OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 10:22:17 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope  (Read 11044 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #405 on: August 26, 2013, 03:25:44 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Here is a brief history of the term Pope and its usage :

Quote
The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.[13][14][15][16][17] The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).[18] The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[19]

The title was from the early 3rd century a general term used to refer to all bishops.[20] From the 6th century the title began to be used particularly of the Bishop of Rome, and in the late 11th century Pope Gregory VII issued a declaration that has been widely interpreted as stating this by then established Western convention.[20] By the same 6th century, this was also the normal practice of the imperial chancery of Constantinople.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Title_and_etymology
Constantinople still calls the Patriarch of Alexandria "Pope," who has two miters, one from the emperor, and one from the EP, since the time of Pope Theophilos II conciliating the Emperor Basil II and the EP Sergius II.

It was expected.  Hence the complaint, among the other irregularities that Pope Dioscorus was being tried on at Chalcedon (he wasn't being tried for heresy at all. That was Eutyches).

And yet he was still ranked 5th? If yes then this runs contrary to your contention
no, it proves the contention of the Fathers of Chalcedon and Abp. Leo's assessment of Ephesus II as a "robber council" which had to be held as void, having violated canonical norms.

If 2nd place wasn't the canonical norm of the day, how would the legates of Old Rome bring it up as an issue?
Its no secret that Rome rejected the ascendancy of Constantinople to second in primacy so why try force the issue Isa?
Force?  It's push back to Ultramontanism.
so you say...

It is no secret that despite all protestations to the contrary, Old Rome had to reconcile herself and deal with New Rome's status.  As the Letter of Gregory you quote says "One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage?"
ok? So?
so your leaning on Abp. St. Leo's protestations lack substance to support your contention.

You were the one who brought the letter up.

That Constantinople rose through political means? Or that Leo rejected the 28th canon? In both situations what you quoted does nothing to my contention
the letter was wasn't talking about political matters, to wit:
Quote
as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage?
Seems New Rome was at least 2nd, if #1 is seen "following her usage."

And of course, the rest of the Church-including in the Patriarchate of the West, did not accept Old Rome's rejection.
Proof?
The Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, and Abp. St. Leo's own admission of that fact to the empress.
Until the west did. The pentarchy was never really realized in the west you do know that right?
Of course it wasn't: it was overrun by Arians at the time.
This is not the reason though and you know it. Again presenting history in a very "interesting" way  Wink

Quote
However, Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...
LOL. Talk about biased in "presenting history in a very "interesting" way" Wink

No canon gives a line item veto to any bishop.

Have to return later....
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 03:31:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,556



« Reply #406 on: August 26, 2013, 03:38:20 PM »

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) -- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

That claim, is of course, complete bunk, because within just two centuries of the Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Trullo renews the enactments of the 28th Canon of Chalcedon and the 3rd Canon of First Constantinople in its 36th canon.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 03:39:33 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #407 on: August 26, 2013, 04:15:02 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Touche. I think our reasons for not applying the title "Pope of Alexandria" to His Beatitude Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak are more complicated than just not wanting to "offend" the Coptic Orthodox.

But having said that, I have to admit that I would feel a little strange calling him "Pope of Alexandria" given that he leads 1% of Coptic Christians ... or should I say, given that he leads 0.5% of Eastern Catholics?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #408 on: August 26, 2013, 04:22:49 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

Secondly the affectionate term "Pope" is not used in order to avoid offence yet "Patriarch" is still what he is called as that is his position in his church (Coptic Catholic Church) You're desperately forcing the issue Isa, again...

Here is a brief history of the term Pope and its usage :

Quote
The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.[13][14][15][16][17] The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).[18] The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[19]

The title was from the early 3rd century a general term used to refer to all bishops.[20] From the 6th century the title began to be used particularly of the Bishop of Rome, and in the late 11th century Pope Gregory VII issued a declaration that has been widely interpreted as stating this by then established Western convention.[20] By the same 6th century, this was also the normal practice of the imperial chancery of Constantinople.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Title_and_etymology
Constantinople still calls the Patriarch of Alexandria "Pope," who has two miters, one from the emperor, and one from the EP, since the time of Pope Theophilos II conciliating the Emperor Basil II and the EP Sergius II.
Cool

It was expected.  Hence the complaint, among the other irregularities that Pope Dioscorus was being tried on at Chalcedon (he wasn't being tried for heresy at all. That was Eutyches).

And yet he was still ranked 5th? If yes then this runs contrary to your contention
no, it proves the contention of the Fathers of Chalcedon and Abp. Leo's assessment of Ephesus II as a "robber council" which had to be held as void, having violated canonical norms.

If 2nd place wasn't the canonical norm of the day, how would the legates of Old Rome bring it up as an issue?
You should ask them when you get the chance. But Rome and all Popes up till the 11th century never accepted the ascendancy of Constantinople to second In primacy. This is basic historical fact  accepted by all credible scholars.

Its no secret that Rome rejected the ascendancy of Constantinople to second in primacy so why try force the issue Isa?
Force?  It's push back to Ultramontanism.
so you say...

It is no secret that despite all protestations to the contrary, Old Rome had to reconcile herself and deal with New Rome's status.  As the Letter of Gregory you quote says "One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage?"
ok? So?
so your leaning on Abp. St. Leo's protestations lack substance to support your contention.

You were the one who brought the letter up.

That Constantinople rose through political means? Or that Leo rejected the 28th canon? In both situations what you quoted does nothing to my contention
the letter was wasn't talking about political matters, to wit:
Quote
as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage?
Seems New Rome was at least 2nd, if #1 is seen "following her usage."

LOL historical eisegesis at its best

And of course, the rest of the Church-including in the Patriarchate of the West, did not accept Old Rome's rejection.
Proof?
The Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, and Abp. St. Leo's own admission of that fact to the empress.
Until the west did. The pentarchy was never really realized in the west you do know that right?
Of course it wasn't: it was overrun by Arians at the time.
This is not the reason though and you know it. Again presenting history in a very "interesting" way  Wink

Quote
However, Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...
LOL. Talk about biased in "presenting history in a very "interesting" way" Wink

No canon gives a line item veto to any bishop.

Have to return later....

I like how you find truth to be hilarious  Grin
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 04:29:45 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,067


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #409 on: August 26, 2013, 05:19:53 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #410 on: August 26, 2013, 05:26:09 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,067


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #411 on: August 26, 2013, 05:28:07 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

And all three lines are mutually exclusive. There can only be one valid Patriarch.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,437


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #412 on: August 26, 2013, 05:42:30 PM »

This man certainly agrees with me :

Quote
Rome has spoken; the case is closed - St.Augustine (Sermon 131:10)

Well, the fellow below thinks this whole argument is pointless, based as it is on a non-existent entity:

Quote
"There is no God." - King David (Psalm 14.1)

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #413 on: August 26, 2013, 05:46:49 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

And all three lines are mutually exclusive. There can only be one valid Patriarch.

