Translated from: Dom C.L. Spiessens, o.s.b., "Les patriarches d'Antioche et leur succession apostolique," Orient Syrien 7.4 (1962), 389-345 (in this post, pp. 389-404).
One should note that, given that this article was written from a Roman Catholic perspective some sixty years ago, not all points of fact or analysis in it hold up, to say the least. It is nevertheless an extremely useful article, both as a thought experiment and for some of the information it contains. In particular, its analysis of Maronite and Melkite Catholic history (coming in part III) are unusually clear-sighted and are still occasionally cited in scholarly literature.
The Patriarchs of Antioch and their Apostolic Succession
“The Church of Antioch, which the Blessed Apostle Peter made illustrious by his presence before he came to Rome, like the very sister of the Church of Rome, long has not suffered to be alien to her.”[1]
Luckily for him, the holy Pope Innocent I did not know the aftermath of the council that gathered at Chalcedon forty years after he wrote this letter, for this Council of Chalcedon would create divisions in the Patriarchate of Antioch that last until our own day.
It is not our intent here to begin a historical study of all the events of the Patriarchate of Oriens. That would not be material for a journal: it would require volumes. It would moreover require a breadth of knowledge that we do not possess. We would instead like to consider the historical and canonical arguments which currently put in opposition five bishops (or even six if one wants to take into account the title that has become purely honorific of the Latin patriarch of Antioch), three of which united to the See of Rome, each claiming for itself the title “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East” and “Successor of Saint Peter”.[2]
There can only be one successor of Peter in Antioch. There can only be one titulary who is really the bishop of Antioch. But who is he? Here we will study the historical beginnings of each patriarchate, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the accession to the patriarchal throne of each of the bishops who gave birth to one of the five lineages which today are called “of Antioch”. We thus hope to contribute to clarifying the currently very muddy situation of this patriarchate.
The conclusion that should be drawn from the documents or from the historical facts does not belong to us. One should thus not expect any taking sides for this or that patriarchate. Such is not and cannot be the intent of someone who wishes to do history.
I. Succession and Legitimacy: Principles
We should look for the history of the foundation of the Church of Antioch in the Acts of the Apostles. Chapter 11 tells us of “those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch.” They were those Jews who were converted by the words of the Apostles who announced the Gospel at first only to the Jews, then also to the Greeks. Barnabas, sent by the Community of Jerusalem to examine the seriousness of this Antiochian community, joined with Paul of Tarsus and together for an entire year they instructed the new believers. Fairly soon, they had to distinguish themselves quite clearly from the other Jews, so they were called “Christians”.
As Chapter 13 informs us, this community of Antioch, called Christian, nevertheless remained rather steeped in the Jewish tradition. We find there a government of a collegial sort where Jewish practices were respected but interpreted and adapted. Just as in the Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem, there were presbyters—just like the presbyters of the Sanhedrin—and there were also prophets and teachers, guided by the Spirit of God, for the government of that still very young Christian community.
But there was also Saint Peter. It is precisely the sojourn of the first of the apostles in Antioch which allowed that church to reveal the true situation created by the Gospel of Christ. Saint Paul[3] speaks to us very clearly of the disagreement he had in Antioch with Saint Peter “not for an error in teaching, but for a mistake in conduct,”[4] conduct that was decidedly too Jewish and which risked breaking the unity that should bind all the peoples of the world together in the Church. It is from this dispute that salvation came to us all. Paul “blows a gasket when he notices the ascendency that Peter exercises over the Christians of Antioch (Barnabas himself believes he is obliged to imitate him), already foreseeing the disastrous effect of this policy…”[5]
Whatever the form of Peter’s episcopacy in that early church of a collegial type, the fact that he went to Antioch and governed that church is clearly attested to us by Saint Paul and the entire Christian tradition. This is what permitted the bishops of that city to justifiably boast of it. The episcopal lists of Antioch, since Eusebius and throughout the tradition, begin with the Apostle Peter and at Nicaea, during the canonical formation of the patriarchates, the apostolic foundation of the Antiochian Church and its Petrine origin would be officially recognized.
