rejected the quarrel. They also did not break Communion with Constantinople, but due to geography they lost connection with Rome. When the Patriarch of Antioch and majority of bishops decided to re-establish their connection and actively commune with Rome, the Greeks set up their own Patriarch and the Antiochian Orthodox Church was created in 1729. "
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2011, 02:44:57 PM »

Cue Isa.  Wink
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 309


« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2011, 02:46:11 PM »

There are several churches that claim to be the Patriarchate of Antioch, most of them, ironically enough, are Catholic:

Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch-- that is, the one that you're talking about here

Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch-- the portion of the historic Patriarchate of Antioch that rejected the Council of Chalcedon

Maronite Patriarchate of Antioch-- originally a small group that followed the monothelete heresy. Came into Communion with Rome during the Crusades. Any claim their patriarch has to historical succession to the See of Antioch is beyond tendentious.

Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jeruslam-- the Catholic party from the schism of 1724

Syriac Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch-- A group that broke off from the (anti-Chalcedonian) Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and joined the Catholic Church in the 17th under the influence of French and Italian missionaries.



To say that "the Melkites never participated in the schism" is a very strange read on history. While it is true that the Patriarch of Antioch Peter III wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius in an attempt to mediate between Rome and Constantinople, the gist of his message is that while the Latins are wrong about the filioque, azymes, etc. there is no need to press the issue at the current time. However, he died in 1051, three years before the schism between Rome and Constantinople. What information we have about the patriarchate of Antioch in the second half of the 11th century would seem to indicate that, unsurprisingly, the Patriarchate of Antioch was very close with Constantinople and indeed was not in communion with Rome-- the city of Antioch was, after all, part of the Byzantine Empire from 969-1078 and movement of clergy between the two patriarchates was constant. The most important writer of the Patriarchate of Antioch from this time, Nikon of the Black Mountain wrote quite a bit of polemic against the Latins. By the end of the 11th century, however, the situation is even more clear, since when the Crusaders conquered the coastal regions of Syria and Palestine they set up their own Latin hierarchies in Antioch and Jerusalem, displacing the native bishops. So certainly from the beginning of the 12th century we can say with certainty that Antioch was not in communion with Rome.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2011, 02:51:44 PM »

By the way, "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch" is, if I'm not mistaken, not the title for the Church in Arabic, Greek, Syriac, Turkic, etc. I'm pretty sure that's only used in English and translations back from English. Otherwise it would be Roman Patriarchate of Antioch, Patriarchate of Antioch, etc.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 02:56:50 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 309


« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2011, 03:02:29 PM »

Eh, in English and French they say "Greek". In Arabic and Turkish they say "Rum", which isn't exactly "Roman" in the modern sense (which would be "Rumani" in Arabic) but something more like "Byzantine" or even "Greek" in the sense that it's the term that Greek speakers used for themselves prior to their unfortunate discovery of western-style nationalism....  Modern Greek is so rarely used in the Patriarchate of Antioch that I can't remember what term they use in their own documents, though I'm pretty sure it's "Hellenic" and not "Roman"....
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.043 seconds with 31 queries.