Meletian or Antiochian schism
Posted 06 November 2010 - 11:40 AM
forgive me if this sounds rude at all, as i do not mean to offend anyone whatsoever, but would those who are Chalcedonian Orthodox please answer this for me. again if i offended anyone, please forgive me.
since i an a member of The Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, under His Grace, Metropolitan Phillip, this question is kind of important to me.
i was curious about the Antiochian or Meletian schism that happened near the time of the 2nd ecumenical council.
apparently there were a couple of Patriarchs claiming the rite to the throne of Antioch, and i was curious on the Orthodox way to view this. i want to know how Apostolic succession worked into all of this, how did it still continue?
can you please clear this up for me? who was the rightful heir to Antioch?
also who are the jacobite or melkite churches?
Posted 07 November 2010 - 04:41 AM
Jacobites are the non-chalcedon and melkites are the uniates of Syria. Melkite was originally a derogatory term used by the non-chalcedonians to refer to us Orthodox byzantine, we on the otherhand called them monophysites. Melkites meant 'emperors men' because the emperor accepted chalcedon. After the formation of a uniate faction in 1724 in Syria the uniate catholics adopted the term for themselves.
Posted 08 November 2010 - 01:27 AM
yet, on the Antiochian.org website, they have a list of the Patriarchs of Antioch, and there are a few in between St. Meletius and Flavian:
33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.
34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.
35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.
36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.
37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.
38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.
39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.
40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.
so can someone please help me to understand this? how was The Apostolic Succession still carried on? i'm just a little confused.
Posted 09 November 2010 - 01:56 AM
Posted 09 November 2010 - 02:24 PM
If you search, 'The Life of Our Holy Father Meletius, Archbishop of Antioch' on the orthodoxinfo.com website it gives a good accounting on what was happening during those years.
Edited by Kosta, 09 November 2010 - 02:56 PM.
Posted 09 November 2010 - 05:12 PM
since all of the above mentioned happened in the Meletian Schism, does that mean the chain of Apostolic Succession was broken? i don't believe it could have been if The Antiochian Patriarchate is The True Church with all of the other Patriarchates.
i just need some helping understanding this. my main question being: St. Meletius being the rightful, Legitimate Bishop of Antioch, Flavian succeding Him (and being the legitimate Bishop as well according to St. John Chrysostom from what i've read) what are all the other names in between?
thank you all for your help.
Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:33 PM
Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.
Herman the pedigree'd Pooh
Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:41 PM
Then theres the succession of the apostolic church in that city based upon which apostle laid its foundation. Thus a bishop of Antioch or Rome is the successor of Peter. Even a heretic can be the canonical bishop of the city if 'canonically elected', while a rival Orthodox bishop can be uncanonical if he is claiming the same throne for himself, even with the support from other bishops. Sounds strange indeed. A condemned heretic can be dropped from the dyptich but not from the list. Nestorius Is still listed as one time the legitimate archbishop of Constantinople etc.
What your refering to are the canonical irregularities, when two or more legitimate bishops claim the same throne. Unless the canonical violations are clear, theres no way to tell at the time who is the canonical first heirarch and who is not. A bishop could be sent into exile by the emperor then recalled. A part of the flock can be divided supporting a new bishop while thhe other half remain loyal to the bishop in exile.
Over time this situation fixes itself, either when a faction seperates and becomes a sect, then the list for the schismatic sect goes into a tangent. The uncanonical situation can come to an end when a rival bishop's support erodes and disappears, thus healing the schism. This happened with Paulinus, when Rome (and i believe alexandria) supported a lineage of bishops for the paulinist faction, but then withdrew their support when the heresy subsided decades later, and no one was willing to consecrate more bishops for them. The schism was healed and normalization took place, eventually all the factions assimilated and became one flock under one shepherd again. It is either councils or later historians and canonists along with the conscience of the church that sorts out which bishop was canonical or not.
Edited by Kosta, 09 November 2010 - 09:59 PM.
Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:45 PM
And just to cut short the speculation about which bishop does and does not have apostolic succession, let me remind you that such determination is not in the hands of those of us who do not have it, but it is in the hands of the bishops - first in the hands of the bishops of the Church administration to which the bishop belongs and ultimately in the hands of the bishops of the Orthodox Church gathered in council under the chairmanship of the Ecumenical Patriarch. If "we the people" have concerns, then it is our duty to express those concerns to first our own bishop and secondly to the other bishops which are part of the same administration (synod) but then it is their duty to examine the situation and address whatever might need to be addressed.
Fr David Moser
Posted 10 November 2010 - 11:56 AM
Posted 11 November 2010 - 03:18 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users