But what was the understanding that they had in Antioch of the bishop’s authority? Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who in 109-110 wrote his letters to the different churches of Asia Minor that he encountered on his way to martyrdom in Rome, gives us an exceptionally clear view of this episcopal authority. He surely speaks under the influence of the state of affairs that he witnesses in the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, etc., but, without any possible doubt, he also relies on his own convictions. His letters allow us to see what was the place and what was the role of the “bishop of Syria” some forty years after Saint Peter’s sojourn in the city of Antioch.
In this church, composed of different ethnicities (Jews and non-Jews according to Galatians 2), the sole bishop is “leader” in the in the first sense of the word. He is the head of the community that he leads with a presbyterium that is a “precious spiritual crown” for him.[6] Everything that is done in the community is necessarily done with him, in union with him. Gatherings that are held apart from the bishop are not legitimate.[7] “It is thus necessary… to do nothing without the bishop.”[8] Without the bishop, the presbyters and the deacons, “one cannot speak of the Church.”[9] Nothing that is done in the life of the church should be done without the bishop; “that is not permitted.”[10] “Everything that is done (with the bishop) shall be sure and legitimate.”[11] It is therefore a question of the validity and liceity of liturgical acts. “He who honors the bishop is honored by God; he who does something without the bishop’s knowledge serves the devil.”[12]
Why is this? What gives the bishop this unique position? We find the answer to this question in chapters 6 and 7 of Ignatius’ Letter to the Trallians.
Salvation for the Christian is to be found in his union with Christ and the teaching of the Apostles in the person of the bishop. It is the union with the bishop that represents for the Christian community union with Christ. It is un union with the bishop that submission to the “precepts of the Apostles” will be made manifest. Christians must not listen to the errors of the heretics. To the contrary, they should be united to the bishop who represents God amidst his people. This is why “he who acts apart from the bishop, the presbyterium and the deacons is not of a pure conscience.” Outside of union with the bishop, the life of the community cannot be a real Christian life, a life according to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. It is the bishop who gives this teaching; another teaching is not valid.
This is a whole theology of tradition and its transmission that is to be found in these lines and in everything that Ignatius of Antioch says about the bishop. It is nothing less than what the Apostles themselves had prescribed to those who would succeed them in the pastoral administration of the faithful.
The bishop is the one who is placed at the head of a church by the will of the Apostles, after an election held in the community that he will govern. The entire Christian people of the city took part in this election; the “prophets” and the “elders” could act on the choice made by the whole community, according to the gifts that God had granted them.[13] Once Christian communities were established throughout an entire region, it was the bishops of the province who gathered, under the direction of the most worthy bishop, with the priests, the deacons and the entire people of the city that was to proceed to the election.
Why was the presence of the other bishops of the
province required? The bishop presents to the faithful the true teaching of the
Apostles. It is with the Apostles that the Lord Jesus deposited the “good news”
that will save all men. It is by the successors of the Apostles that this
unique teaching will be made known to men “unto the ends of the earth.” “The
Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ
was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from
Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having
therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with
full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that
the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town,
they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons
unto them that should believe.”[14]
The bishop has authority in the Church on account of the apostolic place that he occupies and on account of the apostolic teaching that he transmits. This is why in ancient times he was called “the apostle”. The bishop draws all his authority from the message that he gives, from the truth that he preaches, which is none other than that of Christ, given by Him to the Apostles to be transmitted by them to the bishops and thus to be communicated to the men of all times. “It is there alone that these gifts of the Lord are found and it is there where these gifts have been distributed that the truth must be learned, with those who possess the Church’s succession since the Apostles, healthy and irrefutable conduct, and an inalterable and incorruptible language.”[15]
