Talk:Patriarch of Antioch

Redirect

This Talk page originally redirected to Talk:List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch, which is very confusing, since there are separate pages for Patriarch of Antioch and List of Patriarchs of Antioch. I fixed. --Jfruh 23:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Head

ACTUALLY PATRIACH OF ANTIOCH IS THE SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER. THE HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH. THESE ROMAN POPES AND PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE HAVE GOT IMPORTANCE ONLY FROM THE SUPPORT OF ROMAN AND BYZANTAINE EMPERORS. THEY TRIED TO DESTROY THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH.

Silly me. I thought that Jesus Christ was head of the whole Christian church. Majoreditor 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Influence

The author writes that "The Antiochene church was a centre of Christian learning, second only to Alexandria. In contrast to the Hellenistic-influenced Christology of Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople, Antiochene theology was greatly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism and other modes of Semitic thought."

Does he have doctrinal/theological examples of how Antiochene theology was "greatly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism" and would therefore differ from Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.60.250 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a one-sentence explanation of the supposed Semitic influences behind Antiochene theology: the transcendent unity of the Divinity can produce adoptionism among extremists, and led to the dyophysite view of Christ. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

POV sentence

"The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches both recognize that Cyril VI was legally elected Patriarch in 1724 and that that current Greek Orthodox church of Antioch was a later creation to serve the faithful that did not choose to enter full communion with Rome. As such, the Melkite Patriarch has the legal claim to the Patriarchate."

Er, I would assume that the Greek Orthodox church does not, in fact, recognize that the Melkite Patriarch has the legal claim to the patriarchate. Can someone who knows a bit more about this try to suss this out? I will try to do some research nobody else fixes... --Jfruh (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You can try to reword this if you want. The author had worded each entry to validate that claimant to the Patriarchy. So, no the Greeks didn't, the Catholics did, and he "therefore" is a legitimate claimant!

Not the easiest read, but the original editor clarified it a lot. As I remember, people were arguing over it weekly until this layout of information. So it was definitely an improvement over what was there. I suppose it can be improved.  :) Student7 (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Syriac Catholics non-Chaldeconian?

The opening of the article identifies the Syriac Catholic Church as "non-Chaldeconian." I know this church is a descendent of the Syriac Church that broke with the main body of Christians after the Council of Chaldecon, and that the Christological controversies of the early church councils were of less important by the time this group re-established communion with Rome. But surely the Catholics haven't abandoned Chaldecon, and surely Syriac Catholics would have had to affirm it as well before they could re-enter communion with Rome? My understanding about these Uniate Eastern churches is that, while they are permitted to keep their own ritual and practices, they had to conform their theology to Rome. Does anyone know more on this? --Jfruh (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't help on WP:RELY ref but you have to be right. Thanks for catching this. They probably did not care for Chalcedon prior to their reconciliation in 1791 or whatever. But they would have to support it after that. Student7 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

SUCCESSION

By definition, the legitimate successor of the Antiochian See, must be in communion with the other eastern patriarchal sees. How can you claim legitimate succession by a church not acknowledged by the other eastern sees? The only church with a seated patriarch in communion with and acknowledged by the other eastern sees, is the Greek Orthodox Church. The Syriac Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Melkite and Maronite churches are not in communion with the other eastern sees and are not acknowledged by them as the legitimate successor. (Jmorrash (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia shall follow a WP:NPOV (neutral Point of view), ie all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views. Thus, in case of different and opposite claims (as who is the legittimate Patriarch of Antioch?) Wiki shall list all the claims. For example, the break between the Syriac and the Greek tradition happened in the V century, and Wiki cannot decide who is wrong and who is right (it is a religious issue), nor wiki can state who is right in the 1724 melkite schism. By the way, any of the 5 Pariarchs of Antiochs is in communion with some other patriarchal sees (for example the Syriac Pariarch in in communion with the Coptic and Armenian Patriarch, the Melkite and Maronite are in communion between them and with the Syriac Catholic and with the Pope of Rome). A ntv (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And none of the Patriarchs recognizes the others as legitimate, nor do their respective churches that each is in communion with.Student7 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The section entitled "Claims to legitimacy", in my opinion, does not and cannot reflect a neutral point of view. This is due to the following:

