Jad Ganem: Politicizing the Faith

 Arabic original here.

 

 Politicizing the Faith

An interview that Metropolitan Elpidophoros recently gave to a Greek newspaper demonstrates a striking paradox in church discourse when it comes to the relationship between the Church and politics. On the one hand, the metropolitan sharply criticizes the Russian Church, regarding it as employing Orthodoxy in the service of state interests and stating that the churches ties to "non-democratic organizations" harms Christianity in the long term. The paradox arises, however, when the discussion turns to his own role and the relationship between his archdiocese and the Greek government, since he explicitly states that his institutional duty is "serving Greece and national interests."

This discrepancy in standards raises a whole set of essential questions about the concept of "politicizing the faith" and who has the right to define the boundary between what belongs to the Church and what belongs to the nation. If using the faith to serve Russian politics is to be condemned, then how can "serving the national interests of Greece" be an institutional duty? Here lies a critical point: this discourse rejects employing religion for politics when others do it, but it excuses it when it comes from within the Greek-Constantinopolitan system.

The contradiction can be highlighted with three chief observations:

1) The metropolitan describes Russian influence in Syria as a "tutelage" that exploited Orthodoxy as a cover for a Russian nationalist agenda. This is a political characterization par excellence, which assumes that the role of the Church is to be completely apart from the state, even when the state is providing momentary protection. However, in contrast, when he is asked about his own role with regard to the Greek government, he emphasizes that it is his institutional duty to serve Greece "regardless of which government is in power."

2) The metropolitan repeatedly refers to "national interests" by characterizing them as the point of reference for his ecclesiastical activity in the United States. Within this context, he justifies any contact with the White House or interference in bilateral relations as a national duty. This statement shows that in his view, the Church is not only a religious institution, but part of the Greek state apparatus abroad, reproducing exactly what he criticizes when it comes to the Russian Church.

3) When asked about the baptism of children from a same-sex family, the metropolitan talks about "a distortion of the message of the Gospel," by classifying baptisms as "gay" or "straight." This admission gives the impression that the standard is not theological so much as it is tied to the social and political context, raising further questions about the extent to which his pastoral decisions are independent.

The metropolitan also talks about "a network of centers and paracenters" in Greece and America that is working to distort his image, stating that part of the media campaign against him is tied to internal political conflicts in Greece, which once again drives home the point that his ecclesiastical position now strongly intersects with national policies, despite his sharp criticism of such a phenomenon in the Russian context.

On this basis, the picture of a double discourse comes together: from one side, affirmation of the purity of the faith and its separation from authoritarian organizations, while from the other side an obvious integration of the role of the Church into Greek national identity. This problem is not only personal. Rather, it expresses the historical tension within the Patriarchate of Constantinople between its global spiritual identity and its nationalist role within the Greek diaspora. When condemnatory language is deployed against others' political use of Orthodoxy, while at the same time there is a demand for the bishop to serve "Greek national interests," the question naturally becomes: Is the problem a matter of principle, or is it an issue of who is acting on this principle?

This discourse reveals that the greatest challenge for worldwide Orthodoxy today lies not only in the division between ecclesiastical centers, but also in the ability of each center to transcend narrow ecclesiastical nationalism and to distinguish between what is of the Gospel and what is of nationalism. In a world where everyone uses religion to bolster political influence, there is a pressing need for fixed standards that do not change according to which national flag the speaker happens to be waving.

Jad Ganem: Weeping over the Ruins

Arabic original here.

 

Weeping over the Ruins

The meeting in Iznik, which welcomed the leaders of various churches and Christian groups to commemorate the 1700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea, ended in a symbolic scene amidst the ruins of the imperial palace and the Basilica of Saint Neophytus. The participants gathered to recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which still today defines the boundaries of the Christian faith, in an attempt to rekindle a spiritual spark that has gone out.

Patriarch Bartholomew opened the meeting with a speech in which he emphasized that the gathering is not merely a recognition of the past, but rather "a return to the pure source" that united the early Church and a call to proceed towards "perfection of unity." Pope Leo XIV, for his part, raised a direct theological question: "The 1700^th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea is a precious opportunity to ask ourselves who Jesus Christ is in the lives of men and women today and how we can live out our witness in a broken world," emphasizing that overcoming divisions is necessary for any credible evangelical witness.