Check how the maronites got their first patriarch and the Syrians... The Antiochans really maintained their line directly. The schism in the church of Antioch formed the Catholic and Orthodox counterparts due to the Patriarch of Antioch coming into communion with Rome (a discussion for a another day ). Their line is the legitimate line. The maronites and Syrians are recognized though due to respect of their traditions and how they came unto being. Its a lot more complicated than I've explained though.s

I remember Patriarch Gregory Laham III joked about Peter saying Peter should have stayed in Antioch and not went to Rome as this would have made him head of the Church and not the Pope
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 05:49:43 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,067


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #414 on: August 26, 2013, 05:47:41 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

And all three lines are mutually exclusive. There can only be one valid Patriarch.

Check how the maronites got their first patriarch and the Syrians... The Antiochans really maintained their line directly. Thr schism in the church formed the Catholic counter part due to the Patriarch of Antioch coming into communion with Rome (a discussion for a another day ). Their line us the legitimate line. The maronites and Syrians are recognized though due to respect of their traditions.

I remember Patriarch Gregory Laham III joked about Peter saying Peter should have stayed in Antioch and not went to Rome as this would have made him head of the Church and not the Pope

Both John Maron and Severus of Antioch were legitimate patriarchs.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,091


« Reply #415 on: August 26, 2013, 05:48:27 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

Okay. I did. They came out of sections of preexisting Orthodox churches, with the possible exception of the Maronites (depending on whose history you believe). Certainly this proves...something...but it's probably not anything a Roman Catholic would like to hear.
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #416 on: August 26, 2013, 05:50:50 PM »

This man certainly agrees with me :

Quote
Rome has spoken; the case is closed - St.Augustine (Sermon 131:10)

Well, the fellow below thinks this whole argument is pointless, based as it is on a non-existent entity:

Quote
"There is no God." - King David (Psalm 14.1)



David was a very troubled man  Tongue
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #417 on: August 26, 2013, 05:52:09 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

And all three lines are mutually exclusive. There can only be one valid Patriarch.

Check how the maronites got their first patriarch and the Syrians... The Antiochans really maintained their line directly. Thr schism in the church formed the Catholic counter part due to the Patriarch of Antioch coming into communion with Rome (a discussion for a another day ). Their line us the legitimate line. The maronites and Syrians are recognized though due to respect of their traditions.

I remember Patriarch Gregory Laham III joked about Peter saying Peter should have stayed in Antioch and not went to Rome as this would have made him head of the Church and not the Pope

Both John Maron and Severus of Antioch were legitimate patriarchs.

nope.. Read more about their histories and you will see
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,067


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #418 on: August 26, 2013, 05:54:28 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

And all three lines are mutually exclusive. There can only be one valid Patriarch.

Check how the maronites got their first patriarch and the Syrians... The Antiochans really maintained their line directly. Thr schism in the church formed the Catholic counter part due to the Patriarch of Antioch coming into communion with Rome (a discussion for a another day ). Their line us the legitimate line. The maronites and Syrians are recognized though due to respect of their traditions.

I remember Patriarch Gregory Laham III joked about Peter saying Peter should have stayed in Antioch and not went to Rome as this would have made him head of the Church and not the Pope

Both John Maron and Severus of Antioch were legitimate patriarchs.

nope.. Read more about their histories and you will see

I did. I even read the epistles and several fragments of Severus of Antioch. Tell me how John Maron and Severus of Antioch were never legitimate Patriarchs.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #419 on: August 26, 2013, 05:54:59 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

Okay. I did. They came out of sections of preexisting Orthodox churches, with the possible exception of the Maronites (depending on whose history you believe). Certainly this proves...something...but it's probably not anything a Roman Catholic would like to hear.

The Maronites are the only eastern Church to not have an Orthodox counterpart.

From the Catholic POV the Antiochan Orthodox Church came into existence after the Antiochan schism due the the legitimate Patriarch and fellows coming into communion with Rome and Constantinople raising a rival bishop (For the Orthodox) to that of the Catholics.

Let me leave it at that as this is a whole 'nother can of worms Tongue
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 05:59:09 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #420 on: August 26, 2013, 06:00:02 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

And all three lines are mutually exclusive. There can only be one valid Patriarch.

Check how the maronites got their first patriarch and the Syrians... The Antiochans really maintained their line directly. Thr schism in the church formed the Catholic counter part due to the Patriarch of Antioch coming into communion with Rome (a discussion for a another day ). Their line us the legitimate line. The maronites and Syrians are recognized though due to respect of their traditions.

I remember Patriarch Gregory Laham III joked about Peter saying Peter should have stayed in Antioch and not went to Rome as this would have made him head of the Church and not the Pope

Both John Maron and Severus of Antioch were legitimate patriarchs.

nope.. Read more about their histories and you will see

I did. I even read the epistles and several fragments of Severus of Antioch. Tell me how John Maron and Severus of Antioch were never legitimate Patriarchs.


I'll explain another time. Soon though... Kinda busy right now
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #421 on: August 26, 2013, 06:01:31 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.
Not only that, but both the Vatican and it Latins in Syria refused for years to recognize Patriarch Gregory III's predecessor "Patriarch" Cyril VI, allowing the canonical Patriarch, Sylvester, to consolidate the Patriarchate for Orthodoxy.

You would think that the Vatican would learn from its ill-conceived and ill-fated support for Paulinus against Abp. St. Meletius of Antioch, whom all of the patriarchs of Antioch-Gregory III, Ignatius Joseph III, Bechara Boutros or the Latin suppressed at Vatican II-in submission to the Vatican want to claim as a predecessor, none claiming Paulinus.  The whole Meletian Schism and its resolution alone suffices to show that Pastor Aeternus has no basis in history for its claims.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #422 on: August 26, 2013, 06:02:45 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.
no, there is an excuse.  The Vatican's Pastor Aeternus cannot call history a friend nor an ally.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #423 on: August 26, 2013, 06:05:27 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

And all three lines are mutually exclusive. There can only be one valid Patriarch.
Oh, no. That is only important for Old Rome.


oops!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #424 on: August 26, 2013, 06:09:43 PM »

This man certainly agrees with me :

Quote
Rome has spoken; the case is closed - St.Augustine (Sermon 131:10)

Well, the fellow below thinks this whole argument is pointless, based as it is on a non-existent entity:

Quote
"There is no God." - King David (Psalm 14.1)
Wandile might try to go outside the quote mine and find the context of St. Augustine's quote.

And read his Retractions (particularly 20.1).

« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 06:10:04 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #425 on: August 26, 2013, 06:15:18 PM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

Okay. I did. They came out of sections of preexisting Orthodox churches, with the possible exception of the Maronites (depending on whose history you believe). Certainly this proves...something...but it's probably not anything a Roman Catholic would like to hear.

The Maronites are the only eastern Church to not have an Orthodox counterpart.
Because they were Monothelite heretics, and not Orthodox, when they submitted to the Vatican.