1. Conflicting understandings of ecclesiology and sacramentology (in particular in regard to ordination of bishops) between different Church's and their respective traditions: Currently the way the section is presented is only relevant if one presumes Saint Augustine's sacramentology (which the Roman Catholic Church holds), a position which is not held by the Chalcedonian (Eastern) Orthodox Churches or the Miaphysite (Oriental) Orthodox Churches. Given that the article is about an "eastern" Patriarchate, it would stand to reason that the positions of two of the most significant "eastern" Churches should be held as at least equal to the "western" position. Writing as a Chalcedonian (Greek) Orthodox Christian, I would say that legitimacy is tied intrinsically to communion with the Church. Thus only bishops in visible communion with the Church are legitimate claimants. For the Chaledonians, this means Ignatius IV is the legitimate claimant. For the Miaphysites, Ignatius Zakka I Iwas is the legitimate patriarch. I am not familiar with the way sui iuris Churches are handled in Roman Catholicism, so I will not comment much on the Catholic claimants.
2. Saying that Cyril VI was recognized by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is misleading. He was in communion with the Orthodox when he was elected, but fell out of communion during the Melkite schism of 1724. By virtue of this he was not recognized as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch as of his Greek Orthodox successor Sylvester's enthronement during the same year.
3. The article for Cyril VI Tanas states that the Catholic Pope Benedict XIII recognized Cyril as the legitimate Catholic Patriarch of Antioch (citing Catholic Encyclopedia), which brings into question how the other Catholic claimants should be viewed. But again, I don't understand how how the Eastern Catholic Churches function within the larger Catholic communion.

To conclude, I think it would be best to remove this section entirely. I will probably remove it in a few weeks if there are no objections. Mikhael1C (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree in removing this section, whichanyway is the result of a long editing process. It is a matter of fact that 5 patriarchs consider themself the "right" patriarch of Antioch due to historical reasons. This section explain to the general reader which are these reasons. Otherwise it is not explained why there are 5 patriarchs. Of course we as WP cannot take any stand. We cannot for example state wheather Cyril Tanas or Sylvester were the 'right' patriarch. We shall only list the different positions and explain the historical reasons of each party. A ntv (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• We certainly can state that their respective groups, which have continued until the present day, considered them respectively the legitimate patriarch (Sylvester was the legitimate successor of Cyril Tanas in the Eastern Orthodox communion; Cyril Tanas was legitimate Melkite patriarch from the Roman Catholic POV). The whole position of "Patriarch of Antioch" is one that has no meaning outside of the Christian Church. Because the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches each consider themselves to be the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", there is no reason that one who belongs to one of said communions would speculate on the legitimacy of an honorary position held outside of the communion that one belongs to. The whole issue of the legitimacy of the claimants of the title is one that is only relevant within their respective Churches.
• I can't fathom a "neutral POV" on the issue which can be concerned with the legitimacy of the claimants. Using the excuse of the historical claims reflects a bias in itself, as it seeks to imply that the succession in the patriarchate follows a tradition similar to European royal succession. Such a tradition may be relevant from the Catholic perspective due to Roman Catholic ecclesiology and sacramentology (though, again I don't know the specifics), as I stated above, but is alien to the concerns of the Orthodox parties, where visible communion with the Church is the entire deciding factor at the present time (because there is only one claimant from each communion). Assuming that the historical evidences that are given strengthen a claim to legitimacy reflects either a bias toward western ecclesiology (again I don't know the specifics), or it is an invented bias which is alien to all three parties and thus irrelevant. What notion of legitimacy can be applied to this case if not the notions understood by the parties involved?
• If it is a matter of fact that each parties does use the historical evidences listed in the section both internally (within their respective communions) and external (in dialogue between the communions) then authoritative sources using said evidences need to be directly cited. A good example of this would be a document from a representative from one of the Churches (a bishop) which uses a historical claim to defend the legitimacy of a claimant in the way the section in question is presenting it. I am unfamiliar with such sources and would be willing to wager that the Orthodox parties would not use the historical data in the way presented, at least internally to strengthen claims of legitimacy. It is a non-issue to the Orthodox because of their ecclesiology (legitimacy = communion). Currently, the section is unsourced. Without authoritative sources from all three parties that make use of the historical claims in the manner the section wants to use them, the section is biased and misleading. Mikhael1C (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mikhael1C, are you claiming that the Orthodox churches don't hold to the concept of Apostolic succession? The Wikipedia article on that subject states otherwise, though that's the limit of my knowledge on the topic.

