Ah, how could I have forgotten... Maybe some would prefer "the Vatican had installed."
Yes how could you? I have corrected you on this error before. The Latin Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch were abolished but you continually persist as if they still exist.
I don't recall about being "corrected" on this "error" by you or anyone else before.
From the CIC, the "real" canon law of the Vatican:
Can. 368 Particular churches, in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists, are first of all dioceses, to which, unless it is otherwise evident, are likened a territorial prelature and territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate and an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration erected in a stable manner.
Can. 373 It is only for the supreme authority to erect particular churches; those legitimately erected possess juridic personality by the law itself.
Can. 431 §3. It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to establish, suppress, or alter ecclesiastical provinces after having heard the bishops involved.
Can. 438 The titles of patriarch and primate entail no power of governance in the Latin Church apart from a prerogative of honor unless in some matters the contrary is clear from apostolic privilege or approved custom.
From the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, the paper canons that the Vatican granted its "sui juris churches":
A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself. 2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.
In this Code the term "Apostolic See" or "Holy See" applies not only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise prescribed by the law or the nature of the matter indicates otherwise, dicasteries and other institutes of the Roman curia. [i.e. also the Congregation of Oriental Churches]
The college of bishops, whose head is the Roman Pontiff and whose members are the bishops by virtue of sacramental ordination and
hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college, and in which the apostolic body continually endures, together
with its head, and never without its head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.
The Patriarchal Churches
According to the most ancient tradition of the Church, already recognized by the first ecumenical councils, the patriarchal institution has existed in the Church; for this reason a special honor is to be accorded to the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, each of whom presides over his patriarchal Church as father and head.
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.
Canon 57 - §1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
§2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
§3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
1. Patriarchs of Eastern Churches, even if some are of later times, are all equal by reason of patriarchal dignity with due regard for the precedence of honor among them. 2. The order of precedence among the ancient patriarchal sees of the Eastern Churches is that in the first place comes the see of Constantinople, after that Alexandria, then Antioch and Jerusalem. 3. Among the other patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, precedence is ordered according to the antiquity of the patriarchal see. 4. Among the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches who each are of the same title but who preside over different patriarchal Churches, he has precedence who was first promoted to the patriarchal dignity.
Who is the Vatican's "patriarch of Constantinople" now? Who is its "patriarchate of Jerusalem" now?
Not quite.You need to update your research.
Swallowing myths does not update anything.
The Maronites elected St John Maron their patriarch without any reference to Rome,
Of course not. The heretical Pope Honorius had been deposed and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681).
although Pope St Sergius I confirmed his election.
So you are saying that Pope Sergius confirmed the Monothelites in their heresy like Pope Honorius? Odd that he would confirm that, and not the Pentheke/Quinsext Council (despite his own Eastern origins in Syria), a fault that Pope Hadrian I of Old Rome remedied in conjunction with the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
Of course, we know that confirmation of John Maron did not happen, as this pallium nonsense of the CCEO hadn't been dreamed up yet, and Old Rome's meddling in the Patriarchate of Antioch (barred by Apostolic Canon 34, Nicea c. 6, Ephesus 8, etc.), had ended up disastrously for it in the Meletian schism in Antioch three centuries earlier. A patriarchate yoked to a heretical patriarch being a different matter-hence Pope St. Martin's letter to Met. John of Philadelphia to supersede the heretical Pat. Macedonius. From 681 onwards, Antioch had an Orthodox Patriarch maintaining Catholic communion, consecrated by Ecumenical Council. Of course, heretics would take no notice. (the Orthodox, of course, do, at the first session of the Seventh Ecumenical Council the papal legates from Old Rome bringing up the precedence of Pope Benedict II trying to get the deposed Macarius of Antioch to recant, the Sixth Council having exiled him to Old Rome). That ended in 1098, when the marauding Crusaders expelled the Patriarch of Antioch and set up their own usurper-who received his pallium as legitimation from Old Rome, preventing the return of the patriarchate at Antioch until Pat. Theodosius (1269-1276) returned, after the Muslims threw out the Crusaders. Better the Turkish turban than the Roman miter.
If the incumbents hadn't become titulars residing in Constantinople perhaps the Maronites would not have felt forced to act.