It should be noted that from the earliest era of the Church, she had to confront heretical groups that borrowed certain elements from the Christian religion or which, in addition to the teaching of the Gospel, possessed another teaching that the claimed was inspired by secrets confided by the Apostles or by just one apostle to privileged disciples. Some of these heretical communities possessed hierarchies modeled on the catholic hierarchy: bishop, presbyter, deacon. The main ones among these groups were the Marcionites and the Montanists, which conferred baptisms that were regarded as valid by the Christian Church. These churches were especially active in Asia Minor and in the future Patriarchate of Antioch. On this basis, one can better understand the insistence of the first catholic bishops on the need to squeeze around the bishop of the place and the absolute necessity of accepting only his teaching.[16]
All the Christian apologists would insist on these two points—the origin of their apostolic succession and the teaching given and compared to the apostolic teaching—in order to refute the heretics. This is also the reason that, since the earliest times, the Church explicitly stated in her canons the bishop’s obligation to preach and to teach the people, whether in preparation for baptism or during liturgical gatherings. One who did not keep this primary obligation of the episcopal apostolate would even be deposed from his office. Thus Apostolic Canon 58 decreed “If any bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy or the people, and does not instruct them in the way of godliness, let him be excommunicated, and if he persists in his negligence and idleness, let him be deposed.” It is clear according to this canon that the bishop might not be the only one who preaches; there could also be priests and even laymen who preach, invited to have a word before the assembled believers, if they are deemed capable of it. But it is always the bishop who possesses the authority of teacher; and if others preach the Christian doctrine, they do so after an examination or under the guidance of the bishop.[17] The bishop held the ordinary magisterium; he could delegate it to persons he deemed capable of instructing the people in revealed truth, just as he could delegate celebration of the Eucharist or baptism. But he remained the ordinary dispenser of the gifts that come to us from God.
From all the above, it is easy for us to deduce what the early Church meant by the apostolic succession of bishops. It not only required an uninterrupted historical succession from the apostle or immediate or mediate founder of the particular church, it likewise and no less strongly required that the teaching of the apostles be transmitted by the bishop in all orthodoxy. For in the end, the crux of the entire theology of the episcopate is the exact transmission from a sure source of the unique teaching of truth. That is why, without one or the other of these two conditions, there can be no security for the flock entrusted to the church’s shepherd. And all doctrine preached in a particular Christian church affects all the churches that lay claim to Christ.
To assure this surety of doctrine, the councils would require that the election of a bishop take place in the attendance of all the bishops of the province. This is not only to manifest the aggregation of the newly-elected to the college of the apostles, but also so that the bishops may get to know the new bishop’s aptitude for his task as shepherd. This is the sense of Apostolic Canon 80, which decrees that “it is not right that he who has not been tried himself should be a teacher of others.”
Unity in the faith and in the fraternal spirit that animates and sustains all the churches finds its expression in the councils which bring together the bishops of a region who, together, study pastoral problems and establish the rules or canons for the administration of the Christian family. Likewise, the epistolatory contact which, from the beginning of Christian history, connected the local churches made it possible for them to confront the same problems of the moment together and to get to know the solutions proposed by the bishop of one local church or another. Ecumenical councils were gathered when it was a question of something affecting the faith or the life of the universal Church. The unity of the apostolic body around Peter, the first of the Apostles, was demonstrated by the letters of communion sent by the great apostolic sees to the See of Rome, the mother of all the Christian churches. “In antiquity and the high middle ages, the eastern patriarchs exchanged among themselves and with that of ‘Old Rome’ at the time of their elections so-called irenical letters… For the pope to reject such a letter was the equivalent of refusing to recognize its author as a participant in the catholic communion, a negation of his patriarchal powers.”[18]
II. Succession and Legitimacy: Application of the Principles.
Everything said in the preceding paragraph concerns all bishops. Starting at the Constantinian peace, as the Church began to have greater external organization than previously these principles would experience a certain development and certain interpretations.
This was the case with the institution of the patriarchates and, among them, the Patriarchate of Antioch. Since the Church’s districts followed the boundaries of civil territories, Antioch thus became, the first see of the Diocese of Oriens.