No, no, the Orthodox Churches certainly believe in Apostolic succession. However, the Orthodox position would be that Apostolic succession is an attribute of the Church. Apostolic succession is not found in heretical or schismatic communions because they are heretical or schismatic. For example: because the Roman Catholic Church is viewed as both heretical and schismatic by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions, the Catholics cannot be said to have Apostolic succession. This is the kind of unintentional bias toward western ecclesiology and sacramentology that I'm trying to make you aware of. The Orthodox perspective would be that if a bishop leaves the Church, he has forfeited any claim to Apostolic succession. Said vagante bishop would not be able to legitimately ordain priests or bishops nor would the vagante be able to perform legitimate sacraments. By implying that there is an observable legitimacy of an ecclesiastical title outside of the context of the ecclesia is nonsense from the Orthodox POV. This is why I was insistent the section reflects a bias which is contradictory to the positions of two of three parties involved. Mikhael1C (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

See this link for details of Orthodox ecclesiology and sacramentology relevant to this issue: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/pheidas_limits_1.html Mikhael1C (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of this section is (or perhaps should be) not theological but historical. Perhaps it would be best to refrain from discussing "legitimacy" at all but simply to frame it in terms of the lists of bishops that each claimant to the patriarchate would recongize. I.e., all five churches recognize all patriarchs up until Flavian II, etc. I do think that somehow (maybe with a chart or illustration) showing the history of the churches via the holders of the office at their heads can help the reader get their minds around the complex interrlated history of the churches and the title. You seem to be taking a strongly ahistorial viewpoint on this -- that is, the person with the correct theology, as acknowledged by others who hold similar theology, is always the office holder, and that any historical or institutional considerations are irrelevant. This strikes me as a viewpoint that contains its own set of biases, foremost among them being that theology is more important to human history than human institutions. --Jfruh (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but it seems to me that to dismiss the theological and ecclesiological aspects of the topic makes the whole notion of legitimacy irrelevant. Certainly I am approaching this topic with particular biases, as it is impossible not to. I'm not trying to imply that the historical element is unimportant. I am just trying to make it apparent that the various and conflicting biases of the parties involved should be taken into account when the meaning of the topic ("legitimacy") is understood differently due to said biases. The way that the section is formatted and written currently is implying a notion of legitimacy which is not common to all the parties involved, so it is misleading. If the section was to stay, it needs to be retitled and rewritten to properly represent the positions of the groups it is speaking about. Particularly the "if... then" format is biased in one direction.

