Met Antony Bashir on the Melkite Catholics (1957)

At the beginning of the re-establishment of the Word as the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America's official magazine, Metropolitan Antony Bashir wrote a series of articles introducing readers to the various Christian communities of Syria and Lebanon. They are of great interest for understanding ecumenical attitudes within the Patriarchate of Antioch in the mid-20th century.

The following is taken from The Word / Al-Kalemat vol. 1, issue 5 (May 1957), pp. 115-118, accessed through the The Hoda Z. Nassour and Herbert R. Nassour Jr., MD, Archive of Lebanese Diaspora, here.

 

 

Reasonable Facsimile.... The Melkites

by Metropolitan Antony Bashir

Of all the Christian bodies of Syria and Lebanon, the Melkites present the Orthodox writer with the most difficult exercise in charity. While those who are now born into the group are undoubtedly sincere in their beliefs, the schism did not originate in religious conviction and its subsequent aggressive missionary campaign has been conducted on the lowest possible level.

To avoid controversy, the historical facts in this outline have been taken from the works of the Roman Catholic apologist, the Reverend Adrian Fortescue. Quotation marks, except where otherwise noted, indicate excerpts from his posthumous book THE UNIATE EASTERN CHURCHES. The standard Orthodox histories, and the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch by the Anglican John Mason Neale, are more severe in their analysis of the beginnings of the Melkites. Since the history of the group after the schism contains no little evidence of internal tensions, it is kinder to rely on Roman Catholic sources for the story.

 

The Schism

When Rome fell away from the Church for the last time after the schism of 1054 the entire East remained Orthodox, except for the Nestorians and others who had already set up independent organizations. In 1057 Patriarch Theodosius III went to Constantinople to join forces with the Patriarch Michael who had excommunicated the Pope. When the Crusaders took Antioch in 1098, John IV was Patriarch. The Latins expelled him and intruded a Latin bishop in the see. After the Byzantines accepted the union of the Papacy at Florence in 1442, the Patriarchy of Antioch convened a Synod in Constantinople and together with the other Orthodox Patriarchs rejected the terms of the Florentine union.

In the middle of the seventeenth century the Jesuits opened missions in the Middle East and tried to tempt the Orthodox into union with Rome. The Jesuits played on the anti-Greek feeling of some of the Syrian bishops, and several of them accepted union with Rome, including a bishop Euthymius of Tyre. The Patriarch Cyril V played with the idea of union, but he was succeeded in 1720 by the Patriarch Athanasius IV, who put an end to these intrigues and imprisoned the leaders of the union party, including Euthymius of Tyre.

When the Patriarch Athanasius died in 1724, nominated for his successor was a certain monk Silvester, who was supported by the people of Aleppo. There was a rivalry between the communities of Aleppo and Damascus and some Damascine laymen hurriedly met and elected another man to block the election of Silvester. The Damascene candidate was Seraphim Tanos, a nephew of Euthymius of Tyre, who had had him educated in Rome. He was consecrated a Patriarch by two dissidents and took the name of Cyril VI.

Silvester appealed to the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople who had him ordained and then deposed Cyril who fled to Lebanon. To rule as Patriarch of Antioch under the Turks it was necessary to have Government approval. The Turks naturally gave this to Silvester, the candidate of the Orthodox Church, which was an officially recognized religious body in the Ottoman Empire. This is not a unique situation in Christian history; the modern Roman Catholic bishops of Poland and Hungary must have the recognition of their Communist governments, or they may not take office. Until shortly before World War I, the Austrian emperor passed on the candidates for the Papacy after their election by the Cardinals, and could, and did, veto elections. In addition, Seraphim-Cyril was elected by a self-constituted synod in which no bishops took part. In view of all of this, the Papal contention that Cyril was somehow the "true" successor of the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch is ridiculous.

Cyril Tanos's early years had many difficulties with his followers, with the Latin missionaries, and with the Maronites who persistently converted his supporters, and in 1759, he nominated his 27 year old great-nephew Ignatius Gauhar to succeed him, and resigned.

Ignatius took the name Athanasius V but the Melkites appealed to Rome against him and the Pope appointed the Metropolitan of  Aleppo as Patriarch. He reigned, as Maximos II, for only a year while Gauhar protested but finally compromised and accepted the see of Sidon. When Hakim died, Gauhar again made an attempt to become Patriarch, but had to defer to Theodosius VI Dahan. When this man died in 1788, Gauhar finally became Patriarch.

 

An Abortive Reversion to Orthodoxy

After the brief reign of Cyril VII (Sayegh), the Patriarchate was occupied by Agapios Matar who ruled as Agapios III from 1796 to 1812. During his term the group developed strong Orthodox tendencies which Rome crushed with considerable difficulty.

The story begins with Germanos Adam, a native of Aleppo, and the first real scholar the Melkites produced. Adam was educated in Rome and was fluent in five languages. In Italy he was friendly with Latin theologians of the Anti-Papal party which existed among Roman Catholic intellectuals until driven underground by the Vatican Council in 1870. Adam returned to Syria to become Metropolitan of Acre and, in 1777, of Aleppo, the chief center of the Melkite schism. Both he and his Patriarch had continuous trouble with the Latin agents in the Levant, and in 1806 the Patriarch convened a Synod at Karkafah. Papal apologists consider Adam the moving spirit at Karkafah.

Karkafah was attended by the Patriarch, nine Melkite bishops, and the Maronite Patriarch, the Papal Visitor, an Italian named Gandolfi, and various other clergy including an Allepian named Michael Mazlum, who was to support Adam's Orthodox ideas for the rest of his life.

The Synod passed a series of dogmatic decrees which are quite Orthodox: the whole Church is infallible, not the Pope, a Council is superior to the Pope, who is simply an honorary primate, like an Orthodox Patriarch. All present at the Synod signed the decrees including the Papal Visitor. Fortescue says "The only explanation of this seems to be that he did not know enough Arabic to understand what they were!"

Adam was also Orthodox in holding that the consecration in the Liturgy takes place at the Epiclesis, not at the words of Institution, as the Latins claim. He died in 1809, and in 1816  Pope Pius VII condemned all of his writings. In 1835 Pope Gregory condemned Karkafah, but the Orthodox influence lived on.

 

Melkite Orthodoxy Defeated

When Agapius III died, the Melkites were led by several short-lived hierarchs, under one of whom, Ignatius V (Kattan), 1816-1833, the Melkites were freed from the civil authority of the Orthodox, and placed under the Uniate Armenians.