Nevertheless, the symbolism of the scene appeared much greater than its results. Compared to previous ecumenical meetings, this meeting was rather weak in terms of its attendance and representiveness and it did not issue any joint statement that would indicate that real breakthrough has been made.

On a practical level, the most prominent disappointment was the lack of any progress on the issue of having a single date for celebrating Easter, the very issue where the late Pope Francis had hoped to see a historic step taken on this occasion. The project, however, remained suspended and the commemoration of Nicaea did not bear the fruit that was expected of it.

On the Orthodox side, the picture of crisis was most evident: the Patriarch of Constantinople, flanked only by the Patriarch of Alexandria and representatives of Antioch and Jerusalem, while the other Orthodox churches had not even been invited at all. This picture can be summarized with a single word: division.

This picture confirmed a fact that is already well-known: Orthodoxy is fragmented and Constantinople is incapable of bringing the churches together around the same table, despite efforts to revive the "Pentarchy" as a substitute for an absent Orthodox conciliarity. However, despite the efforts to dust off the Pentarchy, it remains an artifact of a bygone period of history and is worthless for administering a vast, scattered and diverse Orthodox world.

The lesson that imposes itself--and not only on Constantinople, but on all the Orthodox churches--is that any effort toward Christian unity starts with the unity of the Orthodox themselves and that talk of ecumenism in light of this rupture will only amount to a nice photo-op without any content.

The deeper lesson, however, is that to flee from Orthodox unity to the glory of the Pentarchy is to flee from the future to the past. The future is not made on the thrones of the past, but among the people of God scattered throughout the world and torn between nationalities and the diaspora, which the churches are unable to pastor as they should on account of their internal conflicts and power struggles.

Thus, there emerge questions that cannot be ignored:

Would it not have been better to invite all the Orthodox churches to Iznik?

Should the priority not have been to resolve the differences between the Orthodox before appearing to the world as a divided church?

Would it not have been wiser for the churches of the Pentarchy not to succumb to Constantinople's desire to present a flimsy and unrealistic image of Orthodoxy?

Would it not have been better for the Orthodox to practice Nicene conciliarity... instead of commemorating it in its absence, as it itself has been transformed into ruins?

The image of Iznik 1700 is not a celebration, but a mirror.

A mirror reflecting a church that weeps over the ruins of an empire that has turned to dust, singing of a conciliarity that has also become a ruin that only exists in her imagination, instead of building unity that reconciles the past and the future.

There remains a final question, not before the ruins of palaces but before Christ Himself:

When will the Orthodox realize that they are not the church of the empire, but the Church of Christ? And when will they leave the ruins to go and forge the future? 

 

Jad Ganem: Diversity in Disintegration

Arabic original here.

 

 Diversity in Disintegration

1700 years after the Council of Nicaea, the Christian world returns to celebrate the event that established unity and purity of faith. The cruel irony is that this celebration, which is being held at the ruins of that very place that witnessed the First Ecumenical Council, comes as the Orthodox Church is experiencing one of the worst moments of disintegration and division in centuries. In this context, Pope Leo XIV makes a bold appeal, stating that "what unites us is much greater than what divides us" and calling for a path of reconciliation based on the Nicene Creed, which united the early Church.

The Orthodox reality, however, stands in stark contrast to this appeal. The divisions between Constantinople and Moscow are hardening into a theological-political struggle that drags the local Orthodox churches in its wake: churches break communion, others respond with opposing decisions, and yet others are left bewildered in a gray zone. Instead of "unity in diversity," Orthodoxy experiences diversity in disintegration.

The irony is that another chapter of division was opened with the contested recognition of the so-called "Orthodox Church of Ukraine," contrary to the spirit and decisions of Nicaea, while the Ukrainian Orthodox Church itself remains under legal and physical persecution in its homeland.

The Pope says that the Creed is the "bond of unity" and that dialogue is the only path to reconciliation. The Orthodox today, however, are incapable of even sitting down at the same table. Dialogue has been cut off, meetings have ceased, conciliarity has broken down--and indeed, has been rejected by some--and patriarchates have divided into opposing camps.