From the Catholic POV the Antiochan Orthodox Church came into existence after the Antiochan schism due the the legitimate Patriarch and fellows coming into communion with Rome and Constantinople raising a rival bishop (For the Orthodox) to that of the Catholics.
The robber synod which elected Patriarch Cyril was not even recognized by the Vatican nor the Latins in Syria.  The legitimate Synod of Antioch elected Sylvester and sent for him (he was at the time on Mt. Athos).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,437


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #426 on: August 26, 2013, 06:18:49 PM »

This man certainly agrees with me :

Quote
Rome has spoken; the case is closed - St.Augustine (Sermon 131:10)

Well, the fellow below thinks this whole argument is pointless, based as it is on a non-existent entity:

Quote
"There is no God." - King David (Psalm 14.1)
Wandile might try to go outside the quote mine and find the context of St. Augustine's quote.

And read his Retractions (particularly 20.1).



Thank you, sir, you clearly understood my intent. 

I did. I even read the epistles and several fragments of Severus of Antioch. Tell me how John Maron and Severus of Antioch were never legitimate Patriarchs.


I'll explain another time. Soon though... Kinda busy right now

I'll be waiting...  Wink
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,091


« Reply #427 on: August 26, 2013, 07:03:11 PM »

The Maronites are the only eastern Church to not have an Orthodox counterpart.

Again, depending on whose history you believe. You might want to read Matti Moosa's work on the Maronites sometime, if you have a chance. He contends, using period sources in the form of the writings of their own (Maronite) Bishop Tuma of Kfartab (11th century; an avowed monothelite, by the way) and others, that the Maronites were likely originally a section of the Syriac Orthodox Church who, through various pressures relating to their interactions with the Melkites and with Rome, eventually came to shed their heretical views (i.e., monothelitism). Much earlier, Schaff (1884) says that the Maronites were originally "Monophysites". Certain distinctives in their worship as it existed prior to the modern era (e.g., reciting the Triasgion with the controversial "Thou who wast crucified for us" clause, openly venerating St. Jacob of Serug, etc.) suggest that this a more likely alternative than some other theories that have been popular in the past (largely serving political ends, i.e., Maronitism/Maronites are Phoenicians or whatever). But I digress...often...
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 07:10:42 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Bianconeri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 11


« Reply #428 on: August 26, 2013, 09:31:33 PM »

The Maronites are the only eastern Church to not have an Orthodox counterpart.

Again, depending on whose history you believe. You might want to read Matti Moosa's work on the Maronites sometime, if you have a chance. He contends, using period sources in the form of the writings of their own (Maronite) Bishop Tuma of Kfartab (11th century; an avowed monothelite, by the way) and others, that the Maronites were likely originally a section of the Syriac Orthodox Church who, through various pressures relating to their interactions with the Melkites and with Rome, eventually came to shed their heretical views (i.e., monothelitism). Much earlier, Schaff (1884) says that the Maronites were originally "Monophysites". Certain distinctives in their worship as it existed prior to the modern era (e.g., reciting the Triasgion with the controversial "Thou who wast crucified for us" clause, openly venerating St. Jacob of Serug, etc.) suggest that this a more likely alternative than some other theories that have been popular in the past (largely serving political ends, i.e., Maronitism/Maronites are Phoenicians or whatever). But I digress...often...


Pope Gregory XIII of Rome (1572-1585) (Moosa 243) orders the Maronites to cease chanting, in the Trisagion, "phrases far from the truth and the faith held by the Church of Rome."
http://books.google.fr/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA243&dq=matti+moosa+Pope+Gregory+XIII+phrases+far+from+the+truth+and+the+faith+held+by+the+Church+of+Rome&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=YgQcUpHMLK330gWx8oEg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=matti%20moosa%20Pope%20Gregory%20XIII%20phrases%20far%20from%20the%20truth%20and%20the%20faith%20held%20by%20the%20Church%20of%20Rome&f=false

Patriarch Dionysius Tal Mahri of Antioch ( Moosa 114):
And the Maronites remained as they are today, consecrating for themselves a patriarch and bishops from their monastery. They are distinguished from the followers of Maximus for their belief in one will in Christ and for reciting the Trisagion with the phrase "Thou Who was crucified for us." But they accept the Council of Chalcedon.
http://books.google.fr/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA114&dq=Matti+Moosa+They+are+distinguished+from+the+followers+of+Maximus+for+their+belief+in+one+will+in+Christ+and+for+reciting+the+Trisagion&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=BwYcUsDxFqKg0wXwpIFY&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Matti%20Moosa%20They%20are%20distinguished%20from%20the%20followers%20of%20Maximus%20for%20their%20belief%20in%20one%20will%20in%20Christ%20and%20for%20reciting%20the%20Trisagion&f=false
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 09:38:16 PM by Bianconeri » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #429 on: August 26, 2013, 10:03:01 PM »

So far we have learned that Catholic and Orthodox Christians disagree about the nature of the Papacy. Cool thread.
And this, above all others, seems to be the place of friction. 
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 795



« Reply #430 on: August 26, 2013, 10:32:39 PM »

That map ialmisry posted just makes me want to play Crusader Kings II.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #431 on: August 26, 2013, 10:59:59 PM »

So far we have learned that Catholic and Orthodox Christians disagree about the nature of the Papacy. Cool thread.
And this, above all others, seems to be the place of friction. 
Few, if any, thing as proved as divisive as the supreme pontiff of the Ultramontanists.  I think St. Nikolaj said something like that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,099


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #432 on: August 26, 2013, 11:11:49 PM »

As an Orthodox Christian, I am comfortable with our situation as it is.  They stay on their side of the street and we on ours, with mutual respect.  Keeping our own houses in order is enough for us right now.  No butinskys from the Vatican at this time if you may.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #433 on: August 26, 2013, 11:21:46 PM »

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes and no.  It depends on which ones you read about.  As you can see, at least as far back as 189 there was support and opposition.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,099


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #434 on: August 26, 2013, 11:30:41 PM »

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes and no.  It depends on which ones you read about.  As you can see, at least as far back as 189 there was support and opposition.

It definitely wasn't a slam dunk back then and even to this day.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #435 on: August 27, 2013, 04:47:39 AM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

Okay. I did. They came out of sections of preexisting Orthodox churches, with the possible exception of the Maronites (depending on whose history you believe). Certainly this proves...something...but it's probably not anything a Roman Catholic would like to hear.

The Maronites are the only eastern Church to not have an Orthodox counterpart.
Because they were Monothelite heretics, and not Orthodox, when they submitted to the Vatican.

From the Catholic POV the Antiochan Orthodox Church came into existence after the Antiochan schism due the the legitimate Patriarch and fellows coming into communion with Rome and Constantinople raising a rival bishop (For the Orthodox) to that of the Catholics.
The robber synod which elected Patriarch Cyril was not even recognized by the Vatican nor the Latins in Syria.  The legitimate Synod of Antioch elected Sylvester and sent for him (he was at the time on Mt. Athos).