Kattan's successor was Michael Mazlum, whom Fortescue calls "by far the greatest man of the Melkite Church". Most Orthodox would agree, for Mazlum, who ruled as Patriarch Maximos III until 1855, was thoroughly Orthodox in his view of the Church. He was ordained to the priesthood by Germanos Adam, and was secretary of the Synod of Karkafah. Although he had no formal education, he became rector of a Melkite seminary, and in 1810 was ordained Metropolitan of Aleppo. The Papacy refused to accept him for the post, but the Patriarchate and the bishop refused to submit to the Roman order. Mazlum went to Rome to defend himself, but was persuaded to resign the see of Aleppo, and the seminary he had headed was closed because of its Orthodox tendencies.

Mazlum remained in Europe until 1831 when he returned to Syria accompanied by two Jesuits as guardians. "As soon as they landed in Syria he dodged his Jesuits" (Fortescue), and when the Patriarch died two years later the bishops elected Mazlum in his place. "The papal delegate warned them that they must not elect Mazlum". Rome finally confirmed him after he formally condemned the Synod of Karkafah.

Mazlum, who took the name of Maximos III, held a Synod before his confirmation by Rome on the theory "that synods may be held without the intervention of the Pope". The Papacy submitted and approved the Synod. He turned the Jesuits out of the Patriarchal seminary, required the Melkites in Egypt and Palestine to use the Byzantine rite, and in 1846 he obtained separate civil status for the Melkites from the Turks.

The Melkites were constantly torn by disedifying internal dissentions, schisms and quarrels during the reign of Maximos. The curious may find them outlined in Fortescue. Of greater interest to the Orthodox reader is the fact that Maximos held a Synod at Jerusalem in 1849 which Rome refused to approve, partly because it repeated the anti-Papal ideas of Karkafah. After this Synod the Patriarch quarreled with the Metropolitan of Beirut and was "summoned to Rome" to give an account of himself.  He refused to go. "It is even said that very grave remonstrances were about to be sent to him by Propaganda when he sickened and died".

 

After Maximos III

The next Patriarch was Clement Bahuth. During his reign the Julian Calendar was replaced by the Gregorian, "At once there was an enormous uproar", (Fortescue) and "a considerable number of Melkites" left the Melkites. Fortescue says, "by 1865 nearly all were converted" to Rome. Clement's successor was Gregory Yusuf who attended the Vatican Council and voted against the Papal Primacy and Infallibility. On his death Peter IV was elected, "At one time Orthodox papers spread the rumor that Peter had tendencies away from Rome and towards their Church. This was, of course, indignantly denied" (Fortescue). Peter was succeeded by the Patriarchs Cyril VIII (Giha), Demitrous Kaidy, and Cyril IX (Mogabgab), Maximos IV (Sayegh) (1947-).

 

The Name "Melkite"

The name Melkite is derived from a Semitic word for king, Malak. It was used after the Council of Chalcedon to distinguish those who accepted the decree of the Council, which was supported by the Emperor, i.e. "King", of Byzantium. Thus it was applied to the Orthodox when Seraphim Tanos left the Orthodox Church. He used the name Melkite for his organization, to differentiate it from Orthodoxy. In the United States the group is often called "Syrian Greek Catholic".

 

The "Historic Succession" of Antioch

 Fortescue, Attwater, Archdale King and other Papal writers insist that the Melkite Patriarch is the "historical successor" of the original Patriarchal line of Antioch. Their reason for doing so is obscure, for even if we admit that Tanos was the legitimate "historical successor" of Athanasius IV, and he was not, what is gained? The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lutheran Bishop of Sweden, and the [Old Catholic] Archbishop of Utrecht are the "historical successors" of the Catholic bishops of their sees, but this is no advantage to them, nor to Rome.

Tanos left the Church, in doing so he forfeited whatever rights or titles he may have had. When the Melkite bishop Makarios Samman submitted to the Orthodox Church after 1845 he was rebaptized, rechrismated and reordained before he was allowed to act as a bishop. In more recent conversions, Melkite sacraments have been accepted by oeconomia.

 

Organization and Present State

The group is headed by a hierarch called the "Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East", who has residences at Cairo, Beirut and Damascus. There are some thirteen bishops, a number of the parish clergy are married, but there are several religious orders in the Western pattern. One congregation, the Shuwairite Basilians, was founded by two renegades from the monastery of Balamand near Tripoli, one of whom later returned to Orthodox unity. The religious orders of men have been the center of much of the intrigue and dissention in the Melkite group. Recent Papal statistics place the total number of Melkites in the world at 166,214.

Asad Rustom on the Patriarch Sylvester

Translated from: Asad Rustum, Kanisat Madinat Allah Antakya al-'Uzma [The Church of the Great City of God Antioch], Jounieh: Editions St. Paul (1988), vol. 3, pp. 143-151

While Rustom's account is the most common modern Orthodox treatment of Sylvester's election and career, much research has been done since his wrote it. For the most detailed and up-to-date study of Sylvester, see Mihai Țipău's new book, available free for download here. For Rustom's account of Sylvester's Catholic rival Seraphim/Cyril Tanas, see here.

Sylvester I (1724-1766): Before his death, Athanasius indicated to the Christians in Aleppo to elect as his successor a Cypriot priest called Sylvester, who had first served with him as a deacon and accompanied him on many of his travels to Wallachia, Moldavia and elsewhere, and then left him and enrolled in the clergy of the Church of Constantinople. At that time, Sylvester was living on Mount Athos, practicing asceticism.

Cyril Tanas wrote to the Christians who stood firm in the Orthodox faith to attract them to himself. He also wrote to the bishops of the See of Antioch informing them that he had been installed as their patriarch. He asked them to recognize him, submit to him, and commemorate him, threatening those who resist him with deposition, but the bishops did not respond. Before his letters reached them, they and the laity had written to the Holy Synod of Constantinople, presided over by Patriarch Paisius, informing them about the death of the Patriarch Athanasius and about the activities of Cyril Tanas, the way in which he had been consecrated, and his forcible entry into and occupation of the patriarch's residence in Damascus. They asked the synod for fraternal help on account of its moral influence with the Ottoman state, informing them that they had elected Sylvester as patriarch and that they wished for him to be recalled from Mount Athos and be consecrated as a bishop so that he could occupy the Apostolic See of Antioch. In doing this, the Antiochian Christians aimed to obtain someone who had both experience and moral influence and could come to the Church of Antioch with a berat from the sultan and an injunction that would help him to curb the heretics and defend the Orthodox faith, and so be able to strengthen Orthodoxy, put and end to the quarrel among Antioch's Christians, and work to unify their hearts.