The Monthelites had their titular patriarch, Macarius, residing in New Rome, where he was a presbyter, when he retained the patriarchate for the Monothelites in 656. He was deposed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which, dealing with Macarius' citations to defend his views, led to the anathematization of Pope Honorius of Old Rome) of Constantinople III (681), which elected, on the petition of the Antiochians present, Pat. Theophanes as his successor. The Patriarchs had not, by then, taken up residence in Constantinople for as long a stretch of time like your supreme pontiffs of Old Rome did in Avignon. Over a century before "Pat." John Maron's alleged assumption in 685 of the leadership of the Maronites/Mardaites (if the two are the same), Pat. Gregory, a monk of the Romans in Jerusalem transferred to Sinai, was selected as Patriarch of Antioch in 571 when Pat. Anastasios I was deposed and exiled. Pat. Gregory had a stormy relationship with the Count of the East based in Antioch, but mediated between the Emperor Maurice and the mutinous troops on the Persian frontier on the edges of Antioch's Patriarchate. On his death in 593, his predecessor Pat. Anastasios I, a monk of Sinai, returned (his friend, Pope Gregory of Rome requesting that if he (Anastasios) was not allowed to return to Antioch, he be sent to settle in Rome), and his successor Pat. Anastasios II was martyred in the marketplace of Antioch in 610. During the reign of his successor, Pat. Gregory II, the Persians took Antioch in 614, Pat. Gregory died and was succeeded (where, I admit I don't know offhand) by Pat. Anastasius III in 620, at the end of whose reign the Monothelite Emperor Heraclius retook Antioch. His colleague (both taking office in New Rome in 610) and regent in the capital, the heresiarch EP Sergius the Monothelite consecrated Pat. Macedonius for Antioch in 628 in New Rome, just in time for the Persian evacuation from Antioch the same year, and Pope St. Martin and Maximus the Confessor condemned him for heresy and uncanonical consecration (New Rome, no more than Old Rome, had the right to appoint patriarchs to Antioch), and he returned the favor to both saints, leading to their martyrdoms. Although Pat. Macedonius was absent, in 630-4, Heraclius himself was in Antioch, setting up base for fighting off the Persians and reintegrating the empire while speading Monotheletism and sowing the seeds of division, in 630 debating with the anti-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch. The Monothelite titular Patriarchs of Antioch, co-religionists of Heraclius and the Maronites, Macedonius, George and Macarius, resided in New Rome until the Sixth Council at Constantinople solved the problem, with Pat. Theophanes, who seems to have returned Orthodoxy to Antioch personally. He was succeeded briefly by Pat. Sebastian in 785-7 (i.e. when "Pat." John Maron was allegedly consecrated), who in turn was succeeded in 690 by Pat. George II, who as a hieromonk in Sebaste was sent by the Pat. of Jerusalem as his legate to the Sixth Ecumenical Council and as patriarch of Antioch returned to Constantinople to finish its work in the Pentheke/Quinisext Council. Pat. Alexander II, succeeding him in Antioch in 695, was martyred in 702 in Syria by the Umayyads, who prevented the election of a successor until 742, when the Antiochians elected the caliph's favorite monk, Pat. Stephen IV. He was succeeded by a priest of Edessa, Pat. Theophylact, in 748. His successor (767) Pat. Theodore in 783 could not attend (due to the overthrowal of the Umayyads and the establishment of the (then) radical 'Abbasid caliphate) the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea (II) in the Empire, and sent instead a hieromonk John as his legate, who succeeded him in 797.
Don't know why the Maronites would feel "forced to act": the Middle Eastern sources only record their coreligionists, the Monothelite patriarchs, as being elected, residing and being buried in New Rome and "not going to" "not entering" etc. Antioch. Only the Monothelite priests of Constantinople, from the appointment of Pat. Macedonius in 628 by the heresiarch EP Sergius of Constantinople to the deposition of Pat. Macarius in 681, were ordained and resided at New Rome. That is only 53 years, less that the Avignon papacy, and only a little longer than the vacancy cause by Muslim oppression in Antioch 702-742 . Antioch, for the century before 685, only had these absent Monothelites, corelgionists of the Maronites, as titular patriarchs. For the century thereafter the Orthodox Patriarchs, restored by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III, residing in Antioch and in the diptychs of the Catholic Church, remained, interrupted ,until the arrival of the Crusaders, the vacancy occuring only by the persecutions of the Muslims forcing a vacancy in the See of St. Peter. Of course, the presence of an Orthodox Patriarch in Catholic communion residing in Antioch might make the Monothelites elect their own patriarch, to preserve their heresy.
As to his supposed dubious existence, Justinian II didn't doubt it when he sent his army after him only to have its tail kicked by the Maronite warriors.
Leaving aside the problems of identifying the Mardaites (Justinian's friends) as the Maronites (St. Maximos the Confessor's enemies), the existence of "his" army doesn't prove "his" existence, much less proving "his" existence as a legitimate patriarch, let alone of Antioch. We have contemporary records of Justinian II and his army, and the Mardaites in the treaty of 688 between him and the Caliph Abd al-Malik. No mention of a "Patriarch John Maron."
1898...Why do you ask?So in other words there is currently no Western Rite Orthodox diocese or bishop proper only vicariates and the bi-ritual Bishop Jerome, got it.
And still the WRO are no worse off than the Vatican's eastern rites.