Pope Leo calls to "leave behind theological controversies that have lost their raison d’être" while the Orthodox world is still immersed in centuries-old debates about primacy, jurisdiction and prerogatives and is attempting to revive an outmoded "Pentarchy" or privileges that go back to the days of emperors and sultans.... as though Nicaea had never been held. 

Instead of a call for unity, as Pope Leo said, the blood of the martyrs that has been shed over the centuries across the Orthodox world has become fuel for stoking greater division. In Ukraine, brothers are killing each other and the killing is dressed up as sanctity. The largest Orthodox church is subject to accelerating persecution, while many churches keep silent and others act to legitimize the new situation, ignoring the open wound. 

Ukraine has become the place that patriarchates use to settle historical scores in the name of the faith, at the expense of the blood and tears of the faithful. 

The Pope recognizes that unity is "a long and arduous path" that starts with repentance, listening and mutual confession. The tragedy, however, is that Orthodoxy today does not have even the slightest desire to listen, nor the ability to see the other apart from geographical and political considerations. 

Nicaea, which united the Church, today reveals Orthodoxy's fragility and division.

Nicaea is not a celebration, but a judgment.

Nicaea is a prophetic question:

How can you celebrate the unity of the fourth century while you experience the splintering of the twenty-first century?

How can you lift high the Creed when you tear down its spirit?

How can you invoke the memory of the Fathers while you destroy what they built?

The 1700th anniversary of Nicaea is not a feast, but a warning.

It is not a commemoration: it is a judgment.

Do you want Nicaea to unite you, or do you want to bury your unity under its ruins? 

Jad Ganem: The Tragedy of Contemporary Orthodoxy

 Arabic original here.

 

The Tragedy of Contemporary Orthodoxy

In the spring 1992, a few months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Patriarch Bartholomew invited the patriarchs and heads of autocephalous churches to a historic meeting at the patriarchal headquarters at the Phanar in Istanbul.

At that time, the Orthodox world was facing a major period of transformation: countries were leaving communist captivity for freedom, churches were being revived after decades of repression, and divisions started to come to the surface again after decades of having been frozen by the previous political regime.

At that meeting, which was held on the occasion of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the participants expressed their shared consciousness of the magnitude of the challenges that the Church was facing in the post-communist era.

In their closing statement, they declared that "The Holy Orthodox Church throughout the world, since she abides in the world and is inevitably affected by the changes that take place there, today finds herself confronted with serious and urgent problems that she wishes to treat as a single body."

That key phrase amounted to a declaration of intent to restore the Orthodox conciliarity that brought the local churches together in unity of faith and canons on the basis of the words of the Apostle Paul: "If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it" (1 Corinthians 12:26).

At that time, Constantinople was not behaving as a "ruling church" with special privileges, but as a "servant of unity," working to coordinate the Orthodox body in the face of the divisions that had begun to emergy, especially with the appearance of the so-called "Kyiv Patriarchate" established by Filaret Denysenko after he failed to attain the position of patriarch of Moscow.

Those gathered at that meeting called for spiritual and canonical unity, stating that schism is no less dangerous than heresy and that "even the blood of martyrdom does not erase the sin of schism," in the words of Saint John Chrysostom.

At the start of the third millennium, Patriarch Bartholomew renewed his initiative and invited the patriarchs of the churches to another gathering of a comprehensive ecclesiastical and humanitarian character. The heads of the churches met in Bethlehem where they celebrated the Nativity service according to the Julian Calendar at the Church of the Nativity with the participation of the heads of Orthodox countries, and released a joint message entitled "The Incarnation and Nativity of Jesus Christ: A Guarantee of the Sanctification of History and the World."

That meeting was a continuation of the spirit of conciliarity that brought the Orthodox churches together in a single worldview, in which Orthodoxy offered a message of salvation to the modern era instead of being closed in on itself.

On December 26, 2000 this path was completed with a festal liturgy at the ancient cathedral of Haghia Sophia in Nicaea, where a document "to the Church and the world" was signed. It resembled a global Orthodox declaration that affirmed the unity of faith and diversity of churches at a moment when Orthodoxy appeared as a single cohesive body, despite internal disagreements.