The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), in its famous sixth canon, established this reality in law: Antioch, like Rome and Alexandria, being the center of a civil diocese of the Roman Empire became the seat of the first among the bishops of that region. He is not yet called patriarch. That title will only make its appearance later. He is “the bishop of Antioch” and, by this fact, is recognized as primate of all the East. “Great Asia, which begins at the confines of that Adriatic Sea and extends to the eastern extremities of the inhabited earth, about as large as the two other parts (= the patriarchates of Rome and Alexandria), is dependent on Antioch.”[19]
The bishop of Antioch has a certain jurisdiction over all this territory. We cannot go on at length on the question of that jurisdiction. It suffices for us to say that this “certain” jurisdiction consisted, as is commonly believed, in consecrating the metropolitans of the entire civil diocese of Oriens and, on the other hand, in the fact that these same metropolitans could not consecrate their suffragans without his permission.[20] Following Nicaea, Antioch had become the metropole of the entire East, while the other metropolitans only governed one province: “If I am not deceived, it is determined there that Caesarea is the metropolis of Palestine and Antioch is of all the East.”[21] There are proofs of that affirmation in the history of the secession of Cyprus and of Jerusalem.
Another point which falls under this supra-metropolitan jurisdiction is the possibility of the patriarch of Antioch judging about disagreements that might arise between a metropolitan and his suffragans (Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon; canon 26 of Constantinople IV).
But apart from these cases, the bishop of Antioch only exercises true jurisdiction over the faithful of his territory properly speaking, his diocese in modern terminology. On several occasions, bishops of Antioch were accused of abuse of power when they intervened or attempted to intervene in a bishopric not belonging to them.[22]
How did the election of the patriarch of Antioch take place? We cannot find anywhere for the period prior to the Severian schism and special prescriptions. The election of the bishop-patriarch of Antioch took place according to the norms prescribed by the canons for the election of all bishops: “It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the cheirotonia [laying-on of hands] should take place.”[23] “A bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means better that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together with him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter. And it were better that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force.”[24] This means that the college of bishops of the entire region—and for the patriarch this means of the entire patriarchate—should be present at the installation of the new bishop of Antioch. Otherwise, the installation would be considered null and void.
The attendance of the bishops of the entire patriarchate, and not only those of the metropolis of Antioch is attested by history in what concerns the accession of several patriarchs of Antioch. This was the case, to only name some examples, with the enthronement of Domnus I after the deposition of Paul of Samosata (268); that of Paulinus, elected by a synod to replace Eustachius (around 330); that of Meletius (360-361); that of Severus of Antioch, elected by a synod (512) where there were a dozen bishops from almost all the eastern provinces. Thus we can indeed affirm that, from the time that the supra-metropolitan jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch was fixed by canons and custom, we see the metropolitans and bishops of the entire patriarchate gathering in a synod to install a new patriarch.
In order to avoid gatherings that were decidedly too tumultuous, later on they arrived at replacing the presence of the entire people of the city, as the first canons prescribed, by the leaders and notables of the community. Certain canonists (such as Balsamon and Zonaras) even deemed the participation of the people in the elections of bishops to be anti-canonical. In this they relied on a rigid interpretation of canon 13 of the Council of Laodicea which says, “The election of those who are to be appointed to the priesthood is not to be committed to the multitude.” Balsamon also interpreted in the same rigid sense canon 4 of the Council of Nicaea: “While in the past the election of hierarchs was conducted by the multitude of the city, this did not please the holy Fathers, nor for the life of men dedicated to holy things to be marred by laymen, and they decreed that the bishop should be elected by the provincial bishops of each province.”[25]
Whatever the case may be with this interpretation by the canonists, it was never accepted in the Patriarchate of Antioch. As much among the Melkites as among the Syrians, the opinion of the people would continue to be solicited in one way or another in episcopal or patriarchal elections.[26]
Another question would, however, from the earliest history of the Church, intervene in the election or installation of patriarchs. As we have already mentioned in the first part of our study, the patriarchs communicated their elections to the other heads of patriarchal churches and especially to that or Rome. Non-recognition of a patriarchal election by one of the other heads of a church meant the patriarch’s exclusion from the apostolic communion. It was a matter above all else of recognizing the new patriarch’s profession of faith as a profession of orthodox faith or of legitimate accession to one or another patriarchal see.
