Alas! for you, your case cannot withstand the least scrutiny:
At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI.
According to the custom the patriarch was duly elected by a Synod of the clergy and laity of the Patriarchate, then consecrated by three bishops of the Synod, and then obtain the berat of the Patriarchate.
"Pat." Cyril never obtained a berat (nor did many of his successors). Patriarchate Sylvester had his a week after the alleged patriarchal consecration of Cyril. That pretty much settles the matter.
The Robber council had only two bishops (I won't go into the problems with their ecclesiastical bans, connected with the deposition and exile of Seraphim (i.e. "Cyril") Tanas' uncle, the bishop of Sidon), and had to ordain a third, in the rush to ordain Cyril as "patriarch" within a week-Sylvester had already been duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity on the recommendation of the dying Patriarch Athanasius III the month before, and had been sent for to come take over. The delegation from Antioch was waiting in Constantinople for his arrival from Mt. Athos, so time was running out for mechinations in Damascus. Problem is, the canons require three bishops for a consecration, and bar a consecration while the Patriarchal throne is vacant.
Then there is that problem of the excommunication and ecclesiastical bans imposed on those who were engaging in proselytizing for the Vatican, reiterated the previous year...
He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin.
And yet he was consecrated in Latin rites, the subject of "Demandatam coelitus humilitati nostrae."
Your supreme pontiff didn't accept his profession of faith. By the time you had a supreme pontiff accepted it, and issued "Demandatum," Patriarch Sylvester had reigned over Antioch for nearly two decades, berat in hand.
Canon 5 of your Lateran IV:
Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed; so that after their bishops have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them the canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman Church the pledge of obedience...
"Patriarch" Cyril had neither berat nor pallium those twenty years. Patriarch Sylvester, was patriarch in the full sense of the word that entire time.
Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch.
No, the Vatican line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch, heirs (although they won't claim it) of Paulinus and Evagrius. The Catholic line of Roman Patriarchs of Antioch, heirs of Patriarch St. Meletius, continued in Patriarch Sylvester. It continues in Patriarch John X. Many Years!
His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."
Yes, I guess, being a couple decades old, those schismatics weren't actually new. But then "new", not schismatic, should be put in quotations.
btw, are you quoting something? From what exactly?
He was elected by the Synod AND the laity.
Yes, Sylvester was.
The Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally excommunicated the duly elected Patriarch and established a new Patriarch in his stead
no, he consecrated with the delegation from Antioch their duly elected Patriarch. And presided over the general synod that excommunicated those who dared to attempt to usurp the throne of Antioch from its duly elected Patriarch.
Even the Latins in Aleppo refused to recognize the usurpers, nor their supreme pontiff back in Old Rome.
and sent him to "reclaim and punish" the "new"
fixed that for you.
The people and clergy spoke, and elected Cyril, but Constantinople didn't like it and intervened, excommunicating the rightful Patriarch and establishing a seperate line in Damascus.
Constantinople had nothing to do with the Robber Synod of Damascus, except to putting a stop to its mechinations. It consecrated the rightful Patriarch elected by the people and clergy.
The usurpers didn't like it and tried to intervene, convening their robber council at Damascus.
Regardless of whether or not the time was right for Reunion, Constantinople acted on its own against the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church.
Constantinople acted with the rightful Patriarch of Antioch, according to the Canons of the Church, in contrast to the usurpers, who acted on their own, not even the Vatican backing them.
The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Cyril, and Cyril never moved against Constantinople, but merely reunited with Rome.
The Melkite Synod and laity elected Patriarch Sylvester, Cyril trying to move against the Patriarchate of Antioch to submit it to the Vatican.
This action was met with excommunication and the creation of a new Patriarchate, against the Canons of the Church.
that is the Vatican's usual modus vivendi.
Oh and btw, the canonical Bishop of Rome looks more like Pope Francis
Yes, His Grace Bishop Siluan does look like him more than the pope emeritus (is that what he is called now?), just with a beard.