“Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is the legitimate successor of Patriarch Cyril VI who was duly elected in 1724.”
Um, no. Pat. Cyril VI is the predecessor of the Melkite Patriarch, not the Maronite cardinal. Cyril VI was excommunicated by the EP for being a supporter of the Pope and his claims of universal jurisdiction. In this act the EP was supported by the rest of the Orthodox patriarchs and a new patriarch was appointed who was accepted by the Orthodox Patriarchs. You should try to get your patriarchs straight, P.
BTW, I had dinner just the other night with the niece of the great and holy +Maximos V, of blessed memory. She is a charming lady, who, like many in the late Patriarch’s family, has almost nothing good to say about Rome. Her son is one of my best friends.
My mistake, I was thinking of the Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham of Antioch. As for the excommunication by the Patriarch of Constantinople, whence does he get the authority to excommunicate a validly elected patriarch of another church? How can a patriarch who canonically possesses only local authority over his own church have greater power than the pope who claims universal jurisdiction? Lacking such authority or jurisdiction over Antioch, Cyril VI remained the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch, as do his successor, regardless of the judgment of the other Orthodox patriarchs.