Replies

The accounts that I have read from Orthodox sources indicate that the Orthodox Patriarch was elected first. There may have been a little rewriting of history, which as Kosta so nicely demonstrated recently vis a vis the Maronites, is hardly unusual. Ultimately in a case like this, it doesn't matter.

Even if the Melkite had been elected first, from an Orthodox perspective, any union with Rome without Rome returning to Orthodox belief would be a false one. The other clergy and faithful would have been fully justified in declaring the throne vacant at that time, and electing a new Patriarch.

And the other Orthodox Patriarchates would have been correct to recognize the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, and reject the Melkite. The apostolic succession is not a technical exercise of election followed by a magical ritual of laying on of hands. It is a succession of passing on the teachings of the Church intact that is melded with the Holy Mystery of Consecration.

That said, it would appear that the Melkites are perhaps amongst the Eastern Catholics who are closest to the Orthodox in faith, practice, and spirit. As I recall, the Melkite Patriarch was one of the most vocal at Vatican II, leading to the shift in direction in Rome's treatment of Eastern Catholics.

"There may have been a little rewriting of history, which as Kosta so nicely demonstrated recently vis a vis the Maronites, is hardly unusual. Ultimately in a case like this, it doesn't matter."

Well it does to an extent because it speaks of a new revisionism which seems to be growing in Rome coupled with an aggressiveness for reunion which borders on an insistence that Orthodox "submit" to Rome. I recently spoke with an Orthodox hierarch who told me that relations with the Roman Church are a bit confused right now. The new Pope speaks a language we can understand better than anything we've heard for centuries. On the other hand, his underlings seem to have ratcheted up the revisionist history and even at the level of some of their hierarchs are beginning to insist that they know our history and theology better than our hierarchs and theologians do. There are at least two ways to look at this. First, Rome is simply impelled to seek reunion solely because that is the proper order of The Church, even if it has a view of ecclesiology which is contrary to that of the Orthodox Churches and the truth is that Rome has absolutely no cards to play in this "game". Second, Rome is in a panic because of widespread heresy in its Church, manifesting itself in syncretism in the less and least developed parts of the world and secularism and materialism in the first world. In this scenario, Orthodoxy, in something of a reversal of what went on in the first millennium of the Church, becomes the assurance and anchor of orthodox Catholicism. Unfortunately, as this hierarch pointed out, the attitude of the Roman hierarchs with whom they are speaking really owes more to the Dictatus Papae than the writings of the Fathers or the pronouncements of the Councils. I told him what we seem to be seeing from some of the Romans here on FR and he replied that he wasn't surprised since it appears to be the new tune from Rome for the past year or so. That attitude is making progress on much of anything very difficult. In fact, apparently some hierarchs think things were much better 10 or 20 years ago when there was a greater level of frankness about, respect for and acceptance of our differences...and lack of media play in these discussions. It seems that there may be some hope for working together on an equal but very separate footing to combat syncretism, materialism and secularism, at least in Europe, but even that is endangered by the supremacist attitude the Roman hierarchs reportedly are assuming (interestingly, it is the American Roman hierarchs who are viewed as virtual heretics because of matters surrounding the reception of the Holy Eucharist while it is the European and Europe based Roman hierarchs who are viewed as the big supremacists). Bottom line, it doesn't look good even with the new Pope.

The accounts that I have read from Orthodox sources indicate that the Orthodox Patriarch was elected first. There may have been a little rewriting of history,

I would invite you to cite a source saying so before you go further with these "rewriting of history" accusations. Here's a simple example from the point I stated:

By the early 18th century, the Antiochene church had become polarized, with the pro-Catholic party centered in Damascus and the anti-Catholic party in its rival city, Aleppo. Patriarch Athanasios III Debbas, who died on August 5, 1724, had designated as his successor a Cypriot monk named Sylvester. His candidacy was supported by the Aleppo party and the Patriarch of Constantinople. But on September 20, 1724, the Damascus party elected as Patriarch a strongly pro-Catholic man who took the name Cyril VI. A week later, the Patriarch of Constantinople ordained Sylvester as Patriarch of Antioch. The Ottoman government recognized Sylvester, while Cyril was deposed and excommunicated by Constantinople and compelled to seek refuge in Lebanon. Pope Benedict XIII recognized Cyril’s election as Patriarch of Antioch in 1729. Thus the schism was formalized, and the Catholic segment of the patriarchate eventually became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. (http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=68&IndexView=toc)