We thus see Arian Antioch refusing to recognize Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria and deposing him in the Council of Tyre of 335. Rome and Alexandria had to do the same to the Arian patriarch of Antioch. Less than thirty years later (360), Rome refused to recognize Meletius of Antioch, in this following Athanasius of Alexandria. They accused Meletius of traces of Arian heresy (the doctrine of three hypostases) and also the anticanonical (but permitted by eastern customs) transfer from the see of Sebaste to the see of Antioch.[27]
Several events of this sort would repeat themselves in the history of this patriarchate. These decisive relations of the patriarchates between themselves and especially with Rome should be looke at on the theological level. It is for all the churches, and so for the Pope of Rome and for the patriarchs of the other sees, to maintain the orthodoxy of the Christian faith and the apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition. Exercise of this supervision of the churches’ teaching is encumbent first of all on the see of Rome. On the strength of Christ’s words to Peter, “Feed my sheep… feed my lambs,” the successor of Peter knows himself to be the first conserver of the deposit of faith. We shall see that this Roman authority will be recognized by the first canons of this humano-divine society that is the Church.[28]
It is she who would finally decide the orthodoxy of one or another bishop or patriarch. This is what will be established by the letter of Pope Julius I to the Antiochians,[29] and all the canons that speak of the right of appeal to the pope of Rome, such as canons 3, 4 and 5 of Sardica, as well as numerous recourses to Rome. Even still in 817, after all the Constantinopolitan interventions, Saint Theodore the Studite would write to the pope of Rome, “May every church learn that those who anathametized our holy fathers have been excommunicated by you.”[30]
Nevertheless, from 381 a change would be effected on this point for the eastern churches. Since the establishment of the Christian Byzantine Empire, the see of Constantinople received canonical recognition of its privileged position and this see wished to encroach more and more on the rights that were originally recognized for Rome alone. Canon 3 of Constantinople I (381) decreed that “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.” The canon would be repeated and reinforced at the Council of Chalcedon (451) and at the Council in Trullo (692), which would definitively fix these rights: “Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem” (Canon 36).
This meant—according to its interpretation in the East— that Constantinople occupied the first place in the East, with administrative and judicial jurisdiction equal to that of Rome in the West, and that from then on Constantinople would receive the appeals of bishops or clergymen belonging to the eastern patriarchates: “The see of Constantinople, elevated by the empire, was proclaimed the first by the conciliar votes; inspired by them as well, the divine laws have placed the controversies arising in other jurisdictions under her control and judgment.”[31]
In the Tomos issued in 1663 by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, they respond to a question from Tsar Alexis of Russia: “Question. Is the chair of Constantinople intrusted with the judgment of all causes of the other churches? and is it from that chair that every ecclesiastical question must obtain its final settlement? Answer. This privilege belonged formerly to the Pope of Rome before he split himself off from the Catholic Church by arrogance and voluntary malice. But he being now split off, all the causes of the churches are referred to the chair of Constantinople, and receive from it their decision, as that chair has equal privileges, according to the canons, with those of the elder Rome.”[32]
One should thus not be surprised to see Constantinopolitan interventions so often in the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch.
It is to be noted, however, that these interventions did not come from the patriarch of Constantinople alone. Decisions coming from the Byzantine patriarchate (or from the Byzantine court) were taken in a synod, the Synodos endemousa, whose existence goes back at least to Patriarch Nectarius (381-397). We will have to revisit some of these interventions in the Patriarchate of Antioch.
The patriarch of Antioch, as a bishop, possesses the power of order, jurisdiction and teaching. His patriarchal jurisdiction knows certain legislative privileges for the entire patriarchal territory. His powers will, however, be submitted recognition by the other patriarchs, and especially by Rome, of his orthodoxy. The Rome – Constantinople deviation in eastern jurisprudence will mean that Constantinople, through the decisions of the Synodos endemousa, will be able to intervene in his patriarchate.
This will be true before the split between Rome and Constantinople and even more so after the schism of 1054. And even after the disappearance of the Christian empire of Byzantium, the patriarch of Constantinople will keep these privileges, inasmuch as the Ottoman Empire considered him to be the ethnarch of the Greek Church and so long as the patriarchate had the necessary sums for purchasing berats of investiture.
Many of the schisms which still oppose certain patriarchs of Antioch come from there: on the one hand, from this ecclesiastical legislation and, on the other hand, from the inevitable human weaknesses of the persons who have governed the Church of Antioch.