To be clear, what are the "institutional considerations" that you speak of? What institutions are we speaking of? Does the Syrian government recognize one claimant over the others? Are there other non-Church bodies to which the legitimacy (a notion that needs to be defined relatively) of the patriarchal claimants is relevant? Mikhael1C (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In this article we speaking nor about the validity of the bishop consecrations nor about the theology under it. We are speaking only about who bear the title of "Patriarch of Antioch" (which is a completely different issue). It is a jurisdictional level, not a sacramental level, and because the sacramental level involves all the bishops of all the world, not only the one who bear the title of Patriarch of Antioch, this is not the right Article. The terms "legitimacy" is correct because it is used (also among EO) to describe a claim to jurisdiction. It is almost a technical term which is the proper one in this case. it does not involve any judgment about the cause (i.e. canonical mistake or heretical view) of the lack of legitimacy, nor it involve any judgment about the consequences (loss or maintain of the bishop sacramental A ntv (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Then, from the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox POV, either Ignatius IV (Hazim) and Ignatius Zakka I Iwas is the legitimate patriarch respectively. Your statement that the EO uses the term legitimacy is irrelevant, because that question of legitimacy does not extended beyond the canonical borders of the Church. I suppose that the section can be fixed by making it very clear that the notion of legitimacy being explored is decidedly the Catholic one and making it clear that the two Orthodox communions find this question irrelevant. However, if this is done, there's no reason to include the Orthodox claimants as direct contenders. Is the title "Patriarch of Antioch" one that is supposed to be exclusive in Catholicism? If so, has Rome ever acknowledged one claimant's lineage over another? If not, why is the notion of legitimacy important in this case? In any case, the word "Catholic" needs to be in the title of the section if it wants to use the term "legitimacy" and remain in a similar format to what it is now. Mikhael1C (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the current section really does explain that very well. In the least it needs a major rewrite - and sourcing - if not outright removal and replacement with something better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes perhaps you are right, anyway the big problem of this Article is section "History'" which is fully oriented towards the Greek Church of Antioch, and it don't give any space to the Syrian Church (nor mentioning for example his 18th century split) and it not even mention the Maronite church. These information are present only the section "Claims to legitimacy" that therefore cannot be deleted without a complete re-organization of the whole both sections.A ntv (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I watched someone create the current "Claim to legitimacy" some years back. I was impressed since it brought it out of the "my claim is better than yours" revert wars which preceded. It seemed npov to me. It may well need rewriting, but I thought it tried to be npov and treat each claimant on an equal basis. It needs this subsection, however it reads in the future. Material can always be better referenced, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

East West split

A respected editor changed some of the words which seemed to indicate that the Patriarchs suddenly became aware of their churches in their backyard. But they were elected to these posts for a thousand years or more and simply continued doing whatever they were doing in respect to their charges. The one major change is that they stopped talking to each other formally and stopped coordinating religious decisions. Student7 (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishop of Antioch

When the bishop of Antioch took the title of "Patriarch"; It is not mentionned in the article.--Vagrand (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The first official use of the title of "Patriarch" (Πατριάρχης) was until the 451 in the Council of Chalcedon.--Vagrand (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

When did the Bishop/Patriarch of Antioch stop Living there?

IT should be mentioned that none of the people claiming to be Patriarch of Antioch actually LIVES in Antioch.Ericl (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we want a chronicle of that separately? This varied with politics. I suspect, but do not know, that the Orthodox Bishop probably lived there until the Turkish split after WWI. Maybe the last one? Student7 (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patriarch of Antioch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030417235752/http://www.kwtelecom.com/heraldry/lazarus/history.html#T5 to http://www.pgc-lb.org/english/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Patriarchate of Antioch (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with Syriac Orthodox Church

Please help: Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church#Help_needed. PPEMES (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So many patriarchs

When I have looked for the "patriarch of Antioch" in other sources, the results generally focus on the Greek Orthodox patriarchs. Encyclopedia of World Religions calls his flock the "largest Arab Christian church in the Middle East." Yet the Greek Orthodox leader is not even the patriarch listed first here. This is a very long article to have only four sources. All four are used to make tangential points. None of them cover the patriarchy as a subject, much less justify covering it in this way. The article is going five different directions when hierarchy and priorities would make it easier to follow. Colin Gerhard (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Because of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we cannot decide who is the true Patriarch of Antioch, but we shall list all claiming patriarchs. The solution, years ago, to list the five patriarchs by order of appointment was a neutral choice. By the way, in the Middle East by number of adherents and by political importance the Maronite Patriarch surpasses the others, while the adherents in India of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch overcome the others, and so on. But I strongly suggest not to go on in this way, which will simply create lots of edit wars. Let's stay very Neutral, and don't change the existing status quo. A ntv (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's not what NPOV means. Our coverage should reflect coverage in the sources: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (WP:UNDUE) Britannica has two articles on this subject, one on the Greek Orthodox patriarch and the other on the Syriac Orthodox patriarch. On Encyclopedia.com, "Patriarch of Antioch" "Syriac Orthodox" gave me four results compared to 36 for "Patriarch of Antioch" "Greek Orthodox". The Maronite leader is usually called the "Maronite patriarch" and thus doesn't come up when you search for "patriarch of Antioch." Colin Gerhard (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Five Patriarchs of Antioch.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)