Now that a quarter-century has passed since Nicaea 2000, Patriarch Bartholomew is once again making invitations to a new celebration on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD).

However, what was supposed to have been a general celebration of Orthodox unity has turned into a limited celebration to which only the patriarchs of the Pentarchy (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) were invited, with the attendance of Pope Leo XIV, representing the See of Rome, indicating the Pentarchy of patriarchs that preceded the Great Schism, based on a new classification by which Constantinople considers the local churches that obtained their autocephaly in recent decades to be canonically subject to its authority.

This change in the nature of the invitation reflects a dramatic retreat from the ecclesiastical vision that governed the previous meetings. After having previously invited all the autocephalous churches to dialogue and participation, today Constantinople limits the meeting to a narrow, symbolic group going back to a time prior to the establishment of the modern autocephalous churches which  constitute the numerical majority of Orthodox in the world.

Limiting the invitation to the patriarchs of the Pentarchy can only be read as a sign of the decline of Orthodox conciliarity, the disappearance of channels of dialogue between the Orthodox churches, and an increase in the nationalistic and political character of the local churches' identities.

In this sense, Nicaea 2025 is not an extension of Nicaea 2000, but rather a break with it, since it expresses contemporary Orthodoxy's inability to come together around a single table, transforming the meeting into a symbol of division, not of unity.

In 1992, the idea of the Orthodox Church as a body capable of suffering and recovering together was born at the Phanar. In 2025, it seems that Orthodoxy's body is divided, with each member suffering alone. 

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has gone from a theology of unity and conciliarity to a politics of axes and historical symbolism. Instead of being the servant of unity, it has become the instrument of division.

And so, the new meeting at Nicaea comes to embody the tragedy of contemporary Orthodoxy: churches rooted in faith but unable to come together in one body like they did a quarter-century ago. 

At Nicaea 325, the Creed was born.

At Nicaea 2000, the unity of the Orthodox churches was celebrated.

As for Nicaea 2025, a new chapter is being written in the story of lost Orthodox unity.

History will inevitably judge everyone who contributed to and participated in writing this story! 

Jad Ganem: Antioch between Conciliarity and Unilateral Decision-making

 Arabic original here.

 

Antioch between Conciliarity and Unilateral Decision-making

Recent information points to intensive ecclesiastical and diplomatic activity conducted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to prepare for the celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, as a part of which he is attempting to revive the system of the "Pentarchy" as the framework of reference for administering Orthodoxy worldwide in the future, as he himself openly declared during his recent visit to Romania.

Some sources indicate that Patriarch Bartholomew is greatly counting on the patriarch of Antioch's presence by his side during this event and considers his participation to be symbolic support for a revival of the historical 'Pentarchy', which he sees as necessary for putting the affairs of Orthodoxy in order in the immediate future, especially given that the patriarch of Antioch is the only non-Greek patriarch within this framework.

It has been confirmed that the patriarch of Antioch received two official invitations to participate:

The first on September 5, delivered by the metropolitan of Chalcedon during his visit to Balamand, and the second on the 15th of the same month, delivered personally to His Beatitude by the Turkish ambassador.

According to what is stated in Patriarch Bartholomew's recent speech, it seems that Patriarch John accepted the invitation in principle and confirmed his participation in the celebration.

However, it is noteworthy-- and indeed, raises questions--that one of the metropolitans of the See of Antioch was not aware of this invitation and that the Holy Synod of Antioch, which recently met, did not discuss the issue at all.

Apart from any debate about the usefulness or dangers of participating, which is an issue that is supposed to be discussed in a conciliar manner, there remains the deeper problem of decision-making within the Church of Antioch.

According to Paragraph 14 of the Basic Statute of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the synod is responsible for "deciding the nature and extent of the Church of Antioch's relations with the autocephalous Orthodox churches and other religious bodies."

Likewise, Paragraph 22 of the Internal Statute stipulates that the synod is the one who "appoints the committee on ecumenical affairs, whose task is to study issues raised by the sister churches and various religious bodies." 

As for the patriarch, although according to the statute he is "the symbol of the unity of the Antiochian Church and the instrument of her connection to the universal Church," he cannot act alone in these matters, because "Antiochian delegations are formed with the approval of the relevant synodal committees."