More like legitimate synod and the robber synod of Constantinople that elected Sylvester

Quote
Election of Cyril VI[edit source]

The fourth defining moment was the election of Cyril VI Tanas, in 1724, by the Melkite bishops of Syria as the new Patriarch of Antioch. As Cyril was considered to be pro-Western, the Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople feared that his authority would be compromised. Therefore, Jeremias declared Cyril's election to be invalid, excommunicated him, and ordained the deacon Sylvester of Antioch, a Greek monk a priest and bishop, then appointed him to the patriarchal See of Antioch.[6]

Sylvester exacerbated divisions with his heavy-handed rule of the church as many Melkites acknowledged Cyril's claim to the patriarchal throne. It was obvious to all that Cyril had been legitimately elected and consecrated, and that Jeremias had attempted to remove him only to bolster his own authority over the Antiochian Patriarchate. This Greek domination over the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch lasted until 1899.) Jeremias and Sylvester began a five year campaign of persecution against Cyril and the Melkite faithful who supported him, enforced by Ottoman Turkish troops.

Five years after the election of Cyril VI, in 1729, Pope Benedict XIII recognized Cyril as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch and recognized his followers as being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. [15] From this time onwards, the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church has existed separately from and in parallel to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in Western Asia; the latter is no longer referred to as Melkite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church

Quote
Like many of his fellow clerics Seraphim Tanas favored re-establishing communion with the Roman Catholic Church. He was elected in 1724 by the Melkites of Damascus as the new Patriarch of Antioch, and was consecrated as Cyril VI in the patriarchal cathedral of Damascus on October 1, 1724[4][5] by Neophytos Nasri, bishop of Saidnaya assisted by Basile Finas, bishop of Baias and by Euthymius Fadel, bishop of Zahle and Forzol[3]:55. As Cyril was a prominent pro-Westerner, Orthodox Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople, felt his authority was challenged. Jeremias declared Cyril's election to be invalid, excommunicated him, and appointed Sylvester of Antioch (1696–1766), a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch. Jeremias consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul on October 8, 1724.[5][6]

The sultan withdrew the recognition initially conferred on Cyril, who was forced to flee as emissaries of Sylvester arrived from Constantiople with a mandate for his arrest. Cyril took refuge at the Holy Savior Monastery near Sidon, located in modern-day Lebanon. Cyril's safety there was guaranteed by the Shehab emirs. Sylvester unleashed a hard persecution against all who elected or supported Cyril: many people were exiled and all churches were taken by Sylvester's party. This persecution strengthened the faith of the Catholic Melkites who, even without a formal hierarchy, continued to increase in number meeting in secret places and celebrating the Divine Liturgy in homes at night.[7]:327–328

Although the populace of Aleppo was mainly pro-Catholic in sentiment, the people initially supported Sylvester. However, Sylvester exacerbated divisions with his heavy-handed rule of the church, and many Melkites chose to acknowledge Cyril VI as patriarch instead. The people united against Sylvester, forcing him to flee Aleppo.[2]:33–34 The Greek domination over the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch lasted until 1899.

Notwithstanding the many requests by Cyril for recognition, the Papacy moved with great caution and took six years to recognize Cyril as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. The decision was made by Pope Benedict XIII and communicated, almost unofficially, to the Melkites in the synod held on April 25, 1730.[8] From this time onwards, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has existed separately from and in parallel to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in the Middle East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_VI_Tanas

Rome did Recognize his election but took time for various reasons:

Quote
East. The pallium, formal recognition of the patriarchal authority, was granted by Rome to Cyril only on February 3, 1744, about twenty years after the 1724 election.

The reasons for this caution and delay by Rome to recognize Cyril as patriarch can be summarized as follows:
The election of Cyril had been not planned by Rome and Rome already had Catholic professions of faith by the previous patriarchs Athanasius III Dabbas (in 1687) and Cyril Zaim (in 1716). Rome didn't want to split the Melkite hierarchy hoping for a complete union. Only the persecutions by Sylvester and the incoming Greek domination over the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch left no other choice.
Cyril followed Euthymios Saifi in introducing many Liturgical Latinisations, dividing thus the Catholic Melkites between who kept the byzantine rite untouched and who mixed the rites. For this reason many Catholic Melkite monks were initially very suspicious of Cyril. As already happened for Euthymios Saifi, the Pope took a strong position against Cyril's latinizations, and his recognition in 1729 was subject to his renouncing any changes to the Byzantine rite and uses.[3]:76 The latinizations, supported by many Latin missionaries (particularly by the Franciscans), continued to be a problem in the Melkite Church until the final position taken by the Pope on December 24, 1743, with the issue of the encyclical Demandatam that put an end to the mix of rites. This same document forbade Latin missionaries to accept the faithful of Byzantine Rites into the Latin Rite.

Cyril VI Tanas summoned synods in 1736, 1751 and 1756 in order to give a structure to the Melkite Church, but without a full success. He died on January 10, 1760,[9] leaving a complicated succession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_VI_Tanas
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 04:51:21 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #436 on: August 27, 2013, 05:21:08 AM »

Here is a more detailed account of the election of Patriarch Cyril VI. Excerpt taken from http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QYbgJI7ghroC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=election+of+Cyril+VI+valid%3F&source=bl&ots=yiSUC0-pFY&sig=J-LO8JOfnUy2YeQnKC5iE2FYSds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CF4cUqLhOcys7QaErIHIAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=election%20of%20Cyril%20VI%20valid%3F&f=false

Quote
The metropolitans, Euthymios of Tyre and Neophytos Nasri of Saidnaia, were  Catholics; at Damascus, Aleppo, Sidon, Tyre, Acre, the majority of Christians of the Byzantine rite were  Catholics, at least at heart. it seems that Athanasius IV had intended that a certain Sylvester, a monk from Cyprus, his friend, should succeed him. Some say that he actually nominated Sylvester his successor; this would make no difference, as he had no power of doing so. It seems rivalry between  the communities of Aleppo and Damascus is at the bottom of the quarrel which now follows. Sylvester was considered to be the nominee of Aleppo. So hurriedly, to prevent his election, the people of Damascus elected Seraphim Tanas. Seraphim  was a Catholic, Nephew of Euthymios of Tyre, he was also in favor with Othman Pasha, against the valid and free election of Cyril as Patriarch of Antioch.

This was after his enemies (for he had some among he Catholics too) had presented every argument against him. In any case the appointment of his rival was invalid. Sylvester of Cyprus was simply nominated by the synod of Constantinople. Now there is nothing that the Orthodox  of Syria, Egypt and all parts outside Constantinople  hold more firmly than that the Ecumenical Patriarch  has no jurisdiction beyond his own Patriarchate. The modern Orthodox, who trace the line of their Patriarchs of Antioch through Sylvester, cannot object to the proceedings of Cyril's election; because equally  irregular elections have been the commonest thing in all their sees.