When these letters arrived at the Holy Synod of Constantinople, it wrote to Mount Athos, summoning Sylvester, and elevated him to the episcopacy on September 27, 1724. He was issued with a berat from the sultan and orders for the deposition of Cyril Tanas and the arrest of Abu Tawq, the governor of Damascus who had pledged to request the issue of a berat from the sultan for Cyril. News of Sylvester and the berat and orders that he held spread and Cyril fled, taking with him vestments, miters, crosses, chalices, patens, and all the rest of the holy vessels that Macarius had brought from Russia, and taking refuge in Mount Lebanon, residing in Deir al-Mukhalles.

Kyr Sylvester was a virtuous man who had spent a long time in the sketes of Mount Athos and because of his estrangement from the world, he was simple, light-hearted and docile. At the same time, however, he was strongly attached to tradition. He was unwavering and would not deviate from it.

When he arrived in Aleppo, he was informed of what Seraphim [that is, Cyril Tanas] had done, so he hurried to Damascus and stayed there for two months. The people of the city, including Cyril Tanas' supporters, welcomed him. He then went on pilgrimage and after a year and a half he returned to the region of Aleppo. When he reached Khan Tuman, the Orthodox notables went out to receive him and they prepared for him there an elegant dinner with fish, even though it was Wednesday, in accordance with the permission they had received from the previous patriarch, Athanasius. When Sylvester saw the fish, he kicked over the table, excommunicated the Aleppans, left the notables and went immediately to the patriarchal residence in Aleppo. The Aleppans tried to mollify the patriarch, but he did not pardon them. Instead, he stood up in the church on Sunday and excommunicated anyone who would dare in the future to eat fish on Wednesday or Friday. He did not limit himself to this, but also scorned the elites of Aleppo and complained to the governor about those among them who were partisans of papism and they were placed in jail and not released until they had incurred serious costs. They were angered and sought to imprison the patriarch. Sylvester learned of this from the English consul and secretly fled to Lattakia, from there going by sea to Constantinople.

The Aleppans complained about their situation to the Holy Synod of Constantinople, claiming that Sylvester had beaten priests and handed elites over the the authorities, exposed the people's wealth to fines and confiscation, and threatened people with banishment and execution,"accusing them of being of the religion of the Franks," and stating that they had driven him off and could not accept him in their place. Sylvester himself went to Constantinople and complained, in turn, about the Aleppans. The Holy Synod advised him to be gentle, lenient and to practice persuasion and love, and it send a bishop named Gregory as vicar of Patriarch Sylvester, ordering him to commemorate Sylvester. The Aleppans welcomed him and returned to the Church, morning and evening, not revealing their opinions.

In 1725, the Holy Synod of Constantinople, with the agreement of the Patriarch Sylvester, issued a pastoral encyclical addressed to the Christians of the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, urging them to stay away from novel, Western teachings that do not conform to the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers, excommunicating those who disobey.

Gregory remained in Aleppo for two years. Then he grew weary of residing there because it was not his diocese, so he took leave of the Aleppans, said farewell to them and went back to Constantinople. The Aleppans wrote to the Holy Synod of Constantinople about this and requested that their legitimate bishop, Gerasimus, be pardoned and returned to them. The synod agreed and brought him out of exile, after him having been there for five and a half years, commanding him to be on good behavior among them and to commemorate the Patriarch Sylvester. He accepted the command and feigned obedience. When he arrived in Aleppo, the Aleppans received him well and honored him. He pretended to do what the Holy Synod of Constantinople commanded him and he commemorated the Patriarch Sylvester at the liturgy. The Aleppans led the church in both directions, with each having his own opinion. However, the Frankish monks did not cease to extol to them obedience and submission to Rome and to sharpen their intention to do this, indeed, pressing and driving them to do so. Gerasimus kept silent about these activities because he was secretly Catholic while pretending the opposite out of fear of having to go back into exile.

Sylvester in the Lands of the Christians: Upon his arrival in Constantinople, Sylvester worked hard to bring the Aleppans back to obedience and spent large sums on this. When he did not achieve success, he returned to his see, passing through Erzurum collecting alms. He then arrived in Damscus in 1731, spending some time there with peace prevailing. Then the Frankish monks provoked a conflict between the two sides, with both accumulating debts, and the situation deteriorated. When he saw that there was no way to put an end to the evils, he left Damascus on a pastoral tour. He then returned, named a capable and influential layman, Mikhail Touma, as his vicar and headed for Constantinople. After giving a report to the patriarch of Constantinople and his synod, he left for Wallachia and Moldavia in order to collect donations to repay the debts. It is said that his absence lasted for almost ten years, during which time Sylvester established a monastery in Moldavia [in fact, Wallachia] named for Saint Spyridon the Wonderworker, which was given as an endowment to the Patriarchate of Antioch.

In 1747, he printed in Arabic in Bucharest a collection of texts composed at the two synods in Constantinople regarding the appearance of Catholicism among the ranks of the Antiochian Christians, one in late 1724 under the Patriarch Jeremiah and the other in 1727, under the Patriarch Paisius. This collection also contained five articles in Arabic giving Orthodox refutations of the five innovations of the Latins. After this was the document The Holy Eastern Church of Christ. In total, it contains seventeen parts. [...].

Cyril and Damascus: As for Cyril Tanas, after he left Damascus and took refuge in Lebanon, he resided in Deir al-Mukhalles, making great efforts to pressure the Orthodox in the coastal dioceses and inciting them to renounce obedience to their canonical leaders. During Sylvester's absence, which lasted a long time, he worked skillfully with some of the people of Aleppo and the Frankish monks to compose petitions from some of the people and to send letters from the consuls of France and Austria in Aleppo and Sidon to their ambassadors in the capital to help him to obtain a berat from the sultan. He spent significant sums to prepare other petitions, in which the Damascenens complained about their patriarch's long absence and explained that they needed a patriarch who could manage their religious affairs, at the same time expressing their satisfaction with Cyril Tanas and requesting him as their patriarch. The French ambassador and the papal nuncio in the capital offered four thousand Roman riyals to the defterdar and obtained the desired berat in 1745, sending it to the French consul in Sidon. Cyril received it and dispatched a representative to Damascus, who was able to gain possession of the church and to arrange for Mikhail Touma and some of the notables to be imprisoned.Then Cyril himself went up to Damascus, sealed his berat at the sharia court and took possession of his see. Dimitri Shehadeh, reporting from his grandmother, the daughter of the priest Mikhail Breik, that upon Cyril's return to Damascus the unrest increased, and whenever he recited the Creed with the addition "and the Son" staffs would appear and the beating would start. Cyril wrote to the metropolitans, informing them of the arrival of the berat and requesting their obedience. The bishops rejected his command and wrote to Ecumenical Patriarch Paisius about the affair of Cyril Tanas, requesting that he quickly write to Sylvester and urge him to hurry back to his see. The patriarch of Constantinople acted quickly and urged Sylvester to hurry. Along with Patriarch Parthenius of Jerusalem and thirteen metropolitans, he sent a petition to the sultan in which they explained the misdeeds of Cyril Tanas, who claimed that he was an Orthodox patriarch while being of the religion of the Franks, and testified that the canonical patriarch was alive and in possession of a berat from the sultan.

Cyril Returns to Deir al-Mukhalles: When the Ottoman government realized the aims of Cyril Tanas and the French and papal ambassadors, it issued Sylvester a second berat and a firman ordering that Cyril Tanas be arrested and sent into exile. Sylvester sent the order from the Sublime Porte informing the government and Christians in Damascus about the issue of the decrees cancelling Cyril's patriarchate and turning the cathedral and patriarchal residence over to the Orthodox. He then appointed Nicophorus, the metropolitan of Bayas, as his vicar, authorized to undertake all legal activities. He sent with him the firman and the papers containing the indicated orders. This vicar went to Damascus one year after these orders were issued and he was finely received by the governor of Damascus, As'ad Basha, who helped him to undertake all measures to strengthen his position.

Sylvester in Damascus (1754-1766): Sylvester spent twelve years in Damascus, during which the quarrels between him and the papists ended, because he realized that the fight was causing enormous material losses for both parties. He was not the sort of person to attract flocks through moral means, such as guidance, preaching, and true Christian love, which eliminates hatred and jealousy and elevates the Church to a level befitting her. Those who took the side of the Catholics in those times had priests who served them in their homes or in the churches of the Latins or other Catholic sects, but their weddings, baptisms and funerals in cities and Orthodox areas were performed by Orthodox priests and the fees for them were paid to the Orthodox authorities.

At the end of his life, Sylvester made holy chrism in the Church of St Nicholas in Damascus with two bishops, seventeen priests and ten deacons. He went to the mercy of his Lord on May 13, 1766 and was buried at the tomb of the patriarchs on the hill of Saint George.

Asad Rustom on the Election of the Catholic Patriarch Cyril Tanas

Translated from: Asad Rustum, Kanisat Madinat Allah Antakya al-'Uzma [The Church of the Great City of God Antioch], Jounieh: Editions St. Paul (1988), vol. 3, pp. 1141-143

While the main modern Orthodox treatment of the subject, Rustom's account is less detailed than one might hope and largely reliant on Catholic secondary sources, particularly Constantine Basha's history of the Salvatorian Order. For purposes of comparison, it is useful to take a look at the following modern Catholic sources:

Wilhelm de Vries

Dom C.L. Spiessens, who concludes that Cyril Tanas was never validly consecrated as a bishop.

Serge Descy, who somewhat more cautiously concurs with Spiessens.

 

The Catholic Patriarch Cyril Tanas (1724)

After the death of Athanasius IV [in modern reckoning, III], those who had broken away grew in strength and took the opportunity to strengthen their position in the See and reinforce themselves under the leadership of Seraphim Tanas, nephew of Euthymius Sayfi. Seraphim was born in Damascus around 1680 and was raised by his uncle Euthymius. He traveled to Rome in 1702 to receive education there. He then returned to Sidon, the center of his uncle's diocese, in 1710. His uncle ordained him to the priesthood and worked to guide him. He traveled around preaching and advocating for Rome in the dioceses of the See of Antioch. A group of people in Acre nominated him as their bishop, but the patriarch of Jerusalem was opposed and he was not consecrated. Then the people of the Diocese of Tyre and Sidon nominated him to succeed his uncle. He went to Aleppo bearing the petitions for his nomination, seeking to be consecrated by the Patriarch Athanasius. The latter refused to consecrate him since his submission to Rome was widely-known and he was openly declaring the necessity for union. When Athanasius died, the separatists in Damascus, numbering 328, decided to nominate Seraphim for the patriarchal see and they wrote a petition, signed it and brought it to the temporal authorities in Damascus. They said:

"Petition after the necessary supplication, in the hands of the guardians of blessings and masters of sword and pen, the sublime State, may God almighty make its rule endure forever and extend it through victory with the support of their servants and subjects, the dhimmi Christians living in the God-protected city of Damascus of the Rum community, who pray for this sublime State to remain forever, whose names are signed below, that they have accepted, are pleased with, and have chosen the teacher Cyril to be patriarch over them, to rule, to be obeyed, governing them according to the accepted canons and directing their affairs with recognized governance according to the precedent of previous patriarchs in the manner agreed among them. He is therefore worthy to lead them and of the patriarchate that they require. They request that by its mercies and kindnesses the sublime State will install this gentleman in the Patriarchate of Antioch in Damascus, granting the request of the elites and the common people. May God strengthen the foundations of this sublime State over the course of the nights and days, until the day and hour of the Resurrection and the supplication is lasting."

They presented the petition to the pasha and delegated him to request a berat from the sultan for this, paying him what needed to be paid. Then the bishops of the Church of Antioch discussed the matter of the consecration. The bishops refused. None of them went to Damascus, apart from Neophytus, the bishop of Saydnaya. The Damascenes summoned Basil Finan from Dayr al-Mukhallis. Upon his arrival, he consecrated, along with Neophytus, the priest Euthymius Fadel as bishop of Furzul so that there could be three bishops to consecrate the patriarch. There is no hiding the departure from holy tradition in this act. The episcopacy of Basil was fundamentally uncanonical due to the interference of the Emir Haydar in it [about which, see here], his pressuring and forcibly summoning Metropolitan Neophytus of Beirut, and the participation of a Maronite bishop and an Armenian bishop in the consecration. It is also an obvious violation of the traditions that Neophytus of Saydnaya and Basilius of Dayr al-Mukhallis proceeded to consecrate a third bishop unilaterally. The consecration of Ignatius of Tyre and Sidon cannot be regarded as such a deviation because Patriarch Athanasius had agreed to his consecration with the participation of the two Neophyti. But where is the patriarch who agreed to the consecration of Euthymius for Furzul?

Euthymius was consecrated on September 14 as bishop of Furzul. On the twentieth of the same month, the three bishops consecrated the priest Seraphim as bishop with the name Cyril, then installed him as patriarch. Rome did not reject him on account of this deviation and departure from the holy apostolic canons and Pope Benedict XII issued an apostolic berat on March 15, 1729 in which he confirmed Cyril Tanas as patriarch of Antioch, sending him a pallium after having placed it on the relics of Saint Peter as a symbol of deriving authority from him.

Cyril Tanas laid claim to the patriarchal center in Damascus and was seated on the throne of the cathedral, "lifting up verses of thanksgiving to God for this. It was then heard for the first time 'I believe that the Roman Supreme Pontif is the vicar of Christ the Lord and head of the entire Church and I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.'" [This quotation is from a Capuchin friar writing from Damascus at that time]. In the history of Mikhail Breik, it says "then they declared the five things [which distinguish Catholicism from Orthodoxy], the Franks entered the church, the community of the Rum was humiliated, debates proliferated, the strife intensified, injustices and loss proliferated, and a group of Muslim servants of the ruler entered the sanctuary with smoking torches while the patriarch was performing the liturgy and they talked with him..."

Cyril consecrated the priest Methodius al-Halabi as bishop for the patriarchal cell and entrusted him with management of the diocese of Damascus for his help in the affair.

Hasan Çolak: When a Catholic is invested as the Orthodox patriarch of Antioch (Open-Access)

Hasan Çolak, "When a Catholic is invested as the Orthodox patriarch of Antioch: Serafeim/Kyrillos Tanas and the Ottoman central administration in 1745," Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 20 (2023): 29-55.

Abstract:

While a lot has been written on the earlier phases of the Antiochian Schism of 1724, the rivalry between Serafeim/Kyrillos Tanas and Silvestros in the 1740s is mostly noted in passing. This article introduces the unpublished and often-ignored Ottoman documents relating to Kyrillos’ brief tenure, most notably his berat of investiture preserved in the Ottoman Archives. The article has three major purposes: First, it establishes a solid chronological context, which adds a more global nature to this episode. Second, by contextualizing the episode with special focus on the Ottoman dynamics, it searches for the major reasons for Kyrillos’ appointment by the Ottoman administration through a discussion of his discourse presenting himself as a reliable partner with the Porte. Third, it analyzes Kyrillos’ unpublished berat in comparison with the earlier and later berats and a contemporary French translation preserved in the Archives nationales in Paris.

 

Read and download the entire article here.

Dom C.L. Spiessens: Apostolic Succession in the Patriarchate of Antioch (III)

Part I

Part II

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. 419-434).

3. The Maronite Patriarchate

The Maronites take their name from the monastic community that formed around the tomb of Saint Maron, a Syrian hermit of the 4^th century.[1] This monastery was located between Homs and Hama, on the right bank of the Orontes.

Anastasius II, “Melkite” patriarch of Antioch, was murdered during a Jewish revolt in 609. He was the last Chalcedonian patriarch resident in the capital of Oriens before the Persian then Arab invasions. Thus from 609 until 743 (Stephen III), no Melkite patriarch would reside in Antioch. When Heraclius had the Monothelete Macedonian appointed in 639,[2] he resided in Constantinople, like his five immediate successors.

But there is no doubt that a number of Christians of the Patriarchate of Antioch remained faithful to Chalcedon. If we are to believe the Maronite historians, the faithful gathered around the monks of the Monastery of Mar Maron, were of this number. That a bishop was resident in this monastery is not impossible; it’s even quite probable. But that it was this bishop who, as patriarch of Antioch, continued the apostolic succession in Antioch in all faithfulness to the faith of Chalcedon down to our own day without interruption is something difficult to show on the historical level.

Around 636 there took place in Mabbug the famous discussion between the Emperor Heraclius, the Jacobite Patriarch Athanasius Gammolo and eleven bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch. The discussions, which were intended to reach unity between the different communities, did not have positive results. But among the participants of these discussions there was a delegation of monks from Mar Maron who pronounced against Monophysitism and in favor of the imperial theology at that time, Monotheletism. They accepted the Ekthesis and adhered to the doctrine that it expressed.

One hundred years later, when the “Melkites” had regained their footing in Antioch, we find these same monks of Mar Maron debating in Aleppo with followers of Saint Maximus the Confessor (726), then persecuted in their monastery and in the city of Mabbug by the “Melkite” Patriarch Theophylactus bar Qanbara (745-768?).[3]

It would be truly astonishing if they were persecuted by a Chalcedonian patriarch (since Byzantium had once more become Chalcedonian) if they themselves had been partisans of this council. Fifty years later, during the persecution of Christians under al-Ma’mun (814), Maronites fled to Cyprus and Lebanon.

With regard to doctrine, everyone apart from the Maronites is in agreement that the “Maronites”—monks of Dayr Mar Maron—were originally Monotheletes. The faithful gathered around them necessarily also were. The testimony of William of Tyre[4] cannot be rejected: in 1182, the Maronite Patriarch Peter renounced the Monothelete heresy to which his church had consciously or unconsciously adhered and united with the Church of Rome. The Maronites of Cyprus, however, did not adhere to the Roman faith until three centuries later, in 1445.

With regard to the formation of the Maronite Church as an independent church, it is more difficult to clear the terrain. The Maronites claim that their first patriarch was Saint John Maron, the former bishop of Batroun (Botrys) in Lebanon, who is said to have succeeded the Chalcedonian patriarchs on the See of Peter in Antioch.[5]

These claims are historically untenable. J. B. Chabot, defending the theses of Renaudot, demonstrates this very clearly by analyzing the facts available to us.[6] The figure of John Maron belongs to a legend created in the 15^th century on Cyprus. The works that have been attributed to him are forgeries or works of plagiarism “produced in the 17^th century by Abraham Echellensis.”[7]

The beginnings of the Maronite Church as a church are most likely to be found in that group of Monothelete Christians of Beit Maron who, during the persecutions of al-Ma’mun or his successors, retreated to the mountains of Lebanon where, thanks to the former Mardaite forces, they were able to obtain a certain measure of tranquility and where they were able to organize themselves on the religious and political levels, the latter in any case arising from their religious centralization.

It is surprising to see the political influence that these patriarchs would have over their flock. They are the veritable chiefs of their people. As soon as we see them act – in documents from the era of the Crusades as well as subsequently—they act like the true representatives of an entire Maronite “nation” and this will continue down to the most recent events.

More surprising still, even the bishops of the Maronite community act only as vicars of the patriarch.[8] We think it is possible to affirm that it was instructions from Rome, perhaps unfamiliar with the particular character of the patriarchal jurisdiction of the Maronites, which, in the 18^th century, put an end to that vicarial understanding of the Maronite episcopate. To a dubium[9] submitted to the Propaganda Fide in 1774, asking “If it is licit for the Patriarch to require his brother Bishops to take from him certificates of their faculties when they go to make visits to their dioceses, especially to say that he sends them to visit such dioceses in his name and stead, as though they were his procurators or mercenaries…” The Congregation responded on July 8, 1774: “Bishops are not required to receive from the Patriarch certificates to visit dioceses when this is done by them by ordinary law.”

To another dubium[10] dealing with the patriarch’s power to prevent bishops from exercising their jurisdiction and also dealing with his faculties to judge alone, without a synod, all questions, the Propaganda responds: “It is not licit for the Patriarch to deprive Bishops of their dioceses nor to remove their jurisdiction at all, without consulting the Synod of bishops.”

Starting at that moment, the Maronite patriarch would be subject to the disciplinary laws in force in the universal Church.

Whatever that patriarchal jurisdiction might be, the “Maronite nation”, wherever it may be, only knows one leader: the patriarch of the nation. It is indeed a nation, having become more and more independent out of opposition to the Jacobite and Chalcedonian Churches and the Muslim oppressor, acting as such and giving itself as such a “Patriarchate of Antioch”. Of Antioch solely because that was the manner in which the patriarch styled himself, without anyone seeing clearly—before the 15^th century—what this implied in terms of the succession of Peter in Antioch.

In 1121 we see a certain “Mar Petrus, patriarch of the Maronites”.[11] In 1141, another who signs his name “I, Peter, patriarch of the Maronites, by my name Jacob”.[12] It is only a century later that the patriarchs of the Maronites started to style themselves “patriarchs of Antioch” under the influence, we believe, of the Latin patriarchs. It is beginning in this period that the idea of the Maronites having their own succession from Saint Peter took root.

The fact that all the known Maronite patriarchs are also called Peter does not convince us of the contrary. When the Church of Persia formed as an independent church, the Councils of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (410 and 424) decided in a parallel manner that the patriarch that they gave themselves “is for us Peter, leader of our ecclesiastical assembly.”[13] There as well the bishops had a jurisdiction delegated by the metropolitans or the patriarch: “The gift of the priesthood has been granted to all the apostles, but sole principality—that is, spiritual fatherhood—has not been given to all; for one sole true God, there is also only one sole faithful steward, who is the chief, the director and the procurator of his brothers.”

This sentiment of total dependence on the patriarch can be understood even better among the Maronites if we take into account the monastic origins of that church.

Whatever the case may be, nothing permits us to connect the Maronite patriarchs to the line of patriarchs of Antioch properly speaking. It is among the Chalcedonians that this line would continue. The Maronite patriarchs are leaders, “patriarchs” of a church that had become independent as a result of its expulsion from its territory of origin. Little by little, under the influence of the Latin patriarchs of the Crusaders, there appeared the conviction that they were “patriarchs of Antioch”. But absolutely nothing connects them to the true Chalcedonian patriarchs of Antioch apart from the faith, recovered in its purity thanks to the Crusaders, and the episcopal consecration which makes them brothers in the same sacramental order.

Moreover, in 1636 Rome had to decide on the question at the moment of the consecration of Patriarch George Umayrah: “Whether he should be named ‘of Antioch’ as he was elected and others of his predecessors were accustomed to being called, and it pleases the Fathers that he be named ‘Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites’ because the Patriarch of the Maronites is a national leader, like the two other Patriarchs of Antioch in Asia of the nations of the Nestorians (!) and the Jacobites who, having fallen into heresy, had separated themselves from the Holy Roman Church, while the general one, as he claims to be, is the patriarch of the Greeks, who resides in Damascus, where after the destruction of Antioch the patriarchal see of Antioch is said to have moved.”[14]

Despite the mistakes of every sort, the text is clear and it completely reinforces our conclusions.

The current Maronite patriarch is His Beatitude Mgr Paul-Peter Méouchi, appointed by Rome in 1955.

Since this Roman document prompts us to it, let us turn now to the Greek patriarchate.

 

4. The Melkite Catholic Patriarchate

Following chronological order, we have arrived at the Byzantine-rite patriarchates, the Melkite patriarchates, Orthodox and Catholic.

Since we are only attempting to study the patriarchal elections insomuch as they risk falsifying the true succession of Peter in Antioch, it is not necessary to review the election of each of the Greek patriarchs, since there is nothing that would permit us to doubt that the succession was regular up until the division in two that we shall now discuss.

 Neither is it necessary to insist at length on all the attempts at union which, especially starting in the second half of the 16^th century, had been made in Syria. It is through the activities of the Latin missionaries (Capuchins, Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites) and through those of Byzantine Rite priests, often former students of the Roman colleges, that this activity would take place.

Cyril V had ascended, for the second time, to the patriarchal throne of Antioch around 1682, this time legitimately. But, from the beginning, the patriarch found himself in difficulties on account of opposition from the hieromonk Procopius Dabbas who, assisted by the relations he had with the Sublime Porte, and likewise encouraged by the Franciscans of Damascus, had himself proclaimed patriarch under the name Athanasius III. He was consecrated by three bishops and installed on July 5, 1685. The Franciscans of Damascus worked to have him recognized by Rome, which was done by a decree from the Propaganda Fide on June 16, 1687. Despite the illegitimacy of his accession to the patriarchal throne, Rome thus confirmed Athanasius III. But, in 1694, Athanasius III submitted to Cyril V, pressed as he was by financial debts that he could not escape on his own. Pope Innocent XII did not want to hear of a resignation and incited Athanasius Dabbas to continue his opposition to Cyril V, misled by God knows what reports. Moreover, things would soon get even worse, as in 1716 Cyril V himself sent his profession of Catholic faith to Rome, through Seraphim Tanas, a student of the College of the Propaganda in Rome. It was quite an embarrassment in Rome to have these two “patriarchs”, both Catholics.

After many hesitations, the Propaganda tried, in 1718, to convince Athanasius III to renounce his “rights”, but this time it was Athanasius who would hear none of it. Pushed to the limit, the Congregation of the Propaganda wound up recognizing, by a decree of May 9, 1718, Cyril V as the sole legitimate patriarch of Antioch. This was, in effect, the only possible legitimate solution. One wonders in vain why Rome acted so differently in these two situations.

On January 16, 1720, Cyril V died and, this time legitimately, Athanasius III Dabbas succeeded him, appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias III, after an election by the Synodos endimousa.

Athanasius III, who at first had called himself Catholic, signed in 1722 the encyclical of the non-Catholic eastern patriarchs against Catholic claims to purity of faith. Thus Athanasius spent his entire life in total equivocation. He died on July 24, 1724 in Aleppo, having made at the hands of the ablegate Gabriel Eva a Catholic profession of faith and submission to the decisions of the Council of Florence: “He answered me sincerely,” wrote Eva, “that this (the faith of the Holy Council of Florence) had always been and shall be my faith… Hearing such a promise from him, I gave him absolution for all the excommunications, censures and interdicts into which he had fallen…”[15]

At his death, the Catholics of the Byzantine Rite decided that the moment had come to hit hard and provide the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch with a titulary proven in the Catholic faith. There were already a good number of Catholics among the faithful of the patriarchate, they even had Catholic priests and had had some Catholic bishops. But the Catholic population was nevertheless the minority. To wait for the meeting of the Holy Synod which, necessarily, had to meet under the presidency of the metropolitan of Tyre, Ignatius Beiruti, seemed dangerous to them, since the Catholicizing tendencies of that bishop were anything but promising. It was nevertheless the only possible way to arrive at a canonical election within the patriarchate itself. With the other possibility—referring the election to the Synodos endemousa of Constantinople—one was sure of winding up with the nomination of an Orthodox candidate.

The group of Damascene faithful of the Byzantine Rite and Catholic faith (328 persons) proposed as candidate for the patriarchate the priest Seraphim Tanas and addressed a petition to the pasha of Damascus, asing him to obtain a firman from the sultan of Constantinople.[16]

Seraphim Tanas was the nephew of the Melkite Catholic bishop Euthymius Sayfi and was very dedicated, just like his uncle, to the cause of union with the Roman Church. He was thus elected patriarch by that Catholic community of Damascus and enthroned under the name Cyril VI on October 1, 1724.[17]

We only wish to raise the precedent of one similar election. On September 14, 1451 the bishop of Saydnaya, Mark, was elected to the patriarchal see by the community of Damascus alone. He became Patriarch Michael III. But his election was subsequently confirmed by the Holy Synod of the bishops of Antioch, which saved the election’s canonicity. The real canonical election took place here by the Holy Synod’s confirmation of the choice of the people of Damascus.

It went entirely differently in the election of Seraphim Tanas. There was no bishop present at the election. There was not even a convocation of the Synod.[18] The ecclesiastical canons, however, were formal: “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 ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan (Canon 4 of Nicaea I). “A bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan of the province...” (Canon 19 of Antioch). “… a bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with the judgment of the bishops...” (Canon 23 of Antioch). The law of the eastern churches was very clear on this point. The election of Cyril is thus null and illegitimate.

But there was more. Seraphim Tanas was only a simple priest at the moment of his election. He had to be consecrated and this consecration would further aggravate his case. An appeal was made to the bishops, who refused to consecrate him just as they had refused to recognize him. Only one showed up in Damascus, the bishop of Saydnaya, Neophytus Nasri. The Damascenes also had Basil Finan, a monk of Holy Savior who was considered by the monks to be bishop of the monastery, come. Basil Finan assisted Neophytus Nasri in consecrating the priest Euthymius Fadl as bishop of Fourzol. Thus they had three bishops ready to confer episcopal consecration and to enthrone Seraphim Tanas as “patriarch of the Greeks” under the name Cyril VI: Neophytus Nasri, Basil Finan and Euthymius Fadl.

In fact, the episcopacy of Basil Finan was anti-canonical. He had been consecrated as a bishop (February 2, 1724) under pressure exercised by the Emir Haydar on Metropolitan Neophytus of Beirut (whom he had brought by force) and the latter was obliged to consecrate Basil Finan without the consent of Patriarch Athanasius III and the Holy Synod. As co-consecrators, they gave him the Maronite archbishop of Acre and the Armenian archbishop of Aleppo, Abraham.[19]

The consecration of Euthymius Fadl (September 14, 1724) was equally anti-canonical because it was done contrary to all the canons that have already been cited, which require the presence of at least three bishops and the consent of the patriarch (or metropolitan), as well as that of the bishops of the Synod. It was also anti-canonical because it was done without the permission of the bishop of the place where the consecration took place: “No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any... the things done by him are null” (Canon 13 of Antioch). “If any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop” (Canon 6 of the First Council of Nicaea).

Is irregularity of the consecration, together with the irregularity of the election, such that it renders one or the other null and void? Or both? Broaching this question is the responsibility of theologians and not of a historian. We shall leave to them the task of doing it.

Had Rome judged that it would be more prudent to obtain official recognition of Cyril VI from the Sublime Porte before sending him its own confirmation? It remains the case that it requested the berat of investiture in Constantinople without the new patriarch being able to claim his titles or to enjoy the rights that they conferred upon him. The Sublime Porte turned a deaf ear. Rome insisted and had important and influential figures intervene. Constantinople continued to refuse. What is more, it recalled the wali of Damascus who had obtained a firman in favor of Cyril VI. Constantinople’s candidate had, in contrast, immediately obtained the requested berat and-- O irony of fate!--  this gave him, among other rights, that of cracking down and referring to the secular authorities all those who opposed his free exercise of his rights and prerogatives. In these circumstances, Cyril VI had no recourse but to leave Damascus. He did this in 1725 and took refuge in Lebanon, where the very Catholic mountains always provided a sure shelter for those Catholic leaders who were fleeing persecutions.

To what should this reticence on the part of the Sublime Porte be attributed, when in other circumstances it had shown itself to be prodigious with berats, sometimes granting them to two or three different rival candidates? It is difficult to say. One could suppose, however, that tsarist Russia, which had assumed the protectorate, throughout the whole territory of the Ottoman Empire, of the Greek Orthodox and which was all-powerful in Constantinople, could not willingly accept that a Greek patriarchate united with Rome stand up against the Orthodox patriarchate that practically depended on it and all the more so to see it oust and supplant the latter.

The unfortunate Cyril VI does not seem to have enjoyed much favor with the Holy See. If Rome requested his confirmation from the Sublime Porte at the time of his election, it took more than five years to grant its own. It was in fact only on April 25, 1730, at the Melkite Catholic synod held at the Monastery of the Holy Savior, that Cyril VI was proclaimed legitimate patriarch of Antioch by the mouth of the Capuchin Dositheus of the Holy Trinity, mandated by Pope Benedict XIII. The very rev. Father Dositheus read the decree from the Holy Congregation de Propaganda Fide which said, “Nihil obstare validae et licitae consecrationi Cyrilli in patriarchem antiochenem Graecorum.” “Nothing prevents the licit and valid consecration of Cyril as patriarch of Antioch for the Greeks.”[20]

This text leaves us a bit bleary. If we consider that, in ecclesiastical terminology, taking possession of an episcopal see is called “enthronement”, we cannot at all understand its use by Rome in the above decree of the words “valid and licit consecration.” The formulation gives the impression that Rome still doubts the validity of the previous consecration given to Cyril in the circumstances that we have described and authorizes a new consecration which, this time, would be valid. If our interpretation is exact, we wonder when this new consecration had been given to Cyril VI. We have not found any document that informs us on this point. It is probable that, before being enthroned, Cyril VI received episcopal consecration “in the greatest intimacy”.

One would have expected that, having given her accord, Rome would have confirmed it by sending the pallium. It did so, of course, but only after much delay. The unfortunate patriarch had to wait fourteen long years before receiving this official confirmation of his patriarchal dignity. It was, in fact, only on February 3, 1774 that the pallium was sent to him, but beforehand the patriarch had to give his promise to eliminate from his rite all the foreign infiltrations that had been adopted by different Greek Melkite bishops and notably by Euthymius Sayfi.

Cyril VI Tanas begins the line of Melkite Catholic patriarchs, which continues today in the person of His Beatitude Mgr Maximus VI Sayegh.

 

5. The Orthodox Melkite Patriarchate

We have already recounted above how, at the death of Athanasius III Dabbas, they proceeded in Damascus to the election of Cyril VI Tanas, first of the Melkite Catholic line of patriarchs. But at the same time, the Holy Synod of Orthodox bishops (apart from Neophytus Nasri), who were in Aleppo, where Athanasius III had convoked them before his death, had written to the Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremias III, to ask him to nominate for Antioch Sylvester, a monk of Mount Athos.[21]

This same Athanasius had, at the same time, asked the bishops of Antioch to give him as successor this monk Sylvester, who had been his protosyncellus. This proves once more the “Catholic” sentiments of Athanasius III.

Patriarch Jeremias III and the bishops of the Synodos endemousa had already named as Athanasius III’s successor the metropolitan of Damascus, Joachim, but when in Constantinople they learned of the desire of the late patriarch and of the Synod of bishops of Antioch, the nomination of Joachim of Damascus was annulled and they asked that Sylvester be sent from Mount Athos. He was consecrated as patriarch of Antioch on September 24, 1724.[22] They obtained for him the berat from the Sublime Porte, as well as the order for the expulsion of Cyril VI.

This intervention by the Synodos endemousa was in no way an innovation, as we have already pointed out. It would take too long and be useless for the study that we have undertaken to point out all the interventions by Constantinople in the affairs of Antioch through the intermediary of the Synodos endemousa.

It is enough for us to say that, canonically, there was nothing irregular about Sylvester’s election by this Synodos. These interventions would continue in Antioch until after the election of Hierotheus I (1850-1885). At that time they were put to an end, thanks especially to the Russian influence on the Arab party of the patriarchate.

In our opinion, then, the Patriarch Sylvester continued the true line of Chalcedonian patriarchs from before and after the Severian schism, a line that was continued by both Greek and Syrian elements, whether at Constantinople or in Antioch.

It is through him that Petrine succession continues down to our own day in the person of His Beatitude Theodosius VI Abourjeili. Even after Sylvester, the succession went through many vicissitudes. We have studied the principle ones. The canonicity of the elections has always nevertheless been preserved.

 

Conclusion

We have presented, as we proposed, an account of the historical facts and the dogmatic or canonical reasons that have caused there to be, even today, five patriarchs each claiming to be the true holder of the patriarchal see of Antioch. For us, it is clear, as our readers may have been convinced themselves, that only the Melkite Orthodox patriarch can justify his claim to the succession of Saint Peter on this see.

One might perhaps accuse us of severity; one might accuse us of using two weights and two measures; one might find that we have been too intransigent towards the patriarchate of Severus of Antioch and not sufficiently so when it comes to the patriarchate of Sylvester. Severus’ error in his definition of a single nature in Christ was merely, in the opinion of all modern theologians, a purely verbal error, it being possible to consider this definition to be more or less in line with that which was given by the Council of Chalcedon, while the doctrine professed by the Greek Orthodox patriarchs is, on certain points of dogma, in opposition to that of the Catholic Church. If then, despite these oppositions, we consider His Beatitude Theodosius VI Abourjeili as continuing the succession of Peter, we should all the more so consider Severus of Antioch as successor of Peter, even after his schism.

Certainly, the argument would be of value if one only had to consider doctrine in patriarchal succession. But we have not forgotten that Severus of Antioch had been canonically deposed, a deposition that put an end to his apostolic succession, while none of the Greek Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, whose successors are Sylvester and Theodosius VI, were the object of an excommunication or a deposition.

Whatever the case may be, we have done the work of a historian and not of a theologian. If we have given our personal opinion, we believe that it is justified by History. The reader, and particularly the theologian, will deduce from the facts that we have presented the conclusions that they believe ensue from them.

 

C. L. Spiessens, o.s.b.

---

[1] Theodoret, Historia Religiosa, p. lxxxxx, 1418.

[2] Chronicle of Eutychius, CSO, vol. 2, p. 13.

[3] Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, ed. Chabot, vol. 2, pp. 492-496.

[4] William of Tyre, History, XVII, 8.

[5] See P. Dib, “Maronites” in Dictionnaire de théologie Catholique, vol. 10, col. 1ff.

[6] J. B. Chabot, “Les origines de la légende de Saint Jean Maron,” Mémoires de l’Institut National de France (1951), pp. 1-19.

[7] Chabot, op. cit., p. 19.

[8] See the bold article of M. Clément, “La collegialité de l’épiscopat dans l’Eglise maronite” in Episcopat et l’Eglise universelle, Unam Sanctam, 39.

[9] Dubium 14, Congregatio de Propagande Fide 8-7-1774.

[10] Dubium 15, ibid.

[11] Ms Vatican Syriac 18.

[12] Ibid. For a study of the documents of this period, see J. B. Chabot, “Les listes patriarcales de l’Eglise maronite,” Mémoires de l’Institut National de France (1951), pp. 21-43.

[13] Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, 289-294.

[14] Decree of the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, 28-1-1636.

[15] Mansi, XLVI, 158.

[16] According to Constantin Bacha, in his History of the Melkite Patriarchate, II, pp. 74-81, the document is found in the archives of the Congragation de Propaganda Fide.

[17] See the narrative of the events by the very rev. Father Dositheus, Custodian of the Capuchins of Damascus, in his letter of January 29, 1725 to the Congragation de Propaganda Fide, Mansi XLVI, 165-168.

[18] See the letter of Ambroise de Rennes to the Roman Procuror of the Capuchins, Mansi 160.

[19] See the act in Mansi, XXXVII, 219-226.

[20] Cyrille VI Tanas.

[21] On Sylvester, see: Cl. Karnapas, “The Patriarch of Antioch, Sylvester the Cypriot” (in Greek), Nea Sion (1905), pp. 197-199; P. Bacel, “La persécution de Sylvestre,” Echos d’Orient 7 (1904), pp. 160-161; and C. Bacha in his History of the Melkite Patriarchate, loc. cit.

[22] The acts concerning the election by the Synodos endemousa are in archim. Delikanis, Patriarchal Decrees, 1905, III, p. 185; and also in Phil. Vapheidis, History of the Church (in Greek), II, pp. 270-272.