Friday, May 2, 2014

Antioch reportedly breaks communion with Jerusalem

(Pravmir) - This has been reported by, with reference to the website of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The Primate of the Church of Antioch again raised the question of the canonical intrusion of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem into the Metropolia of Qatar. In his words, all meetings between the two sides have been fruitless. As a result, the Antiochian delegation refused to sign the document of agreement at the meeting of Primates in Istanbul.

Patriarch John noted that this question was not even on the agenda, despite pleas from the Antiochian Patriarchate.

“Following Patriarchate of Jerusalem’s intractable position, the Antiochian throne has unanimously decided to suspend communion and not to commemorate Patriarch Theophilos in the ecclesiastical diptychs, as it was normally done earlier. The Antiochian Patriarchate has prepared a letter for all Orthodox Churches with the rational for this decision and with a request that they pray for the unity of the Churches,” concluded the Patriarch of Antioch.

The Holy Synod of the Antiochian Patriarchate also called for an end to the hostilities in Syria and for the establishment of peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims in Syria, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern countries.


  1. I find Jerusalem's position particularly difficult to understand given the huge fit they threw over Romania's incursion into their canonical territory.

    1. I had the exact same thought. Russia has had to do similar coordination with Jerusalem over their pilgrimage lodgings/chapels/etc. I hope this is resolved quickly (in Orthodox time that means about 6 months at the earliest).

  2. "I find Jerusalem's position particularly difficult to understand given the huge fit they threw over Romania's incursion into their canonical territory."
    It's a Hellene and varbari thing. You wouldn't understand.

  3. I'm totally on Jerusalem's side on this. If you read the two letters patriarch Theophilos wrote to patriarch John, he makes very convincing arguments that support Jerusalem's position.

  4. Clearly the JP has canonical rights over the Arabian Peninsula. Why on earth wouldn't Qatar be considered part of the Arabian Peninsula?

  5. Jerusalem has no rights to the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is interloping in most of Jordan as it is.
    Patriarch Theophilos' letter, like much of the Phanariot Tomb worshipping cartel propaganda, is devoid of facts. As the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council laid down:
    "Juvenal the most sacred bishop of the city of Jerusalem [and its first Patriarch] said: ‘I too have decided that the holy [church of the] Resurrection of Christ should have the three Palestines, and the see of Antioch the two Phoenices and Arabia. And I ask that this be confirmed by a judgement of your magnificence and of the holy council.
    Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon-Session VII.
    Which the Council confirmed.

    And, as was confirmed in the modern Constitution of the Patriarchate of the Rum in Jerusalem:
    "The said Damianos Effendi is Patriarch in accordance with the ancient custom over the Roman sect dwelling in Jerusalem, and in the Holy Sepulchre and in the regions subject thereto and over their religious affairs.
    . The Metropolitans, Bishops, Monks, and Nuns who are in the District subject to his Patriarchate, Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, Gaza, Ramleh, Jebel Ajlun, Acre, Safed, and the Districts subject thereto, and the Monks who dwell in the Monasteries of the Georgians, the Abyssinians, the Syrians, and the Copts and all the remainder of the 'Roman' Sects, great and small, shall acknowledge the said Damianos as their Patriarch. In the same way as those who were Patriarchs before him held he shall also hold and administer."
    The issuing authority at the time ruled both Palestine and Qatar.

    Qatar has been formally under Antioch ever since its bishop was organized in 410 at the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, along with the rest of the bishops of Mesopotamia and the East of the Arabian Peninsula.

  6. You are correct, the Arabian peninsula did belong to Antioch... Before they gave it to Jerusalem. All canonical issues aside (not to negate the canons but to make a point), Antioch had nothing in Qatar. Nothing at all. They haven't had anything in decades if not centuries. Jerusalem went into a land devoid of Orthodoxy (but which they considered part of their historic territory), established a thriving community and even opened doors in the Qatari government to allow other Christian groups to operate in Qatar. Something to chew on

    1. I've seen how the "Brotherhood" is starving the Church in Jerusalem, leaving nothing "to chew on," while the flocks in Syria, Lebanon and the South of the Turkish Republic are nourished and well fed.
      Antioch did not give the Arabian peninsula to Jerusalem-there was never a reason to. Antioch is pulling the mask of the "Ancient Orthodox Patriarchates and the Church of Cyprus" off the naked Omogeneia, exposing the statement that "the need for all Orthodox Churches to respect and adhere strictly to the geographical boundaries of their respective jurisdictions, as these have been established by the Sacred Canons and their Founding Constitutions" as canon 28 Phanariot propaganda. The Phanar acted as fast and as hard as possible when Jerusalem extended its jurisdiction (again!) in North America. The contrast to the wink and nod-and support-the Phanariots are giving to their south branch is not lost on Antioch.
      (the Crusaders seized it for Jerusalem).
      As for Qatar, the Arab Orthodox, like the rest of the region, have had a presence at least since the 1960's (legal problems leading to a dearth of information make it a little difficult to ascertain how much before). Jerusalem's involvement was brought about by the Greek-American Ambassador Patrick N. Theros, "Representative to USA of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem" (didn't know we had one of those) in 1997-the first involvement of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem there, or anywhere else in the Arabian Peninsula outside of Jordan (except for the unsubstantiated and undated-except that it was after 1967-trip to Yemen to an unidentified flock claimed by Jerusalem). So much for the "consider[ation as] part of their historical territory."

    2. Ooops: (the Crusaders seized it for Jerusalem). It should say-Perhaps, with a schsim, Antioch can reassert its jurisdiction over 'Amman, Jordan (the Crusaders seized it for Jerusalem).

    3. Btw, on the claim "Antioch had nothing in Qatar. Nothing at all."
      Perhaps not coincidentally, the Patriarchal Website, after reporting this decision, is taken up with the HB the Patriarch's visit to his numerous flock (see the pictures) in Bahrain (whose territory is separated from Qatar by only one nautical mile (1.9 km), the center of the Baharani Orthodox in the capital of al-Manamah laying 73 m/119 km from Jerusalem's intrusion in Doha) to the West and in the UAE (in Abu Dabi and Dubay) to the East (258 m/415 km) of Qatar.
      For a visual:

    4. Antioch should accept all the disaffected Arab Orthodox within the Palestine and Jordan into its Jurisdiction. Let the Phanariots keep the tomb.

  7. It's probably about time to give up on territorial borders outside areas where Orthodoxy is established.

    I suggest (for all the good it's going to do) that we divide the world up into three zones:
    First, where an Orthodox Church is clearly established
    Second, where multiple Orthodox Churches have overlapping activity
    Third, where there is minimal Orthodox presence.
    The first zone would have no outside involvement allowed without local approval, as things currently are. The second is a completely different type of problem, that needs to be solved in a different way --- but for now, perhaps a moratorium on any other jurisdiction coming in. The third, I'd suggest, should have a rule that anyone can plant a church anywhere, as long as it isn't within 100 km of another jurisdiction's parish without that jurisdiction's agreement.

  8. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the Patriarchate of Antioch another Greek extension of the Phanariot realm along with Alexandria and Jerusalem?

  9. "Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the Patriarchate of Antioch another Greek extension of the Phanariot realm along with Alexandria and Jerusalem?"
    Not since 1899, no.

    1. Thank you for clearing this up for me. After further reading I see now that 1899 marks the appointment of Meletius II as Patriarch.