Their real reason for rejecting him is not that, but the fact that he came into communion with the Pope. But, if that is an impediment; what becomes of all the Antiochan Patriarchs of the first centuries? They have also in their favor the shameful protection that Sylvester sought and obtained from the Turkish government. It is indeed surprising that Christian bishops should seek an argument; but it has been the constant recourse of the Orthodox, ever since the Turk first held their lands. Sylvester of Cyprus at Antioch is only one out of countless Orthodox bishops who have rested their claim to rule in the name of Christ on the approval of Mohammed.

unless we admit such arguments as these, it seems impossible to  deny that the present Orthodox line of Patriarchs of Antioch, coming from Sylvester is not historically the old line, but a new schism there from beginning with him. The old line of Antioch is in union with Rime since Cyril VI.

Follow the link to the book  for more information.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 05:31:46 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Bianconeri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 11


« Reply #437 on: August 27, 2013, 05:48:55 AM »

Adrian Fortescue hahaha  Cheesy
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,067


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #438 on: August 27, 2013, 05:52:03 AM »

Adrian Fortescue hahaha  Cheesy

He's pretty good, actually. Much better than his contemporaries. I enjoyed his books.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #439 on: August 27, 2013, 07:00:35 AM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

Okay. I did. They came out of sections of preexisting Orthodox churches, with the possible exception of the Maronites (depending on whose history you believe). Certainly this proves...something...but it's probably not anything a Roman Catholic would like to hear.

The Maronites are the only eastern Church to not have an Orthodox counterpart.
Because they were Monothelite heretics, and not Orthodox, when they submitted to the Vatican.

The Maronites disagree with you. I think they would know their own history best.

some works contained the idea that Christ's two wills operated as one will, but they never denied he had a human will. The Maronites didn't get along with the Syrians or the Byzantines so it makes little sense they would adopt a heresy meant as a compromise between the two parties.


Just because many people thought them so does not make it so. For centuries, the Latins and Greeks thought the Alexandrians to be Monophysites when in fact they held to the theology of St.Cyril and were Miaphysite. So too we could be and most probably are mistaken about the maronites being monothelite .
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 07:16:09 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #440 on: August 27, 2013, 07:11:54 AM »

I'm just glad there were no rabbit holes in this thread.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #441 on: August 27, 2013, 07:40:36 AM »

This man certainly agrees with me :

Quote
Rome has spoken; the case is closed - St.Augustine (Sermon 131:10)

Well, the fellow below thinks this whole argument is pointless, based as it is on a non-existent entity:

Quote
"There is no God." - King David (Psalm 14.1)
Wandile might try to go outside the quote mine and find the context of St. Augustine's quote.

And read his Retractions (particularly 20.1).



Thank you, sir, you clearly understood my intent.  

I did. I even read the epistles and several fragments of Severus of Antioch. Tell me how John Maron and Severus of Antioch were never legitimate Patriarchs.


I'll explain another time. Soon though... Kinda busy right now

I'll be waiting...  Wink

because their patriarch came into being due to the need of one of their own to lead them as opposed to an actual patriarch of Antioch from the old line :

Quote
Near the end of the fifth century of the Christian era, the inhabitants of Mount Lebanon had been converted by the disciples of St. Maron and had become Maronites themselves. These now welcomed their brethren arriving from Antioch and the two groups, now mingled, pursued their mission together. When the Arabs finally dominated the area, and any regular contact with the patriarchate of Constantinople became impossible, the Maronites had to appoint in 687 their own Patriarch, who was Saint John-Maron.  http://www.opuslibani.org.lb/egliseeng/002/antioch1.html

The Syrians are not legitimate because they were non-chalcedonian and rejected the election of Patriarch Paul :

Quote
In the year 518, the Patriarch of Antioch, Severius, was deposed from his see for having denied the two distinct natures in Christ and for rejecting the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. A Catholic Patriarch succeeded him, by the name of Paul. However, not all the Christians approved his appointment, and in consequence the Church split into two groups, the Chalcedonians and the anti-Chalcedonians. Every since that time, there has always been a Catholic Patriarch holding to the faith as defined at Chalcedon and a non-Catholic Patriarch rejecting it. http://www.opuslibani.org.lb/egliseeng/002/antioch1.html

 and also their recognition of the deposed Severus disqualifies them :

Quote
The Syriac Non-Chalcedonians recognized Severus as the legitimate Patriarch until his death in 538. In 544, Non-Chalcedonian leader Jacob Baradaeus consecrated Sergius of Tella as bishop of Antioch, opening the lasting schism between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Church.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

I need not explain how This leaves the line of the Melkites as the legitimate line of Antioch.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 07:45:11 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #442 on: August 27, 2013, 07:41:58 AM »

And when did he deny him the usage of the title for the sake of himself having to alone? The Title isn't user by the Coptic Catholic Patriarch to avoid offending the Coptic Orthodox  Pope Tawardos II
So your Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs use the title "Patriarch of Antioch" to offend the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch John X of Antioch, and the Latins as well-still insulting the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, Patriarch Theophilos III.

Nope because the man you named is not the canonical Patriarch.  Patriarch Gregory III Laham  is  angel

And what about this guy? And this guy? It appears that you can't even decide who the real Patriarch of Antioch is.

There is a reason why all three are acknowledged..Check their histories.

Okay. I did. They came out of sections of preexisting Orthodox churches, with the possible exception of the Maronites (depending on whose history you believe). Certainly this proves...something...but it's probably not anything a Roman Catholic would like to hear.

The Maronites are the only eastern Church to not have an Orthodox counterpart.
Because they were Monothelite heretics, and not Orthodox, when they submitted to the Vatican.

From the Catholic POV the Antiochan Orthodox Church came into existence after the Antiochan schism due the the legitimate Patriarch and fellows coming into communion with Rome and Constantinople raising a rival bishop (For the Orthodox) to that of the Catholics.
The robber synod which elected Patriarch Cyril was not even recognized by the Vatican nor the Latins in Syria.  The legitimate Synod of Antioch elected Sylvester and sent for him (he was at the time on Mt. Athos).

More like legitimate synod and the robber synod of Constantinople that elected Sylvester
LOL. No, which is simple to demonstrate: The Synod that elected Sylvester was convened by the Patriarch of Antioch at Aleppo from his deathbed.  Constantinople didn't elect him, but according to the laws and canons of the time, it did have to confirm him ("berat").

That's before getting into the irregularities of two renegade bishops colluding in opposition of the Holy Synod convened by the Patriarch, ordain a third  (itself problematic) and then claim to ordain as a Patriarch a monk without leave from his monastery.

Quote
Election of Cyril VI[edit source]

The fourth defining moment was the election of Cyril VI Tanas, in 1724, by the Melkite bishops of Syria as the new Patriarch of Antioch. As Cyril was considered to be pro-Western, the Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople feared that his authority would be compromised. Therefore, Jeremias declared Cyril's election to be invalid, excommunicated him, and ordained the deacon Sylvester of Antioch, a Greek monk a priest and bishop, then appointed him to the patriarchal See of Antioch.[6]

Sylvester exacerbated divisions with his heavy-handed rule of the church as many Melkites acknowledged Cyril's claim to the patriarchal throne. It was obvious to all that Cyril had been legitimately elected and consecrated, and that Jeremias had attempted to remove him only to bolster his own authority over the Antiochian Patriarchate. This Greek domination over the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch lasted until 1899.) Jeremias and Sylvester began a five year campaign of persecution against Cyril and the Melkite faithful who supported him, enforced by Ottoman Turkish troops.