This situation brings to mind what Metropolitan Georges Khodr, the historical leader of the ecumenical relations committee, wrote when he clearly stated:

 "If the patriarch acts outside the See of Antioch, he does not speak for himself, but rather expresses the view of the Holy Synod. He does not say, 'This is the position of the Church of Antioch' unless he is armed with a decision of the Holy Synod. He is the synod's spokesman who conveys the mind of his brothers."

 On the basis of this principle, any decision or commitment taken in Antiochian Church's name outside the framework of the synod is deemed to be lacking ecclesiastical legitimacy because the synod is the living conscience of the church and the guarantor of her independence and credibility within the Orthodox family.

 But questions remain legitimate:

Why did he not submit the invitation to the synod that met shortly after he received it?

Why has the committee for ecumenical relations still not been activated?

Why have external relations been reduced to the will of one individual, when even Constantinople--which promotes the theory of "first without equals"--relies on standing committees to discuss issues and makes decisions during the monthly meetings of its synod?

Even more worrying is the silence of the metropolitans about this, their undeclared resignation from their conciliar role, and their surrender to a logic of unilateral decision-making in matters pertaining to the See of Antioch's role and future.

Have sessions of the Holy Synod of Antioch become mere training courses that are organized from time to time? Are they now being convened as a decoration, for image and media-hype rather than for making decisions?

Has the Patriarchate of Antioch been transformed into a system of unilateral management, after having been the model for conciliarity and dialogue?

Antioch's pioneering role in the Orthodox world is not achieved through courtesies of  protocol, but by giving life to the spirit of true conciliarity based on study, consultation and constructive scrutiny, not on the will of a single individual.

Today the Antiochian bishops are called to bear their responsibilities before God and their people and to reactivate conciliarity as the guarantor of the Church's unity and credibility, because if authority is separated from consultation, it loses its meaning and because every authority needs a counterbalance that keeps it from transgressing its natural boundaries.

The question remains open:

Will Antioch go to Nicaea by a unilateral decision that weakens what remains of her deep tradition of conciliarity?

Or will she make her decision on the basis of ecclesiastical conciliarity, in harmony with her history and her role in establishing the principle of consultation among the churches?

Whatever the case may be, the faithful have the right to know, because the Church is not the patriarch or the synod alone. She is the entire people of God, this people that will not be driven like a silent flock, but rather participates in shaping the future of their Church and her witness in this world. 

Jad Ganem: Auxiliary Bishops

 Arabic original here.

 

Auxiliary Bishops

 

The consecration of auxiliary bishops is a noteworthy phenomenon that calls for examination and analysis, especially given its increasing frequency in recent decades, despite the general admission that it is contrary to the foundations of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. A palpable increase of this phenomenon can be observed in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, where consecrations happen almost monthly, responding to repeated requests from the metropolitans of dioceses, particularly in the diaspora.

In the context of Antioch, the Antiochian Orthodox Church has witnessed a radical change in its attitude toward auxiliary bishops, especially since the famous session of the Holy Synod in 2011, when a precedent-setting 12 auxiliary bishops were elected, on the basis of internal agreements tied to ecclesiastical balances within the synod at that time. That meeting of the synod was an inflection point in the church's approach to this issue, since it practically ended the period of historic reservation, clearly expressed by Metropolitan Georges (Khodr) who viewed titular episcopacy as a deviation from the apostolic understanding of episcopacy, characterized as pastoral service tied to a living community.

Since that time, the Church of Antioch has seen a noticeable increase in the number of auxiliary bishops, without this being accompanied by an explanation of the standards governing these consecrations or a precise definition of the roles assigned to these bishops. The door was left open for new norms permitting "auxiliary bishops" to be named outside the framework of elections or traditional conciliarity, where many such bishops are elected by show of hands based simply on nomination by the patriarch.

There are a number of indications that this phenomenon must be approached critically, most prominently:

- The variety of roles and poor job description: auxiliary bishops are assigned various roles, such as assisting metropolitans of dioceses (in Akkar, North America, Mexico, Germany), serving the patriarch in Damascus, representing the church in places such as Rio de Janeiro, as well as serving as abbots of patriarchal monasteries. However, the absence of clear, unified standards for these roles leads to ambiguity in defining the nature and limits of episcopal service.

