Met Antony Bashir: Possibilities for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Reunion (1964)

Met Antony Bashir's 1964 talk on Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement is interesting for the history of Orthodox responses to Vatican II and the role that that Melkite Catholic Church played in it. It should be read alongside the essay by Melkite Catholic Patriarch Maximos Sayegh that was published in the Word the previous year. The talk is also noteworthy for its discussion of Western Rite Orthodoxy within the context of the problem of Uniatism.

The following is taken from The Word / Al-Kalemat vol. 8, issue 5 (May 1964), pp. 3-5, accessed through the The Hoda Z. Nassour and Herbert R. Nassour Jr., MD, Archive of Lebanese Diaspora, here.

 

Possibilities for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Reunion

A convocational address  delivered in St. Mary-of-the-Woods College, Indiana, at the invitation of His Excellency, Archbishop Shulte, April 15, 1964

by Metropolitan Antony Bashir

We all share the privilege of living in a most exciting, even exhilarating, time for Christian believers; the age of mutual recriminations and proliferating schisms appears to be drawing to a close and all who profess loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ feel now the challenge of His will that "all may be one." However, Christians differ from each other in their understanding of their heritage they seem to be laying hold upon the vision of a united Christendom. Orthodox and Catholics can turn from the frustration engendered by the observation of the bewildering variety of sectarian creeds and customs, and contemplate with satisfaction the truly vast area of agreement which they have in common. They can draw further comfort from the significant fact that, while orthodoxy (with a small "o") does not depend on the counting of noses, as St. Athanasius well knew, the great general agreement that includes Orthodox and Catholics in an almost unanimous tradition places the onus on Christians outside of these two bodies to justify their minority witness.

How pleasant it would be if we, Orthodox and Catholics, were able to consider our reunion only in terms of our common beliefs, perhaps 90% of all we profess! A famous Roman ecumenist once asked me, 

"Your eminence, you believe that only the Papacy separates us. The doctrine of the Papacy is such a tiny fragment of the total de fide deposit of the Catholic faith, don't you think you could find a way to accept it?"

Of course I replied,

"Father, if the Papacy is such a tiny fragment of your faith why don't you give it up and unite with us?"

Reunion will not result from reviewing with satisfaction the much that we share, but from the prayerful, charitable and patient examination of the little in which we differ. As a kind of preliminary frame of reference for the comments that follow, and to avoid any misunderstanding of my position and attitude, let me read into the record a statement that I issued when Pope John XXIII, of blessed memory, initiated the good relations that we still enjoy:

"Immediately after the first announcement of the Papal comments on exploring the possibility of Orthodox and Roman reunion the public press asked me for a reaction. At that time, and ever since, I have made the most positive and encouraging responses consistent with my responsibilities as a bishop of the Church. These have been quoted, and misquoted, in the public and church press, and elsewhere, and I have received so many inquiries from so many sources as to the exact nature of my proposals that I am issuing this statement in clarification of my basic convictions. Neither I nor anyone else can control adequately the use or abuse of my statements in the mass media of communication, and serious and sincere inquirers are well aware of this. The statement which follows outlines my ideas. Sections of it need theological amplification, and all of it must be seen against the background of the full Orthodox tradition, but it is a summary of my position.

In the history of efforts to end Christian disunity which have marked the period since the first World War, the most encouraging event from the viewpoint of the Orthodox Church has been the suggestion of the Roman Pope John XXIII that serious consideration be given to Orthodox and Roman reunion. Without analyzing the exact nature of the Papal overture in its several developing phases, the mere fact of the possibility of eirenic and practical steps were referred to, an advance over Papal action for centuries past, is a tremendous achievement. The resistance or indifference of a few Orthodox spokesmen, the evident alarm of some protestant ecumenists, and the extreme caution of later comments from Rome, do not detract from the value of this truly courageous act. The apparent intention of the Pope to pass beyond the traditional formalities and the empty euphonies of the past should enlist the utmost support of Orthodox leaders.

I find the principle excellent and endorse it fully. In my opinion maximum effectiveness of any negotiations will ultimately depend on the methods employed, among which I consider the following to be of primary importance.

a) The initial meetings and discussions must be restricted to Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics. While one cannot generalize about Protestantism in its innumerable variations, it is nevertheless true that all of its branches have enormous basic doctrinal divergences from both Orthodox and Romans--the idea of a visible church, Apostolic succession and sacramentalism, the nature of Revelation and Authority, the position of the Theotokos, etc. The inclusion of Protestant spokesmen in an Orthodox-Roman dialogue could only result in chaos. If Orthodox and Roman differences were adjusted, the protestant would would numerically and psychologically be faced with a serious reassessment of its genesis and development. (In this connection it should be emphasized that Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches implies no commitment to any policies of that agency, other than its function as a vehicle for Christian reunion among its members. It does not preclude unilateral action wherever justified. The World Council of Churches exists as the servant of Christian Communions, not as their master.)

b) If the Roman Pope, was or is, sincerely interested in in more than diplomatic overtures, His Holiness must begin by addressing Orthodoxy through the Oecumenical Patriarch, as Primate of the Church, calling for a joint commission of theologians and canonists with a large Orthodox membership to prepare an appropriate agenda for inclusion in a letter carrying the signature of His Holiness the Pope as Primate of the West and His All Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch as Primate of the East, and addressed to both Churches.

c) The meeting which would follow, although it might not arrive at immediate union, would provide an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to act, and might well lead to eventual unity.

d) The major difficulty between Orthodoxy and Rome is the question of the basis for the Papal Primacy and the concomitant dogma of Papal Infallibility. One cannot minimize the differences, evident and implied, in these dogmas, nor forget the discouraging history of the attempts at solution, but is it not possible that the time has arrived when the two mutually exclusive but closely related teachings, an infallible Church and an infallible Primate, may be so restated as to synthesize both traditions on a new and higher level? This is a daring, perhaps rash, conception, but our Lord will not hold us guiltless if we choose lesser problems for easy solution while we neglect the divisions among those who call upon His name.

In conclusion, and to avoid any misunderstanding, or exploitation by the popular press, I insist that these proposals are made as a loyal representative of the Orthodox Church, who holds it to be the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the creed outside of which there is no salvation. I am not glossing over the schism or heresy of the West, and by no means suggesting any other solution to divisions than the reunion of all Christians with the same Orthodox Church. If reunion cannot be accomplished by a restatement of the two positions, however, I do not see it as possible by any other way."

I shall expand on one or two of these proposals today, but let me but let me begin by outlining a few of the ties that bind, or should bind, us together.

In comparison with the question of the Papacy the differences between Orthodox and Catholics are relatively minor. They spring from differences between eastern and western mentality and temperament, from differences of attitude and emphasis in the approach to common beliefs and ideas, all aggravated by our centuries-long separation from each other. I do not share the conviction of some Orthodox thinkers that the West is somehow poisoned at the root, so that all subsequent growth as well as all the fruits of the Roman faith are fatally tainted. This is, I think, a theological provincialism of which we have had more than enough for longer than the nine hundred years that we have spent apart. It antedates the schism and, human nature being what it is, might well survive reunion. We cannot over simplify true differences, but it is spiritual pride and the most vicious hypocrisy, to condemn each other for views or attitudes which are no further apart than the conflicting opinions of our own theologians! Therefore let us isolate essential differences of faith, and let us place in the proper perspective the theologoumena--or private opinions--that exist between Orthodoxy in general and Rome in general, as they exist in our respective bodies between Thomists and Scotists, and between disciples of Khomiakov and Bulgakov and Khrapovitsky and others. This is not the time to single out minor differences of mood or attitude and exaggerate them.

Let me repeat that aside from the Papacy our divergencies are relatively minor. And what a wide area of agreement we have, as my statement suggests! We need only place your theology or mine over against any of the Reformation traditions to discover that we are members of one household of faith, and that our basic attitudes and orientation are the same. The hierarchy, the sacraments, the saints, the liturgical and devotional practices that express them in life, all are one and  the same in broad outline. As we explore differences we must constantly revert in thought to this common ground for inspiration and encouragement; in order to stimulate our hope for reunion.

There is another point at which I differ from some Orthodox in seeing positive ground for hope where they see only added obstacles for understanding. That is your Uniates. I do not deceive myself about the Uniates, the so-called Greek Catholics, they were organized as the result of some of the most deceptive proselytizing campaigns ever engaged in by Christians. Commercial privileges and civil, and military, pressure brought them into being, and in many instances simple laymen were deliberately deceived. This is why there has been no Orthodox protest when, in the Ukraine and Romania, they have been recently reunited to the Church, sometimes by the forceful removal of their hierarchs. Even now Uniate propagandists willingly exploit local Orthodox difficulties to pervert our people. There are not enough Latin clergy to holy traditionally Catholic Latin America, but there are enough to staff the missions working among the Orthodox in the Middle East. All of this I deplore, but I do understand and respect the ideal of the Unia--your belief that Rome is the one, true Church of Christ, to which all must belong and in which all may worship according to their particular ancient rites. While I cannot respect the "rice Christians," I admire any faith that acts consistently with its conviction that it is the unique Christian Church.

It has been our Orthodox failure that we long spent our energies fruitlessly protesting your Uniate program rather than in imitating it, for we too claim to be the one, true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Within the last quarter of a century the Orthodox Church has tardily corrected this policy, and today there are Orthodox faithful in Europe and America who follow the Roman Latin rite. In my own diocese I have four parishes and a mission that use the Latin rite in the vernacular, and I am proud that my Archdiocese has led the way in this movement in the United States. In the last issue of Unitas magazine I read with pleasure the positive appraisal of Western Rite Orthodoxy by a Father Kelleher of the Franciscans of the Atonement.

It is my sincere conviction that Greek Rite Catholics and Latin Rite Orthodox can teach their correligionists much that will destroy the ignorance and prejudice that contributes to our separation. Proselytism, that is the tempting away of the members of one Christian communion by the propagandists of another by the use of force, or deception, or offering material advantages, is an ugly thing, especially when highly trained representatives of one body are sent to the ignorant and poor faithful of another. But the Christian missionary compassion that allows your Church or mine to accept converts of conviction and permit them to retain liturgical usages that antedate the Schism cannot be objectionable to anyone.

When the Orthodox of the Arabic speaking world think of the Uniates we think of your venerable Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This good man, and his "brain trust," are almost an Orthodox voice in your midst as the role they played in the Vatican Council showed us. If his message is heard and heeded in the Roman Church the schism will be shortened by centuries. If you cannot hear him with understanding as a first step, you will never be able to speak to us!

It is in Patriarch Maximos' analysis of what is for us the problem of the Papacy that I am most encouraged. You will remember that my statement suggested that the possibility of reunion for us would seem to lie in a new synthesis of your opinion of Papal Infallibility and our doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church. Patriarch Maximos' observations on the Second Chapter, "The Episcopate," in the Vatican Council Schema, "On the Church," moves far in this direction.

Let me review his conclusions. Christ is, he says, the only head of the Church, the Pope, a successor of St. Peter, is head of the episcopal college. The Pope as head of the bishops governs them but is not distinct from them. The bishops are the true heads of their dioceses. The Orthodox Church is the result of a living Apostolic tradition in which Rome intervenes only by way of exception. The primatial power of the Pope is personal and pastoral, it cannot be delegated, and is only to be understood in light of the Pope's position as head of the episcopal college. The Patriarch assumes that these conclusions are possible even after the first Vatican Council of 1870 in which it was solemnly proclaimed that he Pope in Infallible in himself, and without the consensus of the Church. If Patriarch Maximos is correct, then we Orthodox may hope that the first Vatican Council did not shut the door forever on a reconciliation with the Latin Church.

We Orthodox approach the whole matter in a somewhat different way. We will not expect progress from the declaration of some new, or newly discovered, dogma. Rather it is by reference to tradition, to the faith and witness of the fathers, by the analogy of faith, to the ancient constitution of the Church, by retracing our two paths to the point where they converge that we will expect fruitful results. There is not now, and never can be, the slightest hope that the Orthodox Church of Christ will ever confess or accept any creed that will not conform to the ancient, traditional faith which she has always held. It would be our feeling that our Roman brethren will confirm and strengthen their own faith by reference to the ancient tradition which we shared.

Let me be quite clear about all of this. Your Church has shown great adaptability in all things: ours has not, in fact we make absolute fidelity to the past a touchstone of truth. We are very cautious about even externals and details, it is not to be expected that we shall suddenly modify our convictions about the essential structure of the Church. Add to this the fact, all too obvious to us, that your own understanding of that structure had to be formally stated, or restated so short a time ago as 1870, and you will begin to realize that we Orthodox must expect you Catholics to take the lead in any creative readjustments. There is no question of heretics or schismatics, these have been dead for centuries, and it is not the Christian spirit of this age to fasten responsibility for ancient errors on the sincere believers of today, many generations removed from the original misunderstandings. Today, who can say it is not by the grace of God the good will to reunion exists? We stand face to face and recognize each other as brothers. We cannot see the way to reunion that will commend itself to all. At least I cannot, except by loyalty to the ancient tradition which we hold, and which we will hold, and which we believe, you hold with us. But let us not despair, surely the good God who has brought us so far will not leave us in sight of each other but painfully separated. He has lifted the veil, has shown us the glorious possibility, can we do less than assault the very gates of heaven with prayer, forgive forty times forty thousand, and study and work that His will may be done in our day?

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.

Met Antony Bashir on the Maronites (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 3 (March 1957), pp.  60-63, 66, 83, accessed through the The Hoda Z. Nassour and Herbert R. Nassour Jr., MD, Archive of Lebanese Diaspora, here.

 

 The Mountaineers: The Maronites

by Metropolitan Antony Bashir

From the tenth century the Mountains of Lebanon have sheltered one of the most fascinating Christian bodies of the Middle East. The Maronites are the descendants of hardy mountaineers whose ancestors fled persecution on the plains of Syria, and whose mountain-hung villages bred a community that is almost a nation as well as a Church.

The would-be historian of the Maronites is faced at the outset by a serious difficulty: There are two versions of Maronite history, the one maintained by the Maronites themselves, and the other accepted by the Orthodox, Roman (Latin) Catholics, and all other historians. In justice to these faithful people, who have contributed so much to the Arab Christian cause, we shall present both accounts of the Maronites, and in both instances we shall rely on Roman Catholic histories. If Orthodox and Maronite writers have been less charitable to each other in the past, it is high time that both remember that they are Christian.

The Maronite Version

According to Maronite historians their communion began with the Monks, and neighboring villages, of an ancient monastery at Beit Marun on the banks of the Orontes river between Emesa, Modern Homs, and Apamea in Syria. The monks stoutly resisted the Monophysite heresy of the Jacobites and were eminently loyal to the Orthodox faith. Since the west had not yet separated from the Orthodox Church, Maronite writers say that their community was always faithful to the Pope of Rome, as in common with all Roman Catholics, they believe him to have headed the Church from Apostolic times. In the 7th Century the Maronites had their own bishops, and by 685 one of them, John Maro, took over the Patriarchate of Antioch. The Emperor Justin II tried to force them into heresy, but the Maronites resisted and under the leadership of the Patriarch defeated the Byzantines at Amium in 699. John Maro died in 707 and the Maronites revere him as St. John Maro, with a feast day on March 2. Pressed between the Byzantines and invading Arabs the Maronites emigrated to the Mts. of Lebanon from the 7th Century onward, and some two or three hundred years later the Patriarch also moved, and the Monastery of Beiut Marun was destroyed. The Maronites were unavoidably isolated from the rest of the Roman Church, but remained faithful to it, and when the Crusaders came from the West, formal contact was reestablished in 1182 and never since broken.

The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Version

On the major features of Maronite history the Orthodox and Roman Catholics are in substantial agreement, as are all other non-Maronite scholars.

The Monastery of Beit-Marun was founded on the Orontes in about 410 by the disciples of a recluse, St. Maro, who was a fellow-student of St. John Chrysostom at Antioch. The monastery became an outpost of Byzantine culture and remained Orthodox after Chalcedon, when the Monophysites left the Church. Persecuted by the Jacobites, the Monks were loyal to Byzantium and in 628 the Emperor Heraclius visited Beit Marun and showered it with gifts and privileges.

Heraclius hoped to consolidate his Syrian frontier against he advancing Arabs by establishing religious unity, and in 638 he promoted a compromise creed designed to satisfy both the Orthodox and the Monophysites. Unfortunately the creed avoided the difficulty of "one nature" by affirming one will in Christ. This was the heresy of Monotheletism (from the Greek monos, one, and thelema, will). The Monophysites were pleased by what appeared to be a Victory for their view, and Pope Honorius of Rome and Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople agreed to the compromise as did many others.

The Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, however, refused to acquiesce in the new heresy, and rallied the Church against it. In 680 an Oecumenical Council, the sixth, it was condemned, along with the heresiarchs Pope Honorius of Rome and Sergius of Constantinople.

When the Emperors returned to Orthodoxy, the Monks of Beit Marun remained Monothelite. Many witnesses, accepted by both Orthodox and Roman Catholic historians, testify to this: Michael the Syrian, a Chronicler, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus and others. Roman Catholics add that the Maronites must have been heretics because no letter was sent to them from Rome before 1215.

After the Maronites had removed to Lebanon and the Crusaders arrived, the Latin bishops who accepted them into communion with the Papacy called the Maronites heretics. A Crusader Chronicler, William of Tyre, wrote,

"After they had adhered for 300 years to the erroneous teaching of a heresiarch named Maro, after whom they were called Maronites, and being separated from the true Church... came to the 3 Latin Patriarchs of Antioch, Amaoury, and renouncing their error were united to the true Church with their Patriarch and some bishops... There were more than 40,000 of them... The error of Maro was and is... that in J.C.... there is only one will. After their schism they had adopted other evil beliefs." Jacques de Vitry, Crusader of Lyre, wrote that they had been out of the "Church nearly 500 years," following "Maro, a heretic, who taught that there was in Jesus but one will..."

After the Crusades

Whichever account of the early Maronites is endorsed by the reader, the history is fairly certain after the first Union with the Papacy. The Maronites did not all enter the Roman obedience at one time, those on Cyprus submitting as late as 1445. The Maronites were not required to adopt the Latin rite, and were very tenacious of their own customs. An observer had written that, "it was not quite clear whether the Maronites became Roman Catholics, or the Pope became a Maronite!"

In the 16th Century  two Councils brought the Maronites closer to the Papal Norm, but in 1936 the Council of the Lebanon gave the Maronite communion the character that it has since preserved. This Council, attended by 14 Maronite and 2 other Papal bishops, marks the real break with the historical past of the Maronites and the beginning of a new era. A letter circulated before the Council outlined the abuses to be corrected: The bishops, by ancient custom, had a number of women living with them; the sacrament was not reserved for the sick; the clergy sold the holy oils and marriage dispensations; there were too many bishops and the diocesan boundaries were not fixed; the Maronites of Aleppo were celebrating the Liturgy in Arabic, and priests were making their own Arabic translations of the Syriac service books. The Council of the Lebanon reformed these abuses and ordered the addition of the Papal interpolation, the filioque, to the Creed, the mention of the Pope's name in the liturgy, the restriction of confirmation to bishops rather than priests. The Maronites were ordered to use unleavened western altar bread in the future, and the laity were forbidden to receive the wine in communion. A previous council, in 1606, had adopted the Gregorian calendar.

In 1753 Pope Benedict Lambertini settled a quarrel between the Maronites and the newly converted Melkites. The Maronites were converting Melkites into Maronites and the Melkite leader Seraphim Tanos fought back by destroying pictures of St. John Maro, whom he called a Monothelite. A few years later Rome intervened again to suppress the activities of a nun of Aleppo, Anne Ajjemi, who developed rather wild fancies and gained the support of the Maronite Patriarch Joseph Estephan. The Patriarch was suspended by the Pope from 1779 to 1784.

The Maronites in Lebanon were led by an Emir under the Turks, but were always in danger of Moslem persecution. The Druses, a deviation of Islam, were also ruled by an Emir appointed by the Ottomans, and in 1845 the Maronite and Druse Emirs declared war on each other. In 1860 while the Turkish authorities looked on, the Druses attacked the Maronites and in less than a month 360 villages were destroyed, 600 Churches and monasteries were ruined, and almost 8,000 Maronites were killed. France intervened to protect the Maronites and Lebanon was given a new form of government designed to maintain peace.

The Maronite Church jealously guarded its independence through the centuries and accepted the Papacy on its own terms. Roman Catholic writers say that the Maronite Patriarch Paul Masad refused to attend the Vatican Council in 1870 for fear of losing his independence, and the four Maronite bishops who did attend voted against Papal infallibility right to the end. During World War II some of the bishops declared their independence, but unity was restored, and when the late Patriarch Peter Arida died, Rome disregarded the rights of the bishops to elect and appointed a successor. Thus it appears that Maronite autonomy is a thing of the past.

Size and Organization

The Maronites claim some half million members, most of them in Lebanon. There are over forty parishes in the United States. The head of the Church, under the Pope is called the "Patriarch of Antioch and All the East", who resides at Bkerke or Dimam in Lebanon. There are normally about a dozen Metropolitans and bishops assisting the Patriarch, and the Maronites keep alive the ancient office of Chorbishop. These prelates are priests who wear the Mitre, carry the crosier, and administer confirmation and minor orders. There are about 1,000 monks and 400 Nuns in the Church, and the Monasteries own approximately one-third of the real estate in Lebanon.

The People

The Maronite laity are similar in life and social status to the Orthodox, although more of them are located in remote villages. Roman Catholic writers say, "the general standard of ecclesiastical education is not high". This is not surprising when one recalls the persecutions the communion has suffered, and the difficult lot of the married village priests, who must often farm for a living.

Churches, Services and Vestments

The official Maronite liturgical language is Syriac, although Arabic is used for many services, and since Syriac is a dead language among the people, the rubrics (directions) in the liturgical books are written in "Karshuni": Arabic written in Syriac characters. The services are similar to those used by the Arab Orthodox before the Byzantine rite was introduced by the Greeks, and to those still used by the Jacobites, but many revisions have been made under Roman influence. In 1952 the epiclesis was dropped, and the liturgy commonly used today is adapted from the Roman (Latin) mass. The Latin altar bread is used, and Latin vestments are more common than the ancient Syriac style used by the Jacobites. Ashes are used at the beginning of Lent, [as are] the Latin rosary, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and most late Latin devotions. Maran, the hermit, has feast days on February 9 and July 31, and the Patriarch John Maron, March 2nd. The Church buildings and furniture are identical with those of the Latins.

A New Saint

The Maronites in America are currently promoting the canonization of a monk of Lebanon, "Mar Sharbel". Father Sharbel of Beka Kafra was born in 1837 and in due course became a monk. He lived for fifteen years in a monastery at Annaya in Lebanon, and then spent 25 years as a hermit near the community. In December 1898 he became suddenly ill while celebrating the liturgy, and shortly died. His reputation for sanctity attracted pilgrims and in 1928 Rome asked to begin the process of declaring him a saint. In 1949 his grave was opened and his body was found undecayed, the attendant publicity gave great impetus to his popularity, and it is believed that the Papacy will soon add his name to the Calendar of Saints. A number of our illustrations show scenes at Father Sharbel's grave and monastery.

Met Antony Bashir on the Syrian non-Chalcedonians (1957)

At the beginning of the re-establishment of the Word as 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 2 (February 1957), pp. 31-34, accessed through the The Hoda Z. Nassour and Herbert R. Nassour Jr., MD, Archive of Lebanese Diaspora, here.

 

 

The Syrian Church... The Jacobites

by Metropolitan Antony Bashir

The modern world is sometimes startled to find the headlines devoted to a tiny and ancient religious body which uses the language of Jesus in its services, and has been divided from most of Christendom for centuries. In 1948 the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the oldest portions of the Hebrew Old Testament yet discovered, were purchased and brought to the United States by Mar Athanasius Jesus Samuel, Jacobite Metropolitan of Jerusalem, and in 1953 part of the Zone, or cincture, of the Blessed Virgin Mary was discovered in an ancient Syrian Jacobite church in Homs, Syria. Thus this almost forgotten Christian community drew the attention of the Twentieth Century world twice in a decade.

The communion known to historians as the "Jacobite" church is called in colloquial Arabic the "Syrian" church. The title is entirely appropriate, for the group was born of the intrigues of a Syrian Empress of Byzantium with a Christian Arab Sheikh, spread by the untiring zeal of a fanatical Syrian monk, and embraced by Syrians who opposed their ancient tongue and traditions to the Greek veneer of the official Orthodoxy of the Late Roman Empire.

At the Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 the Orthodox Church defined the important truth that Jesus Christ was both true God and true man: a perfect link between the Creator and fallen humanity. The Council acted against teachers who felt that in any union of God and man human nature would be absorbed. The heretics saw in a balanced Divine-human Christ a sort of blasphemous denial of the omnipotence of God. The Orthodox understood that Christ must represent both God and man if He were to be the Saviour of humanity. The heretics were called Monophysites (from the Greek, mone physis "one nature" i.e. the Divine) because they believed in the identity of the human nature and the Divine nature of our Lord.

Theological arguments concerning the exact relationship between the two natures in Christ are not popular today. It is doubtful if they ever were. The individuals who made up the masses that enthusiastically opposed the decrees of Chalcedon and proclaimed one nature in our Lord were not greater theologians than is the modern man on the street. The average citizen neither understood nor appreciated subtle discussions about the nature of Jesus, although many simple believers might be suspicious of any opinion that seemed to make the Saviour less divine. Nevertheless whole provinces of the Byzantine empire fell from Orthodoxy, and to this day the Christians of Armenia, Egypt and parts of Syria, as well as Ethiopia, are "Monophysite." The explanation is perhaps as much found in politics as theology.

When the decrees of Chalcedon were endorsed by the imperial Greek authorities many in the outlying districts of the empire found a religious excuse for their opposition to the government. The Armenians were never happy subjects of Byzantium, and the Egyptians, with their own language and distinctive traditions in faith and life, were able to replace all of the Orthodox bishops with Monophysites.

The new ideas were carried from Egypt into Syria and found ready acceptance with Syrian patriots who welcomed any theories unpopular at the capital. The Emperor Justinian I (527-565) determined to make an end of the heresy, expelled all Monophysite bishops and demanded a formal profession of Orthodoxy from all church officials. His wife, Theodora, of Syrian blood, took a different view, probably out of sympathy for her people, and to the ingenuity of this ostensibly Orthodox Empress can be attributed the existence of the Syrian Jacobite communion.

Justinian's repressive measures would have deprived the Monophysites of clergy, as those already ordained died, and no new candidates could be consecrated or ordained. With no bishops or priests to lead it the heretical party would disappear. Before this happened, however, the Empress took secret measures of her own. Among her proteges in Constantinople was a Syrian monk of humble and holy life, Jacob, to be surnamed "Bardai." Attracted by his reputation as a miracle-worker, Theodora brought him to the capital, but he shunned the court and spent his days in the strictest retirement in a suburban monastery.

When the effects of Justianian's regulations began to be felt in Syria a certain Harith ibn-Jaballah, Sheikh of the Christian Ghassanid Arabs, appealed to the Syrian patriotism of the Empress. Theodora responded at once. The Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria was in prison in Constantinople, and the Empress arranged to have him consecrate Jacob Bardai to the episcopate in 543.

His new commission transformed Jacob from a retiring contemplative into an active missionary. He left is monastic retreat and spent the remaining fort-odd years of his life feverishly travelling through Syria and the Empire planting the seeds of the new faith. In disguise, and avoiding the imperial police and the Orthodox bishops, he encouraged the persecuted sectarians to remain faithful, and founded new communities. Jacob centered his activity in Syria, and Monophysitism grew as a Syrian protest against the Empire. By the time of his death in 578 Jacob Bardai is alleged to have ordained thousands of priests and almost one hundred bishops, including one who assumed the title, "Patriarch of Antioch," and whose successors head the communion today.

Even during the life of the energetic Jacob the new organization was plagued by internal dissentions. After the first burst of missionary activity which brought so many Syrian Christians into the Jacobite fold a decline ensued, and the Monophysite community has never since been numerically strong in Syria. The Orthodox were still using the ancient Syriac rite, and to many of the faithful in the Levant the Empire was cosmopolitan rather than Greek. While the Byzantine Empire controlled the Middle East the Orthodox Church enjoyed government support and was never seriously threatened by the Jacobites.

In the middle seventh century the Moslem Arabs took Syria from Byzantium, and the Jacobites were granted civil recognition similar to that accorded the Orthodox. The Jacobites had served as a sort of fifth column for the advancing Arabs, and were rewarded and patronized by the new masters of the land. The great golden age of the Jacobite community lasted from shortly after the Arab conquest until the arrival of the Turks.

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Jacobites developed a tradition of scholarship inherited from Syrian Orthodoxy. At a time when learning revived in both east and west, the Jacobites produced remarkable scholars in theology, history and the sciences; men who were the peer of any Christian savant of the time.

Among many whose names stand out in the history of Christian learning, the most notable was Gregory Abdul-Faraj, known as Barhebraeus. Acquainted with Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Syriac, he left a history which is the most important source of information for his period. He was a scientist, as well as a bishop and theologian, and wrote treatises on medicine, mathematics and astronomy. He died in 1286 and the movement has not since produced outstanding scholars in great numbers.

In the twelfth century the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch presided over twenty Metropolitans, and some one hundred and twenty bishops in the Levant, but in the fourteenth century severe Moslem persecution began and the communion has lost ground ever since. During World War I thousands of Jacobites were slaughtered by the Turks, and there are only 80,000 or 90,000 left today.

 

Relations with Orthodoxy

The Jacobites are socially and culturally related to the Greek Orthodox of Syria and Lebanon, where some 10,000 of them still live. The Patriarch lives in Homs, and governs the communion with the assistance of a Holy Synod of Metropolitans. The bulk of the faithful live in Irak, and there are five parishes in the United States. Relations with the Orthodox Church are cordial, and in some places, notably Malabar in India, periodical meetings are held to discuss reunion. One of our illustrations shows a recent meeting between our Patriarch and the Jacobite leader. In Jerusalem the two communities share the privileges of several shrines, and a Monophysite hierarch is associated with the Orthodox Patriarch in the Holy Fire ceremony of Easter Eve at the Holy Sepulchre.

There is, of course, no question of reunion or intercommunion until the Jacobites indicate their profession of full Orthodox faith by acceptance of all of the Oecumenical Councils, and purify their rites of certain expressions indicative of classical Monophysitism.

 

The Jacobite World

As the Syrian Orthodox are part of the world-wide Orthodox Catholic Church, so the Jacobites are but one section of a larger unity. There are some 8,000,000 Monophysites in the world, the largest bodies being the Armenian national church, and the Coptic communion in Egypt, while the Syrian Jacobites, the Ethiopians and the church in Malabar, India, are smaller branches of the same fellowship. In theory all of these bodies reject all of the Oecumenical Councils except the first three, and are officially committed to the denial of two natures in Christ. In all other matters their belief is generally that of the Orthodox Church. In the event of reunion they would not be expected to substitute the Byzantine rite for the ancient forms which were used by their ancestors before the schism.

 

Liturgy and Customs

The Jacobites use a Liturgy much like that originally employed by all the Christians in Syria, and later replaced by the Greek rite for the Orthodox. The liturgical language is a form of Aramaic, commonly believed to be the tongue spoken by Jesus Christ, and some communities of Jacobites still speak it. Most of those in Syria have Arabic as the vernacular, but all retain Aramaic in the church service. The Liturgy and rites for the sacraments have the general flavor of those used by the Orthodox, but there are many major and minor differences, a few of them related to the distinctive beliefs of the Monophysites. The sign of the cross is made from left to right, as in the west. Jacobites commonly ordain many minor clergy, i.e., deacons, subdeacons, readers, etc., who have secular employment, but assist at Sunday and other services.

 

The Name

The name Monophysite refers to the special emphasis on our Lord's nature, and is used in technical studies of the movement. In the Arabic vernacular the Monophysite communion is referred to as the "Syrian" Church, a very apt title as we have seen. They call themselves "Syrian Orthodox," since they regard themselves as orthodox and the Orthodox as "diophysite" ("two-nature") heretics. The name Jacobite, commonly used in western histories, is derived from their famous apostle, Jacob Bardai. "Bardai" is a nickname referring to the disreputable clothing Jacob is supposed to have worn to avoid detection by the police. Some Jacobites in the United States call themselves Assyrians. This name does not make identification any simpler, since Anglican missionaries called the Nestorians "Assyrians" in the last century, and they too have since used it.

 

The Future

The animosity which accompanied the origin of the Jacobites has long since worn away; a faith which is identical in all but 3% of doctrine binds Jacobite and Orthodox in a common heritage. Both have suffered and died for this faith at the hands of common enemies; both have shed their blood for their one Lord. The path to reunion would imply sacrifices on both sides: the Orthodox would be required to admit to equal use the ancient Syrian rite once abandoned for the rite of Byzantium, and the Jacobites to acknowledge the tradition of the seven Councils. No where in the ecclesiastical world are Orthodox and Monophysites closer together, geographically and in cultural heritage, than in Syria, and it should be the special function of Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Jacobites to heal this ancient rift. Old prejudices die slowly, but with knowledge comes understanding, and with understanding love, and in love those of the most divergent of opinions may meet in Him who is supreme love.