Five years after the election of Cyril VI, in 1729, Pope Benedict XIII recognized Cyril as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch and recognized his followers as being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. [15] From this time onwards, the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church has existed separately from and in parallel to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in Western Asia; the latter is no longer referred to as Melkite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church
It is a simple matter as to who was the legitimate patriarch, before even getting into the irregularities of the synod of Damascus.

At the time, to become Patriarch of Antioch, one had to be 1) elected by a Synod of the Patriarchate including at least three bishops of the Patriarchate, 2) be consecrated by the three bishops 3) receive the "berat" from Constantinople (the berat vested the patriarchate in the Patriarch, who was also the secular authority over the Christians within the patriarchate, giving him the power over the properties of the Church and the authority both temporal and spiritual over the faithful.  As "Patriarch" Cyril never received the berat, he is disqualified from the start.

Patriarch Sylvester was high handed, but that has no bearing on legitimacy.  It does explain, however, how "Patriarch" Cyril was able to attract a following wanting to legitimize him.
Quote
Like many of his fellow clerics Seraphim Tanas favored re-establishing communion with the Roman Catholic Church. He was elected in 1724 by the Melkites of Damascus as the new Patriarch of Antioch, and was consecrated as Cyril VI in the patriarchal cathedral of Damascus on October 1, 1724[4][5] by Neophytos Nasri, bishop of Saidnaya assisted by Basile Finas, bishop of Baias and by Euthymius Fadel, bishop of Zahle and Forzol[3]:55. As Cyril was a prominent pro-Westerner, Orthodox Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople, felt his authority was challenged. Jeremias declared Cyril's election to be invalid, excommunicated him, and appointed Sylvester of Antioch (1696–1766), a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch. Jeremias consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul on October 8, 1724.[5][6]

The sultan withdrew the recognition initially conferred on Cyril, who was forced to flee as emissaries of Sylvester arrived from Constantiople with a mandate for his arrest. Cyril took refuge at the Holy Savior Monastery near Sidon, located in modern-day Lebanon. Cyril's safety there was guaranteed by the Shehab emirs. Sylvester unleashed a hard persecution against all who elected or supported Cyril: many people were exiled and all churches were taken by Sylvester's party. This persecution strengthened the faith of the Catholic Melkites who, even without a formal hierarchy, continued to increase in number meeting in secret places and celebrating the Divine Liturgy in homes at night.[7]:327–328

Although the populace of Aleppo was mainly pro-Catholic in sentiment, the people initially supported Sylvester. However, Sylvester exacerbated divisions with his heavy-handed rule of the church, and many Melkites chose to acknowledge Cyril VI as patriarch instead. The people united against Sylvester, forcing him to flee Aleppo.[2]:33–34 The Greek domination over the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch lasted until 1899.

Notwithstanding the many requests by Cyril for recognition, the Papacy moved with great caution and took six years to recognize Cyril as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. The decision was made by Pope Benedict XIII and communicated, almost unofficially, to the Melkites in the synod held on April 25, 1730.[8] From this time onwards, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has existed separately from and in parallel to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in the Middle East http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_VI_Tanas
Several factual errors, all of them fatal to your case.

Constantinople did not "appoint" Sylvester, who was chosen by the Holy Synod of Antioch on the recommendation of the dying Patriarch, which sent for Sylvester and asked for his release from Constantinople-he was a monk on Mt. Athos at the time, but had been the Patriarchal deacon.

The Porte never recognized "Pat." Cyril.  The governor of Damascus had promised to secure the berat for him, but after he returned from pilgrimage to Mecca.  By then, however, Sylvester had already been consecrated and received the berat, the Porte deferring such matters to the EP, who had consecrated Sylvester, along with the Standing Synod of Constantinople, which included the delegation of the Holy Synod of Antioch.  Hence there was never any recognition to withdraw.  Btw, the governor of Damascus was not in a position to secure a berat, as he was sacked.

Of course Patriarch Sylvester took all the Churches.  The berat vested them all in him.

I could go on, but that is more than enough.

Rome did Recognize his election but took time for various reasons:
Canonically and legally, the Vatican was not in a position to recognize his election: the preceding Patriarchs had visited Ukraine, and seeing what the "Union of Brest" had done, made sure of that, adopting canons (which took the force of law in the Millet of Rum Antakya) prohibiting links with the Vatican.

By the time the Vatican tried to "legitimize" the synod of Damascus, Patriarch Sylvester was in firm control of the Patriarchate.
Quote
East. The pallium, formal recognition of the patriarchal authority, was granted by Rome to Cyril only on February 3, 1744, about twenty years after the 1724 election.

The reasons for this caution and delay by Rome to recognize Cyril as patriarch can be summarized as follows:
The election of Cyril had been not planned by Rome and Rome already had Catholic professions of faith by the previous patriarchs Athanasius III Dabbas (in 1687) and Cyril Zaim (in 1716). Rome didn't want to split the Melkite hierarchy hoping for a complete union. Only the persecutions by Sylvester and the incoming Greek domination over the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch left no other choice.
Cyril followed Euthymios Saifi in introducing many Liturgical Latinisations, dividing thus the Catholic Melkites between who kept the byzantine rite untouched and who mixed the rites. For this reason many Catholic Melkite monks were initially very suspicious of Cyril. As already happened for Euthymios Saifi, the Pope took a strong position against Cyril's latinizations, and his recognition in 1729 was subject to his renouncing any changes to the Byzantine rite and uses.[3]:76 The latinizations, supported by many Latin missionaries (particularly by the Franciscans), continued to be a problem in the Melkite Church until the final position taken by the Pope on December 24, 1743, with the issue of the encyclical Demandatam that put an end to the mix of rites. This same document forbade Latin missionaries to accept the faithful of Byzantine Rites into the Latin Rite.