 - Differences in how vacant sees are treated: experience shows that some bishoprics that have previously been occupied by auxiliary bishops, such as Tartus, Wadi al-Nasara, the Emirates and Brazil, 

 - The symbolic role of the honorary episcopate: in a number of cases, the auxiliary bishops seems to have more of a symbolic or honorary rather than real pastoral role, which weakens the service aspect of the episcopacy and empties it of its apostolic content.

- An administrative an organizational vacuum: the Church of Antioch has still not conducted a transparent, institutional review of the issue of the auxiliary episcopacy that is based on the actual need for it and studies ways to organize it and make its role effective.

It cannot be denied that the Patriarch of Antioch has a real need for episcopal assistance, especially in the Archdiocese of Damascus, given its varying parts and its connection to the patriarchal residence. Nevertheless, this need does not eliminate the need to define it in a clear, thoughtful, scientific and fixed manner, within an ecclesiastical framework that is more cohesive and effective than the formula followed for the titular episcopate up to now. 

 Therefore, there is an urgent need for the Holy Synod of Antioch to call for a bold, comprehensive review of this phenomenon, which requires a modern ecclesiastical approach based on abandoning the institution of auxiliary bishops in its current form, turning them into metropolitans dependent on specific metropolia, created on the basis of a precise study of the real pastoral needs and incorporating them into metropolitan synods, with the aim of having them effectively participate in the church's decision-making.

According to sound Orthodox theology, it is not permissible for a bishop not to be a member of a synod and it is not right for him to be treated as a bishop subject to another bishop, since this is contrary to the deeply-rooted ecclesiastical principle that "the episcopacy is one."

Jad Ganem: The Feast of Martyrdom

 

Arabic original here.

 

 

The Feast of Martyrdom

 

The Feast of Saint Joseph of Damascus and his companions comes this year at a moment fraught with pain and hope, as the memory of martyrdom and confession of the faith is renewed in the heart of Damascus, a city that still breathes faith despite its wounds. On June 22, 2025, while the faithful were celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the Church of Mar Elias in Dweilaa, the souls of a number of them were taken up to the face of the Father, their faith crowned with the martyrdom of blood, once more announcing that the Church of Antioch has continued to bear the cross of martyrdom on her shoulders for two thousand year.

In this context, the Feast of Saint Joseph of Damascus, who was martyred in the massacres of 1860, takes on renewed significance. The Church of Antioch, throughout the Middle East, has always been a church of martyrs and confessors. Her soil has been watered with the blood of saints and with the tears and agonies of confessors. Her martyrdoms are not a distant memory, but rather a reality that is repeated, giving life to the Church’s body in every generation. The Orthodox faith came to us in Antioch not through conferences, publications, or lectures, but thanks to thousands of martyrs and confessors who lived out the Gospel to the end.

Today, as Antiochians celebrate Saint Joseph of Damascus and his companions— the location of whose relics the Church does not know, and whose name is still not borne by any church or temple in the diocese of Damascus, despite new churches having been built after the declaration of their sainthood— an urgent appeal is made to the Holy Synod of Antioch not to repeat what has happened with those saints. The martyrs of the Church of Mar Elias in Dweilaa deserve to be inscribed in the Antiochian Synaxarion and to have an annual feast designated for them, on which the Church can start to commemorate their names and seek their intercession. They did not seek martyrdom, but it came to them while they were praying. They became a living offering on the Lord’s altar and they deserve to be honored not only with tears, but also with praise and hope. Moreover, the church in which they were martyred has been sanctified by their blood and it deserves to be consecrated to them and to bear their name as well.

Amidst the grief and the psychological pressure following this heinous crime, it may have escaped the attention of church officials that it is important to designate a common burial site for the martyrs, which will become a site for people to pray and seek blessings, a sign that the Church does not forget her martyrs, but honors their relics just as she honors their souls. Martyrs are not buried like other people who have died and everything that their blood has touched on the territory of the church now deserves to be honored as saints’ relics.

At the current moment, with all its pain and hardship, it is imperative that we do not limit ourselves to the political dimensions of what occurred. Rather, it places before us theological, pastoral and historical responsibilities that the Antiochian Church cannot postpone or ignore. The blood of the martyrs is not only the seed of faith. It is also a call to vigilance, veneration and reorientation by declaring the sainthood of the martyrs of the faith who died throughout the See of Antioch in recent years, whether in the city of Antioch, Mount Lebanon, or Damascus, in order to proclaim that Antioch does not forget her martyrs and she seeks their intercession.

Will the commemoration of June 22, 2025 mark a new page in the Church’s veneration of martyrdom in Antioch? Will the Holy Synod take the initiative to declare a common feast for them? Will the diocese of Damascus take the initiative to consecrate the church in which they were martyred in their name? Perhaps the time has come to recall that martyrdom and apostolicity are two important aspects of holiness in Antioch, no less important than asceticism and monasticism. Just as holiness has flourished in sketes and monasteries, it also continues to flourish in the faces of those who offer their life as an offering of love to Christ and in the martyrdom of those who proclaim the Gospel and bear witness to it with patience and hope amidst suffering and death.

 

 

Jad Ganem- Victims of Terrorism: Has the Time Come for the Church to Recognize their Sainthood?

 Arabic original here.

 

Victims of Terrorism: Has the Time Come for the Church to Recognize their Sainthood?

On Sunday, June 22, 2025, as the Greek Orthodox Church of Mar Elias in Dweilaa, Damascus welcomed its congregation during the evening Divine Liturgy, a terrifying scene interrupted the prayers: a suicide bomber blew himself up inside the church and the criminals accompanying him opened fire on the faithful in the house of God.

The scene is not new to the Christians of Antioch and All the East. This sort of bloodthirsty targeting has become a tragic part of their reality, recurring time and again, and with each recurrence there come canned statements of international condemnation which fail to prevent death, preserve life, or deter aggressors.

But what is more painful than the crime itself is that the martyrs are generally buried amidst official silence, without explicit recognition of their martyrdom by the Church. The churches hesitate, refrain and avoid declaring the sainthood of these martyrs. They avoid describing their martyrdom as it really is: dying for the sake of the faith, being systematically targeted because of their Christian identity, in an atmosphere of rampant religious terrorism.

This hesitancy might be due to fear of further violence, out of a desire to preserve a fragile “coexistence,” or out of complex political concerns. But, before this blood spilled on the altar of prayer, there is no place for courtesy or ambiguity. The blood of the innocent, which has been mixed with oil, incense and the Eucharist, which has covered icons and walls, allows for no equivocation. It cries out demanding truth, recognition and dignity.

Martyrs, as Metropolitan Georges (Khodr) says, “do not need human testimony. Their blood attests that the Spirit is in them. Through love they have transcended the body of dust and have become pillars of light. God will not judge them on the Last Day. They have passed through judgment into glory. They do not need a human statement to reveal their power. If we declare their sainthood, we only do so out of obedience to the One of whom they are worthy. They are in the company of Christ, as Paul says. They have hope for the highest glory in what Orthodox theology calls paradise. However, only the martyr crosses all the heavens and settles on the thrones of glory. We belong to him as he belongs to Christ.”

Therefore, the Antiochian Church is called today to take a bold and prophetic step. The time has come for the Holy Synod to declare the sainthood of these martyrs and those who preceded them along the same path, and to recognize them as “martyrs of religious extremist terrorism.”

In this context, it is likewise requested of the Christian churches in the Middle East to rise above their differences, having been united by the martyrdom of blood, and to designate a common feast for all the Christian martyrs who have fallen because of religious terrorism throughout the Middle East.

Such a recognition is not intended to stir up resentment or fuel hatred. Rather, it is an act of truth and justice, an expression of loyalty to those who “loved unto death,” and proof that the Church, despite her wounds, still preserves the deposit of the martyrs, repeating with every new generation, “Blood is not forgotten and holiness is not defeated.”

The martyrs who fell in the Church of Mar Elias, like other martyrs, were not killed randomly, but because they were praying in Christ’s name. This alone is enough for us to raise up their icons, to seek their intercession along with the saints, and to cite as examples when the history of the Church is recounted, ever defeating death by faith, defeating hatred and malice by love.