Yes, interesting how the Ambrosians, Italo-Greeks and Italo-Albanians don't have their own bishop of Rome. The Vatican has installed a Maronite, Melkite, Syriac and Latin in Antioch, St. Peter's first see.
There is no Latin patriarch of Antioch.
Ah, how could I have forgotten. History begins with Vatican II.
Maybe some would prefer "the Vatican had
installed." Changes not a thing: the Vatican usurped powers not its own in a patriarchate not its own. By the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, a crime worthy of deposition. A power the self-titled "supreme pontiff" stills claims today, and can "re-activate" said, or should I say "the so called"?, Latin patriarchate of Antioch.
The Maronites erected their patriarchate all on their own.
The official title is Patriarcha Antiochenus Maronitarum. The Maronite patriarch shares the title of Antioch with three other Catholic patriarchs — the Melchite, the Syrian Catholic, and the Latin (titular) — one schismatical (Orthodox), and one heretical (Syrian Jacobite). The question will be considered later on, whether, apart from the concession of the Holy See, the Maronite patriarch can allege historical right to the title of Antioch....The Maronites insist, affirming that St. John Maro must have been Patriarch of Antioch because his works present him under that title. The works of John Maro referred to are an exposition of the Liturgy of St. James and a treatise on the Faith. The former is published by Joseph Aloysius Assemani in his "Codex Liturgicus" and certainly bears the name of John Maro, but the present writer has elsewhere shown that this alleged commentary of St. John Maro is no other than the famous commentary of Dionysius bar-Salibi, a Monophysite author of the twelfth century, with mutilations, additions, and accommodations to suit the changes by which the Maronites have endeavoured to make the Syriac Liturgy resemble the Roman (Dionysius Bar Salibi, "expositio liturgiæ", ed. Labourt, pref.). The treatise on the Faith is not likely to be any more authentic than the liturgical work: it bears a remarkable resemblance to a theological treatise of Leontius of Byzantium, and should therefore, very probably, be referred to the second half of the sixth century and the first half of the seventh — a period much earlier than that which the Maronites assign to St. John Maro. Besides, it contains nothing about Monothelitism — which, in fact, did not yet exist. John Maro, we must therefore conclude, is a very problematic personality; if he existed at all, it was as a simple monk, not by any means as a Melchite Patriarch of Antioch.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09683c.htm
This claim is historically and traditionally unfounded....Whatever the case may be, the title "Patriarch of Antioch" used by Maronite patriarchs is arbitrary and not sanctioned by ecclesiastical canon or tradition.
The Maronites in History By Matti Moosahttp://books.google.com/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=maronite+title+patriarch+of+antioch&source=bl&ots=CWzyTiTkqD&sig=pWDScvyDun5P0T0so5SaWO6DfWc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ph15T_iTMs-9gAe7vfntDg&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=maronite%20title%20patriarch%20of%20antioch&f=false
Portions of the Greek and Syrian Orthodox of Antioch united with Rome all on their own.
Yes, and without the persecution, government coercion, fraud and duplicity that usually come with these "unions." Hence why we don't have a lot of the problems Ukraine and Slovakia has. It does not change, however, "legitimizing" deposed prelates as patriarchs of Antioch: the pallium has no such power derived from SS. Peter and Paul at Antioch.
You let me know when the Western Rite Orthodox have their own diocese and bishop.
1898:the Russian Holy Governing Synod, having approved a Western Rite in 1869 and established the cathedral parish in Prague in the 1870's, organizes Western Rite Diocese of Moravia and Silesia, part of its moves to exert jurisdiction in Austria Hungary, the Church having jurisdiction, the Church of Bukowina, tacitly allowing it, given Austria (and particularly) Hungarian persecution of the Orthodox (particularly converts fleeing the Vatican) The Diocese was part of, and stagnated because of, the Orthodox response to Old Catholic movement (many of the most enthusiastic Orthodox for a Western Orthodox Church channeled support-and potential converts-into the Altkatholische churches. We learned from that mistake. The movement picked up steam only after WWI, when religious freedom became a reality in Czechoslovakia, and a contingent of the Czech equivalent of the PNC came under and was received by the Patriarchate of Serbia, who consecrated the bishop of Moravia, St. Gorazd. When the Church in Transcarpathia united with it, the Ruthenian returnees to Orthodoxy overwhelmed it and sometime in the 30's the the Church as whole became Eastern rite. The Church was destroyed by the Nazis in the martyrdom of St. Gorazd, the remnants resurrecting as the EO Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia (ironically, the Transcarpatian Orthodox having been joined to the Patriarchate of Moscow). The Nazis also took care of the Western Rite Diocese of Poland, formed when Bishop Alexis of Grodno received the Polish Catholic Nation Church in 1926 (one parish of which survived the war). Why do you ask?