Cyril VI Tanas summoned synods in 1736, 1751 and 1756 in order to give a structure to the Melkite Church, but without a full success. He died on January 10, 1760,[9] leaving a complicated succession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_VI_Tanas
LOL. Yeah, he ordained his nephew to succeed him, an offense punishable by deposition and voiding of the ordination under the canons.  Not even the Vatican swallowed that-until much later-and appointed (much as is claimed EP Jeremiah III did, just that the Vatican had no authority to do so) Maximos "Patriarch."
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 07:50:42 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #443 on: August 27, 2013, 07:47:47 AM »

Adrian Fortescue hahaha  Cheesy

He's pretty good, actually. Much better than his contemporaries. I enjoyed his books.
Actually yes. Usually he has his facts straight, which square pegs he tries to hammer into the round hole of his interpretation.  This is one of the few areas where he doesn't have his facts straight, which leads to the complete disaster of his interpretation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #444 on: August 27, 2013, 07:58:49 AM »

You did not boldface the actual point, so I did:
Here is a more detailed account of the election of Patriarch Cyril VI. Excerpt taken from http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QYbgJI7ghroC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=election+of+Cyril+VI+valid%3F&source=bl&ots=yiSUC0-pFY&sig=J-LO8JOfnUy2YeQnKC5iE2FYSds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CF4cUqLhOcys7QaErIHIAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=election%20of%20Cyril%20VI%20valid%3F&f=false

Quote
The metropolitans, Euthymios of Tyre and Neophytos Nasri of Saidnaia, were  Catholics; at Damascus, Aleppo, Sidon, Tyre, Acre, the majority of Christians of the Byzantine rite were  Catholics, at least at heart. it seems that Athanasius IV had intended that a certain Sylvester, a monk from Cyprus, his friend, should succeed him. Some say that he actually nominated Sylvester his successor; this would make no difference, as he had no power of doing so. It seems rivalry between  the communities of Aleppo and Damascus is at the bottom of the quarrel which now follows. Sylvester was considered to be the nominee of Aleppo. So hurriedly, to prevent his election, the people of Damascus elected Seraphim Tanas. Seraphim  was a Catholic, Nephew of Euthymios of Tyre, he was also in favor with Othman Pasha, against the valid and free election of Cyril as Patriarch of Antioch.

This was after his enemies (for he had some among he Catholics too) had presented every argument against him. In any case the appointment of his rival was invalid. Sylvester of Cyprus was simply nominated by the synod of Constantinople. Now there is nothing that the Orthodox  of Syria, Egypt and all parts outside Constantinople  hold more firmly than that the Ecumenical Patriarch  has no jurisdiction beyond his own Patriarchate. The modern Orthodox, who trace the line of their Patriarchs of Antioch through Sylvester, cannot object to the proceedings of Cyril's election; because equally  irregular elections have been the commonest thing in all their sees.

Their real reason for rejecting him is not that, but the fact that he came into communion with the Pope. But, if that is an impediment; what becomes of all the Antiochan Patriarchs of the first centuries? They have also in their favor the shameful protection that Sylvester sought and obtained from the Turkish government. It is indeed surprising that Christian bishops should seek an argument; but it has been the constant recourse of the Orthodox, ever since the Turk first held their lands. Sylvester of Cyprus at Antioch is only one out of countless Orthodox bishops who have rested their claim to rule in the name of Christ on the approval of Mohammed.

unless we admit such arguments as these, it seems impossible to  deny that the present Orthodox line of Patriarchs of Antioch, coming from Sylvester is not historically the old line, but a new schism there from beginning with him. The old line of Antioch is in union with Rime since Cyril VI.

Follow the link to the book  for more information.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 07:59:07 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #445 on: August 27, 2013, 08:15:01 AM »

You did not boldface the actual point, so I did:
Here is a more detailed account of the election of Patriarch Cyril VI. Excerpt taken from http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QYbgJI7ghroC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=election+of+Cyril+VI+valid%3F&source=bl&ots=yiSUC0-pFY&sig=J-LO8JOfnUy2YeQnKC5iE2FYSds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CF4cUqLhOcys7QaErIHIAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=election%20of%20Cyril%20VI%20valid%3F&f=false

Quote
The metropolitans, Euthymios of Tyre and Neophytos Nasri of Saidnaia, were  Catholics; at Damascus, Aleppo, Sidon, Tyre, Acre, the majority of Christians of the Byzantine rite were  Catholics, at least at heart. it seems that Athanasius IV had intended that a certain Sylvester, a monk from Cyprus, his friend, should succeed him. Some say that he actually nominated Sylvester his successor; this would make no difference, as he had no power of doing so. It seems rivalry between  the communities of Aleppo and Damascus is at the bottom of the quarrel which now follows. Sylvester was considered to be the nominee of Aleppo. So hurriedly, to prevent his election, the people of Damascus elected Seraphim Tanas. Seraphim  was a Catholic, Nephew of Euthymios of Tyre, he was also in favor with Othman Pasha, against the valid and free election of Cyril as Patriarch of Antioch.

This was after his enemies (for he had some among he Catholics too) had presented every argument against him. In any case the appointment of his rival was invalid. Sylvester of Cyprus was simply nominated by the synod of Constantinople. Now there is nothing that the Orthodox  of Syria, Egypt and all parts outside Constantinople  hold more firmly than that the Ecumenical Patriarch  has no jurisdiction beyond his own Patriarchate. The modern Orthodox, who trace the line of their Patriarchs of Antioch through Sylvester, cannot object to the proceedings of Cyril's election; because equally  irregular elections have been the commonest thing in all their sees.

Their real reason for rejecting him is not that, but the fact that he came into communion with the Pope. But, if that is an impediment; what becomes of all the Antiochan Patriarchs of the first centuries? They have also in their favor the shameful protection that Sylvester sought and obtained from the Turkish government. It is indeed surprising that Christian bishops should seek an argument; but it has been the constant recourse of the Orthodox, ever since the Turk first held their lands. Sylvester of Cyprus at Antioch is only one out of countless Orthodox bishops who have rested their claim to rule in the name of Christ on the approval of Mohammed.

unless we admit such arguments as these, it seems impossible to  deny that the present Orthodox line of Patriarchs of Antioch, coming from Sylvester is not historically the old line, but a new schism there from beginning with him. The old line of Antioch is in union with Rime since Cyril VI.

Follow the link to the book  for more information.

This proves that Sylvester wasn't elected as you claim as the synod of Melkites (Orthodox and Catholic) elected Cyril VI before Sylvester was. This is contrary to you apocryphal claim that there was some secret synod that "elected" Sylvester at the recommendation of  the dying Patriarch . ALL sources that account of this event ( And I've viewed nearly. 20 sources) make no mention of such a synod but mention the synod of Melkites that elected Cyril. They also all make mention of How Constantinople appointed Sylvester and attempted to depose Cyril. ALL OF THEM. This really makes your "historical" account very dubious or suspicious to say the least.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 08:23:15 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #446 on: August 27, 2013, 08:21:50 AM »

Adrian Fortescue hahaha  Cheesy

He's pretty good, actually. Much better than his contemporaries. I enjoyed his books.
Actually yes. he has his facts straight, which square pegs he tries to hammer into the round hole of his interpretation.  This is one of the few areas where he doesn't have his facts straight, which leads to the complete disaster of his interpretation.

How convenient  Roll Eyes
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #447 on: August 27, 2013, 09:11:17 AM »

Adrian Fortescue hahaha  Cheesy

He's pretty good, actually. Much better than his contemporaries. I enjoyed his books.
Actually yes. he has his facts straight, which square pegs he tries to hammer into the round hole of his interpretation.  This is one of the few areas where he doesn't have his facts straight, which leads to the complete disaster of his interpretation.

How convenient  Roll Eyes
yes, his (and your) revisionism requires it.

It's not the only time he doesn't deal with the facts but makes stories up.  His portrayal of the Russian missions worldwide, in the Americas, China and Japan etc., also lacks facts.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #448 on: August 27, 2013, 10:17:39 AM »

You did not boldface the actual point, so I did:
Here is a more detailed account of the election of Patriarch Cyril VI. Excerpt taken from http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QYbgJI7ghroC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=election+of+Cyril+VI+valid%3F&source=bl&ots=yiSUC0-pFY&sig=J-LO8JOfnUy2YeQnKC5iE2FYSds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CF4cUqLhOcys7QaErIHIAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=election%20of%20Cyril%20VI%20valid%3F&f=false

Quote
The metropolitans, Euthymios of Tyre and Neophytos Nasri of Saidnaia, were  Catholics; at Damascus, Aleppo, Sidon, Tyre, Acre, the majority of Christians of the Byzantine rite were  Catholics, at least at heart. it seems that Athanasius IV had intended that a certain Sylvester, a monk from Cyprus, his friend, should succeed him. Some say that he actually nominated Sylvester his successor; this would make no difference, as he had no power of doing so. It seems rivalry between  the communities of Aleppo and Damascus is at the bottom of the quarrel which now follows. Sylvester was considered to be the nominee of Aleppo. So hurriedly, to prevent his election, the people of Damascus elected Seraphim Tanas. Seraphim  was a Catholic, Nephew of Euthymios of Tyre, he was also in favor with Othman Pasha, against the valid and free election of Cyril as Patriarch of Antioch.

This was after his enemies (for he had some among he Catholics too) had presented every argument against him. In any case the appointment of his rival was invalid. Sylvester of Cyprus was simply nominated by the synod of Constantinople. Now there is nothing that the Orthodox  of Syria, Egypt and all parts outside Constantinople  hold more firmly than that the Ecumenical Patriarch  has no jurisdiction beyond his own Patriarchate. The modern Orthodox, who trace the line of their Patriarchs of Antioch through Sylvester, cannot object to the proceedings of Cyril's election; because equally  irregular elections have been the commonest thing in all their sees.

Their real reason for rejecting him is not that, but the fact that he came into communion with the Pope. But, if that is an impediment; what becomes of all the Antiochan Patriarchs of the first centuries? They have also in their favor the shameful protection that Sylvester sought and obtained from the Turkish government. It is indeed surprising that Christian bishops should seek an argument; but it has been the constant recourse of the Orthodox, ever since the Turk first held their lands. Sylvester of Cyprus at Antioch is only one out of countless Orthodox bishops who have rested their claim to rule in the name of Christ on the approval of Mohammed.

unless we admit such arguments as these, it seems impossible to  deny that the present Orthodox line of Patriarchs of Antioch, coming from Sylvester is not historically the old line, but a new schism there from beginning with him. The old line of Antioch is in union with Rime since Cyril VI.

Follow the link to the book  for more information.

This proves that Sylvester wasn't elected as you claim as the synod of Melkites (Orthodox and Catholic) elected Cyril VI before Sylvester was.

Alas!  Sylvester was already elected, and your source Fortesque's inappropriate phrase "prevent his election" for "contest his election" doesn't hide that fact well enough.

Sylvester was consecrated exactly a week after the robber synod at Damascus ordained Cyril.  In the 18th century, a week did not give enough time for the delegation of the Patriarchate of Antioch to reach Constantinople to obtain the translation of Sylvester back to the Patriarchate of Antioch, let alone send for him in Mt. Athos and bring him back to Constantinople.  Patriarch Athanasius III fell asleep on 13 July, after recommending Sylvester to the Holy Synod, which elected and sent for him.

The robber synod did not have any bishops, until they enlisted the aid of the renegade Bp. Neophytos Nasri, who didn't manage to ordain a third bishop for his robber synod until September 24, well past the 40 days.  Laying aside the canonical problems of such an ordination (besides the problems of ordination of a patriarchal sede vacans, the issue of the bans on those in communion with the Vatican, the inability to Seraphim to take the oaths of consecration without deceit, etc), the fact remains it was done in opposition to the Holy Synod and the Patriarch, the only authorities who could cure such fatal defects of canonical form.

Odd how you now find such virtue in disobedience.

This is contrary to you apocryphal claim that there was some secret synod that "elected" Sylvester at the recommendation of  the dying Patriarch.
No secret, unlike the renegades in Damascus.  The Patriarch was well known in Aleppo, even to the French consul, the Latins and other foreignors as well to the Ottoman subjects.  He had been resident there for some time, where the bishops of the Patriarchate gathered.  In contrast, the gathering at Damascus lacked at first even a single bishop, and then had to hastily (and uncanonically) make a quorum of three in opposition to the legitimate Holy Synod at Aleppo.  The election of Sylvester was no secret: hence how those at Damascus knew of it and gathered to try to thwart it. It is also well known that the Holy Synod was gathered in Aleppo, where the Patriarch died.  None gathered at Damascus.  As J. Nasrallah in "S. B. Maximos IV et la succession apostolique du siege d' Antioche," Paris 1963, p. 58, affirms: “We must remember, above all, that the majority of the episcopate was of Aleppian origin and the Christians of this large city of the north, either Catholic or Orthodox, were against every candidate chosen by the Damascenes. It is for this unique reason that no bishop accepted to go and confer the cheirotonia for Tanas.”

You can read more: Greek Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch: Birth, Evolution, and Current Orientations http://phoenicia.org/greek_melkite_catholic.html#f71#ixzz2dBCR7z4q

ALL sources that account of this event ( And I've viewed nearly. 20 sources) make no mention of such a synod but mention the synod of Melkites that elected Cyril.
I know that the apologists for the Vatican have produced quite a literature, but I don't know of a single source which does not record the election of Sylvester.  Maybe you could list said "sources."

They also all make mention of How Constantinople appointed Sylvester

Constantinople didn't appoint him. Antioch did.  Constantinople did provide him with the berat, which every Patriarch needed and "Pat." Cyril never received.

and attempted to depose Cyril.
it didn't attempt to depose "Pat." Cyril. It deposed him (he was already under bans).  The official instruments of deposition were done in December 1724, long before, btw, before the Vatican recognized "Pat." Cyril's "election."

ALL OF THEM.
A hundred liars agreed on a lie doesn't make it truth.

This really makes your "historical" account very dubious or suspicious to say the least.
No, it casts questions on your "sources," given the inconsistencies (e.g. admitting that the cabal in Damascus gathered to block the chosen Sylvester) therein, admissions (e.g. attempting to consecrate a bishop in sede vacans without the knowledge of the Holy Synod) and inability to get around certain facts (e.g. "Pat." Cyril never got a berat).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #449 on: August 27, 2013, 10:40:27 AM »

As long as we are on the subject, is it true that the two patriarchates (Melkite and Antiochian, I mean, not the Syrian Orthodox) continued to be in communion with each other for a long while after 1724? A "dual communion" as you might say.

(I don't have a text to cite; I'm basing this somewhat on conversations I had with a Melkite deacon several years ago.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   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 0.274 seconds with 73 queries.