[1] Innocent I, Letter to the Priest Bonifatius, A.R.P., Fontes, series III, Rome, p. 102.
[2] The Greek Melkite (Catholic) patriarch adds to his title of “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East” that of “Alexandria and Jerusalem”. This privilege had been granted to Patriarch Maximus III Mazloum in 1838 by Pope Gregory XVI, a privilege “not transmissible without a new concession”. In fact, this privilege was granted to all subsequent Melkite patriarchs. Patriarch Mazloum had obtained, at the cost of great suffering, the civil emancipation of his patriarchate, considered up until then as a part of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. (Cf. Osservatore Romano, March 30, 1962).
The Syrian Catholic patriarch is himself content with the title of “Syrian Patriarch of Antioch”, a title that is even more precise in Latin and Syriac: “Patriarch of Antioch for the Syrians”. We shall see below that it is the same title that was given by Rome, mutatis mutandis, to Patriarch Cyril VI, head of the lineage of the Melkite Patriarchate: “Patriarch of Antioch for the Greeks”.
[3] Galatians 2:2
[4] Tertullian, De Praescriptione hereticorum, 23.
[5] L. Cerfaux, “Saint Pierre et sa succession,” Recherches de Sciences Religieuse 41.2 (1953), 2.
[6] Magnesians 13:1.
[7] Magnesians 4.
[8] Trallians 2:2.
[9] Trallians 3:2.
[10] Smyrnaeans 8:2.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Smyrnaeans 9:1.
[13] Cf. 1 Timothy 4:14.
[14] 1 Clement 41:1-4.
[15] Irenaus, Adversus haereses IV, 42, 1; see also P. Smulders, sj, “Le mot et le concept de Tradition chez les Pères grecs,” Recherches de Sciences Religieuse. Mélanges Lebreton 2 (1952), pp. 41-62.
[16] See G. Brady, La théologie de l’Eglise de saint Irénée au concile de Nicée, 1947, chapters 1 and 2. There were Marcionite bishops in Palestine, priests and perhaps bishops of the same church in Smyrna and in Hawran. The sympathies of Patriarch Fabius of Antioch for the Novatians is well-known, and they had an entire ecclesiastical organization.
[17] The Peregrinatio Aetheriae informs us that in Jerusalem all the priests preached in turn, but that the bishop himself ended the sermon.
[18] C. Karalevskij, Histoire des Patriarcats melkites, vol. 3, p. 405. See also G. Bardy, op. cit., p. 213.
[19] Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, vol. 2, 414. Here, of course, the Adriatic Sea means the Mediterranean.
[20] Cf. the letter of Pope Innocent I to Patriarch Alexander, P.L. XX, 547-551.
[21] St Jerome, Epistle to Pammachius, Hépélé-Leclerque, Histoire des Conciles, vol. 1, 1, p. 559.
[22] Mgr Devreesse, Histoire du patriarcat d’Antioche, Paris, 1945, p. 120 cites the case of John I and Severus; one could add for the same period that of Domnus II.
[23] Canon 4 of Nicaea I (325).
[24] Canon 19 of the Council of Antioch (341).
[25] Balsamon, P.G. CXXXVII, 235.
[26] Since the bull Reversurus of His Holiness Pope Pius IX, there is no longer, among the Catholics, any participation by the people in episcopal elections.
[27] See the study by D. David Amand, “Damas, Athanase, Pierre, Mélèce et Basile,” in L’Eglise et les Eglises, I, pp. 261ff.
[28] We cannot discuss this question at length. See, for example, the Orthodox author J. Meyendorff, “La primauté romaine dans la tradition canonique jusqu’au Concile de Chalcédoine,” Istina (1957), pp. 463-482.
[29] In St Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, P.G. VIII, 879.
[30] Epistle 12, P.G. XCIX, 1152.
[31] Basil the Macedonian, Epanagoghi, ed. Rhalli and Potli, VI, p. 428.
[32] Cited in Hiéromoine Pierre, “Notes d’ecclesiologie orthodoxe,” Irénikon (1933), pp. 112-113.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment