Asad Rustom on Patriarch Athanasius III Dabbas (I)

Translated from: Asad Rustum, Kanisat Madinat Allah Antakya al-'Uzma [The Church of the Great City of God Antioch], Jounieh: Editions St. Paul (1988), vol. 3, pp. 130-135.

 For more information about Athanasius Dabbas' printing activities in Romania, see this excellent open-access monograph, published this year.

Athanasius IV (1720) [III in modern reckoning]

 Cyril III grew old, he developed an ulcer on his leg and the ulcer burst. As his death approached, he conveyed his will. The priest Abd al-Masih, who was one of those who confessed Catholicism, came to him and asked him if he wanted to confess. The patriarch responded, "What have I done? I have not killed. I have not fornicated. I have not stolen. Read a prayer." [For this Rustom cites a letter by Euthymius Sayfi to Pope Clement XI, which apparently was meant to explain why Cyril refused Catholic last rites.] On Wednesday, January 5, 1720, God chose for him to meet his fate, his soul departed and he was buried on Theophany in the tomb of the patriarchs on the Hill of St George. "The period of his reign was forty-seven years, six months, and four days." [This text is inscribed on a wall at the cathedral in Damascus.]

Euthymius was in Damascus at that time. His supporters gathered around him and wanted to declare him patriarch, seeking the support of Euthymius' friend, Uthman Pasha Abu Tawq. They intended to seize the patriarchate by force, but the Latin missionaries Frs Thomas de Campaya and Pierre Fromage opposed them because he was excommunicated by the patriarchs and that he had changed the liturgy and services and abolished the order of the Church, explaining that "He wants to abolish the hot water from the liturgy and require you to eat fish. He feeds meat to your monks in order to denigrate your Church!" Instead, they supported Athanasius because he had previously been installed as patriarch. Euthymius had requested five hundred qurush that he had paid Cyril on the occasion of his having consecrated a metropolitan for Tyre and Sidon, and he was given one hundred gold pieces, sixteen church books and other things. Then Euthymius went to the church and proclaimed the name of Athanasius, saying, "Be at ease in heart and mind."

As for Athanasius, after the reconciliation that took place in 1694 he settled in Aleppo and managed his flock in the best way. "He forbade them from what is not allowed and confirmed among them what should be confirmed, cutting off the causes of evil and establishing the causes of good." The Christians of various confessions loved him and were inclined toward him "because he had a wise and abundant intellect" [both quotes are from the contemporary Maronite metropolitan of Aleppo, Germanus Farhat]. He poured over the books of the fathers, conforming himself to the best path. He was in contact with Constantinople and traveled to Wallachia and Moldavia seeking alms. When Cyril died, a large group of the Christians of Damascus called for Athanasius as patriarch, writing about this to the notables of the community in Aleppo. Athanasius was absent from there, traveling in Wallachia, and Ni'ma ibn al-Khuri Tuma al-Halabi replied in the name of the notables of Aleppo with an ambiguous letter, which he included in his book Rakib al-Tariq li-man Yarda bi-Taqlid al-Talfiq. Here is the most important part:

"With regard to your letters sent by our hand, we send them to His Holiness along with the letters for Islambul. In the case that they arrive, we have taken the care that we should and we have announced the publication of particular and general letters and have put them all in one envelope [...] We have confirmed to His Holiness that he is to be present in Islambul at the appointed time to conduct his business as he desires."

The Council of Constantinople (1722)

Athanasius returned from Wallachia and reached Damascus in early August 1720. Cyril had left all his belongings to the Patriarchal See and when Athanasius settled the matter and found that most of them had disappeared, he was greatly enraged. His rage only increased when he became aware of the activity of the Frankish monks and their intervention into the affairs of the Church.

Since Athanasius' material means did not help him to combat the Frankish monks using their weapons, he raised the matter with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He then traveled to Constantinople himself and took great pains to hold a council to examine what must be done to deal with this issue. This council was held in late 1722 in Constantinople, presided by Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah and with the participation of Patriarchs Athanasius of Antioch and Chrysanthus of Jerusalem and twelve metropolitans. This council condemned non-Orthodox teachings, especially those pertaining to primacy, infallibility, procession from the Son, azymes, the fire of Purgatory, the beatitude of the saints, strangled meat, fasting on Saturday, and the withholding of chrismation and communion from children. The acts of this council were issued in Greek and Arabic and published in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. Assemani mentions this in part three of the Bibliotheca Orientalis and Vendotis in the addenda to the ecclesiastical history of Meletius.

The Abbreviation of the Apostles' Fast

Cyril III worked with high Orthodox authorities to shorten the Apostles' Fast. When Athanasius acceded to the apostolic throne, he received a synodicon authorizing the lifting of this burden. He issued a pastoral encyclical in which the Apostles' Fast was made to be twelve days according to the number of the Twelve Apostles. This was "in order that he who fasts not judge he who does not fast and he who does not eat not judge he who eats." He explained the five reasons that necessitated this abbreviation: 1) Those who did this fast did so with grumbling. 2) This grumbling led some to blasphemy. 3) Some of the faithful secretly broke the fast. 4) Some where shamelessly eating animal products. 5) Many people in villages and the countryside were leaving Christianity to join the nations [i.e., converting to Islam] because "the season of the year in which the fast falls is devoid of vegetables, fruits and fasting foods, but abundant in milk, yogurt, cheese and eggs, and the people in the countryside do not have any other foods than these. Thus their children leave them and join their non-Christian neighbors and no Christians remain in some villages."

The Liturgikon and the Horologion

While still "former patriarch", Athanasius was concerned with the liturgy and in 1701 in Bucharest he printed The Book of the Three Liturgies in parallel Greek and Arabic columns. For the Greek text, he relied on what had previously been printed in Venice and for the Arabic text he used that of Meletius Karma. The book was of a medium size and 252 pages. On its frontispiece it states the following:

"Book of the Three Divine Liturgies along with other things necessary for Orthodox prayers. Now newly printed in the Greek and Arabic languages through the care and supervision of His Beatitude Kyriokyr Athanasius, former Patriarch of Antioch, at the expense of the Most Glorious Lord, ruler of all the countries of Hungrovlachia, Kyr Kyr Ioan Constantin Basarab, the honorable voivod, under the episcopacy of His Beatitude Theodosius of the aforementioned countries, at the Monastery of the Theotokos, called "Snagov" in the Christian year 1701, by the Hieromonk Anthim, Georgian by origin."

In 1702, this same press published the Horologion in large Arabic script in red and black ink in around seven hundred pages. The troparia and kontakia for major feasts and the feasts of Pentecost and the Triodion are printed in Greek and Arabic in facing columns.

The Rock of Scandal

Athanasius decided to provide the Orthodox with something that would confirm their faith and make it possible for them to respond to the Frankish monks and their followers, so he translated the book of Elias Meniates into Arabic. He entitled it Sakhrat al-Shakk and published it in a printed edition in 1721, distributing it freely to members of the community. In this book, the origin and causes of the schism, the separation of the Western Church from the East, and the major differences between them is explained. This activity provoked Abdallah Zakher, and he responded in a book he entitled al-Tafnid lil-Majma' al-'Anid, which was also abridged. The Jesuit fathers printed it later in Beirut, in 1865. Later, the priest Niqula Sayegh composed a book in defense of Catholicism entitled al-Hisn al-'Azim muqabil al-Majma' al-Athim, of which there are two copies in Dayr al-Mukhallis.

The History of the Patriarchs of Antioch

Athanasius composed a history of the patriarchs of Antioch from the time of the Apostle Peter until the year 1702 in Greek. It was translated into Latin and published in Vienna. He translated a catechism and the Book of the Salvation of the Sage and Ruin of the Sinful World and wrote about the life of Saint John Christodoulos, abbot of the Monastery of the Apostle John the Theologian on Patmos.

Asad Rustom on the Era of Patriarch Cyril al-Za'im (V): The Excommunication of Euthymius Sayfi

 Translated from: Asad Rustum, Kanisat Madinat Allah Antakya al-'Uzma [The Church of the Great City of God Antioch], Jounieh: Editions St. Paul (1988), vol. 3, pp. 125-130. 

Arabic original online here. It's amusing to note that, while the characterization of Euthymius Sayfi's vicious personality in his excommunication might sound over the top, it's not all that different from what the Maronite Metropolitan of Aleppo, Germanus Farhat, as well as some of the Latin missionaries, had to say about him. It's quite hard to overstate how loathed he was by most of his contemporaries outside of the "Salvatorian" monastic order he created.

Part I here.

Part II here.

Part III here.

Part IV here.

 Cyril and Euthymius

Euthymius plunged into Catholicism and refrained from sending the nuriya tithe to the patriarchate, instead offering "saltwater fish or forty wheels of Cypriot cheese." After the death of the metropolitan of Aleppo, he communicated with the Emir Haydar Shihab, asking his permission to attach Beirut and its dependencies to his diocese. He coveted the Archdiocese of Acre and encouraged the Christians in Hawran and Transjordan to enter into obedience to him. The patriarch of Jerusalem complained about him to the other patriarchs, bringing to their attention his "writings and correspondence." They sent these letters to Cyril, requesting that he curb Euthymius and warn him not to infringe upon the eparchy of Jerusalem. The patriarch of Antioch sent all this to Euthymius, asking him to refrain from these actions, but he paid no heed. Euthymius made accommodations in matters of marriage, removing certain restrictions, thus acting contrary to Orthodox law. When the patriarch forbade unlawful marriages, he would permit them. In the history of the patriarchs by Ghattas Qandaloft, he states that Euthymius embezzled funds designated for the patriarch.

The Patriarchs Excommunicate Euthymius (1718)

Euthymius insisted on his position and a synod was convened in Constantinople in the Fall of 1718, under the presidency of Patriarch Jeremiah III of "New Rome" to examine Euthymius' case. It ruled that he violated the law in seven ways: 1) permitting marriage in the fourth degree [i.e., of first cousins]; 2) ordaining people outside of his diocese; 3) abolishing the homilies of John Chrysostom in his church; 4) permitting the eating of fish during the fast; 5) abolishing certain ecclesiastical regulations; 6) abolishing use of zeon in the liturgy; 7) wearing a miter and other things without permission. The patriarchs of Jerusalem and two former Patriarchs of Constantinople, Athanasius and Cyril, also agreed to it. The synod excommunicated Euthymius, expelled him from the ranks of the priesthood and requested a firman for his excommunication. All these decisions were translated into Arabic at the Patriarchate of Jerusalem [however, in the document below copied from the original manuscript, it is stated that the translation was made by Patriarch Cyril himself] and were sent to the See of Antioch with the Greek original.

Upon reviewing the decisions of the synod of Constantinople, Cyril informed Euthymius of its contents and advised him to appease the responsible leaders either in his own person or through an intermediary that he would delegate. Euthymius refused. Cyril remained silent for seven months The leaders blamed him and accused him of complicity, saying "You want to ruin four patriarchates!" The patriarch of Antioch was forced to announce the decisions of the synod of Constantinople in all the dioceses of his patriarchate. Patriarch Cyril transmitted all this to the French consul in Sidon, stating, "But, my dear, if there was a Catholic in your country who was disobedient in matters of religion and he was sentenced to excommunication, they would not be able to excommunicate him until they examined his conscience for obedience, repentance and regret, and in your understanding this is sufficient for the whole affair."

In a letter written by Euthymius himself to the Propaganda Fide in late January 1720, he states that Cyril incited the patriarchs against him and that he relied on the friar Thomas to show his submission before him, so he went to Damascus, kissed the patriarch's hand, and "did obedience to him." So the patriarch blessed him and declared it in Hasbaya, Beirut, and Tripoli and he advised him to leave Sidon and hide in the Chouf.

The Patriarchs' Excommunication:

Jeremiah, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch

To the holy Father of Fathers and Chief of Chiefs, Kyr Cyril, Patriarch of the Great City of God Antioch and All the East, and to the God-loving metropolitans and archbishops who are under Your Holiness' obedience, our elect brothers in the Spirit and concelebrants of the divine mysteries, and to the pious priests, our beloved children, the honorable archons and notables and the rest of the Orthodox Christians who are resident in the eparchy of Antioch, our beloved children in the Lord.

Peace and joy to all of you, and the mercy of God, ruler of all, blessing from Our Mediocrity, and may you all obtain full forgiveness, amen.

You know that it is necessary for every person to keep his faith received from our right-worshiping and orthodox fathers intact and unshaken and for you to keep it and tightly preserve it as it was decreed by the law of the holy Apostles and the divine fathers who spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is, the laws and canons of the Church, and as it is recorded in the holy scriptures.Therefore, we must assiduously preserve our dogma with all effort, free of blemish, fleeing from evil thoughts and and rejecting the enticements of the world. We must keep the Orthodox faith brightly shining with all witness and confirmation, since if a person deviates in his belief and glorifies himself, saying inappropriate, transgressive words, which are statements of heresy and blasphemy about what has been passed down, then these things are all vain. Unheard-of discourse that is heedless of it and contrary to it is meant to destroy people and disturb the heart, since it is said, "Do not change the traditions of the fathers." A disturbed heart has no rest and is a sounding trumpet. One who has such a disturbance is from every perspective acting according to the devil and has departed from reason, with the help and delusion of the hater of truth who always gleefully strives for contrariness and does not strive for those who apply his opinion, but rather always fights against the orthodox and places doubts in them. He is hated, rejected and sent away, along with those who follow his diabolical deeds and he is expelled from the Church of God because the Creator is among the righteous. He who desires to repel from himself demonic delusions, let him ponder within himself and know truth from falsehood. Such a one is crooked, deceitful and quarrelsome, his speech is inappropriate, he condemns others and opposes the truth, he sows his wicked thoughts that no intellect can comprehend.

Such things as these have made his delusion and blasphemy clear to us. This has been confirmed for us from the writings and letters and from trustworthy, honest witnesses and from the writings bearing his name and signature, which were revealed at this holy synod of ours, those of the one who, with God's leave, became the hierarch who is the wretched and wicked Euthymius, metropolitan in name but not in deed of Tyre and Sidon, this deluded liar who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, who harbors falsehood in his heart and in his soul. Now his lies, his delusion which disturbs the flock and rational sheep of Christ, trampling upon them and leading them astray in falsehood and slander, has become evident.

He was not content with that, but he called himself "Orthodox" and advertised that he was steadfast in the belief of the Eastern Church, all in order to trick the pious and perversely lure them into falling. He published his own books, manufacturing testimonies as he wishes and attributing them to the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church. Those who have examined them as is necessary understand them and know their meaning.

Then, a report has reached us also that he composed writings against the all-memorable Kyr Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was zealous for the Orthodox religion and whose piety, religiousness and knowledge has become famous throughout the inhabited world and whose good reputation has gone out into the whole world, who resembles the Holy Apostles, as is attested by the books he wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and with great toil about Orthodoxy, which he knew very well and taught day and night, preaching it throughout the inhabited world.

This unfortunate person shows himself to have transgressed the holy laws and holds in contempt that they are established according to truth and orthodoxy. He did not understand their meanings as is necessary, but rather leads astray many simple people with little knowledge, in their lack of understanding and coarse minds, who nevertheless pride themselves on their knowledge. They do not know anything and are ignorant of the path that leads to salvation, since it is narrow and not broad. Therefore, they accepted this deluded man's permitting for them things that do not provide benefit. He enters into the sheepfold as a shepherd on the outside, while on the inside he is a rapacious wolf who slaughters and scatters to the extent of his vain ability. He increases in delusion, corruption, falsehood, vanity because he knows that they are simple and illiterate and do not understand anything. He creates innovations and thinks that they are from holy scripture. All of this is because of his haughtiness, vanity and pride.

He says in all his letters 'from the lowly metropolitan', that is, from the unworthy, without understanding that this matter was not given to him, but rather it was given to patriarchs and autocephalous archbishops and not to others, as has been set by the divine teachers.

This was not enough for him, but in his great stupidity and ignorance he trespassed into other eparchies, preaching there without permission or the authorization of the eparch. From this it is clear that he does not act according to the law and it is not appropriate and orderly for hierarchs to step into others' sees without their permission, as is explained in Canon XX of the Holy Quinsext Council, which mentions that it is not fitting for a hierarch to enter or teach in a diocese other than his own. Anyone who dares to do that is cut off from his priesthood.

Also, in Canons XIX and XXIX of the Council of Great Antioch, it explicitly stipulates that every hierarch who performs an ordination outside of his diocese or preaches without the permission of the eparch or without a letter from him, such an ordination is void and the one who was ordained is cut off from all ranks of the priesthood.

Therefore, the words and deeds of this unfortunate Euthymius having been confirmed to us, as well as his deviation and blasphemy against proper worship and against the holy canons, and his impudently and shamelessly abolishing them, since he has transgressed the holy canons because:

1) He permitted marriages of the fourth degree and the marriage of two sisters to two brothers.

2) He ordained people outside of his diocese.

3) He abolished the interpretations of John Chrysostom and said "they are hierarchs and I am a hierarch like them."

4) He permitted the eating of fish on Wednesdays and Fridays, during the Great and Holy Fast and during the other fasts and he condemns those who do not eat fish during fasting periods.

5) He abolished the regulations of the Church and added and subtracted from her canons.

6) He removed from the Divine Liturgy putting the zeon, warm water, and raising it up.

7) In his pride with himself and haughtiness, he dared to have a miter fashioned for himself without those metropolitans who preceded him in that see having ever worn one, doing this without permission or consultation with his teacher, and without authorization. 

He made himself independent and transgressed the holy canons, as well as other things that are vile to recount. Therefore, our synod has truly ruled that he is worthy of excommunication and he is cut off from all ranks of the great and angelic priesthood.

In as much has he has not remained upright, but rather has prided himself on his knowledge and has imitated the rank of the angels who fell from heaven. It is necessary for every hierarch to be pure, not only in word but in deed, so that his flock does not even make a tiny word of complaint about him and so that the holy Name is not slandered. Indeed, he should be like one of the Apostles in word and deed. Anyone who does the contrary of this opinion and teaches people contrary to it, deluding the minds of the simple, like this man should fall from his rank. This deluded person should be expelled from among us. He should be expelled like a stone from a slingshot, as in the law of the Apostles.

Now may everyone reading this and hearing our message know and believe that, after a profound examination and meticulous verification at this synod in the presence of the ever-memorable patriarchs, our brothers Kyr Athanasius and Kyr Cyril, former patriarchs of Constantinople, and in the presence of our brother the most glorious father Chrysanthos, patriarch of Jerusalem, and in the presence of those of our hierarchs, the God-loving metropolitans and bishops, our concelebrants who are with us, whose names we shall mention below, we have all ruled that this wicked Euthymius, metropolitan of Tyre and Sidon is excommunicated, deposed, cut off from all ranks of the priesthood and stripped of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. May he be deposed and outside the rank of the metropolitanate. May he be deposed and expelled from the whole of his diocese. As for the books composed by him, they are to be rejected and are void. No one has authorization from the right-worshipping to pay attention to them or to act according to them. [This seems to be in reference to his highly Latinizing recension of the Divine Liturgy]. Any Christian who transgresses this and follows the aforementioned liar and distorter of Christ's Orthodox Church, the rational flock, who resembles the devil, whoever he may be, is excommunicated.

This wretched and unfortunate person does not have property in his diocese and no longer has authorization to lay claim to his church or to touch its income from the Christians. He has no authority to wear the vestments of a hierarch, or to act and serve as one, because he is cut off, deposed and the grace of all ranks of the priesthood is removed from him. From now on, he is only known as "Euthymius" and nothing else and he is as one cast out. Any priest or hierarch who knowingly concelebrates with him is cut off from his priesthood and deposed. Any layperson who honors him as a hierarch and kisses that unclean hand, filled with falsehood, in order to receive a blessing, may his sins be unforgiven if he does this knowingly. Whosoever among you or anyone else who helps him and receives him into his home or helps him in his activities, whoever it may be, great or small, is excommunicated. From now on, anyone who is consecrated by his hand is cut off. Let those who agree with him and declare that they are in agreement against the truth be excommunicated with him, and may their lot be with the crooked, as the Prophet David says. All those who are contrary and schism, inclining toward his delusion and blasphemy, let them receive wrath and be excommunicated in this age. May they inherit incurable leprosy always. May they be shaken like Cain and perish, not receiving the necessary sustenance, blotted out from the Book of Life. May they receive wrath from the 318 fathers and all the fathers of the councils.

But all Orthodox Christians who heed to commands of the Church and act according to them and not contrary to them or fleeing them, following the traditions and ordinances of the holy fathers, successful in every good work, may they inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen, amen, Amen. Issued in October, 1718, the Second Indiction.

[A list of signatures follows.]

Copied from the Greek language into Arabic in Damascus by the Father of Fathers and Chief of Chiefs, the Shepherd of Shepherds, Kyr Cyril, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East.

Wilhelm de Vries on the Schism of 1724

To go along with the last post about the historiography of the 1724 schism, I thought I'd post a translation of one of the better summaries of the events of that time written from a self-consciously Roman Catholic perspective, which is often overlooked because it was published in German.

The following is translated from Wilhelm de Vries, Rom und die Patriarchate des Ostens (Freiburg and Munich: Karl Alber, 1963), 88-91.

The Melkite Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria had been represented at the Council of Florence and had accepted the union there, although it had difficulty effectively coming through. Whether it was already renounced in 1443 at a synod of the three patriarchs in Jerusalem is debated.[1] In any case, the Union of Florence was expressly rejected at a council in Constantinople where the Eastern Patriarchates were also represented. Many Catholic Melkites today defend the thesis that the Melkites of the Patriarchate of Antioch have in fact never been schismatic. According to them, the schism first arose through the creation of the Catholic hierarchy in 1724. The opposition to this overly-strict binding to Rome would have led to the schism.[2] This thesis is unacceptable. Even more recently, Joseph Nasrallah has clearly shown that in the period between the Council of Florence and the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy, the Antiochian Church was also tied to the undoubtedly schismatic Constantinople in the closest possible way. Such a bond does not agree with a true union with Rome.[3] This view is entirely compatible with that of of Charon (C. Korolevskij) that up to that time there had always been in the Patriarchate of Antioch a party favorable to union, which was also sometimes able to occupy the patriarchal throne.[4] The Apostolic Nuncio Leonardo Abel, who in the time of Gregory XIII also sought to win the Melkites for the union in any case saw them as schismatics.[5]

Serious work for union, however, also began among the Melkites first with the arrival of new missionaries after the foundation of the Propaganda. Over the course of the 17^th century, the Latin missionaries were already able to win over one or another patriarch or bishop and many of the faithful for the union. Here too, those who converted to Catholicism remained within the framework of the previously generally schismatic community. A clear distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics only came about through the election of Cyril Tanas as patriarch in 1724. Rome’s ever-stricter regulations against liturgical fellowship with non-Catholics made this split necessary. Towards the end of the 17^th century, Patriarch Athanasius III, who had already been elected with the support of the Catholics and the French consul in Aleppo, made a Catholic profession of faith (1687). He probably also did that in order to contend with his rival, Cyril V.[6] As a result, Rome recognized him without any further formalities as the legitimate pastor of his flock. This flock was partly made up of Catholics, but still probably to a greater extent of schismatics. When Cyril V also made a Catholic profession of faith in 1716, Rome preferred to have the Patriarch Athanasius resign, which he accepted in 1717. After Cyril’s death (1720), however, he became patriarch again, but now behaving in a very anti-Catholic manner. Cyril’s position was not clearly Catholic either. Both patriarchs, however, died as Catholics, Athanasius in 1724.

Much more important for the commencement of a real reunification than these patriarchs of dubious sentiment was the absolutely sincerely Catholic Archbishop of Tyre and Sidon, Euthymius Sayfi. Cyril V, who at the time was still undoubtedly schismatic, had elevated him to this dignity in 1683. Already in that year, Euthymius recognized the Pope as his head. In 1701, Rome gave this bishop jurisdiction over all the Catholics of the Patriarchate of Antioch who did not have their own bishop, which incidentally is also a sign that they did not have much trust in Athanasius in Rome. Probably under the influence of the missionaries, Euthymius demonstrated a strong inclination to transform the rite in a Latinizing manner. But Rome did not agree to this at all. Euthymius died in 1723.

After the death of Patriarch Athanasius in Aleppo the following year, the Catholics in Damascus saw that the moment had arrived to bring an undoubtedly Catholic man to the top of the patriarchate. The clergy and people of Damascus elected the late Archbishop Euthymius’ nephew, Seraphim Tanas, who took the name Cyril. He was already from a Catholic family and had studied in Rome. After it was transferred from Antioch, Damascus was the patriarchal seat and so, according to ancient Eastern practice, the clergy and the people had the right to choose their bishop, who at the same time was also patriarch. None of the bishops took part in the election, since they had all been summoned to Aleppo following the death of Athanasius. In Damascus, they wanted to get ahead of the opponents of union and so wanted to elect a Catholic as head of the patriarchate as quickly as possible. The electors in no way intended to split the patriarchate and install a patriarch only for the Catholic part. That is clear from the fact that non-Catholics also took part in the election. Efforts were immediately made to have the sultan recognize Cyril as head of the entire patriarchate. Since the pasha of Damascus also supported the petition, there seemed to be a good hope of achieving their goal.

In fact, the opponents of union elected a nephew of the late Athanasius, who had been designated by him as his successor, as patriarch with the name Sylvester. He was consecrated in Constantinople, a week after Cyril’s consecration. Sylvester did not immediately show himself to be a clear opponent of the Catholics. This explains why he initially had followers among the Catholics, even among the missionaries in Aleppo; he had, after all, been designated by the dying Catholic Patriarch Athanasius. Also with the help of the British ambassador in Constantinople, Sylvester obtained the decree of recognition from the sultan and even won over the French ambassador to his side. He soon appeared as a persecutor of the Catholics and demanded that all sign an anti-Catholic profession of faith. Cyril could not remain in Damascus and found refuge in the mountains of Lebanon, from where he ran his patriarchate. Only for a short time did he obtain recognition from the sultan. Sylvester finally had the upper hand and at a synod in Constantinople in 1728, together with the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, he hurled an excommunication at Cyril and his followers. Thus, the patriarchate was clearly split into Catholic and anti-Catholic halves, each with its own patriarch and bishops. The reason for this was the choice of the undoubtedly Catholic Cyril Tanas. In the long run, the clear division between Catholics and non-Catholics could not be avoided.

After some hesitation, Rome recognized Patriarch Cyril Tanas (1729). The basis for the hesitation was doubts about the validity of the election and inconvenient information about Cyril’s latinizing tendencies. Above all, he wanted to ease the Greeks’ hard fasts. Later developments proved him right about this. Easing of fasting rules was unstoppable in the long term. At the time, however, Rome did not want to know anything about it, so as not to create an obstacle for the reunification of those still separated. These difficulties delayed the granting of the pallium to Cyril until 1744.[7] With Cyril Tanas begins the unbroken line of undoubtedly Catholic Melkite patriarchs of Antioch. In 1772 the Holy See assigned all Catholics of the Byzantine Rite, including those of the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria, to the Patriarchate of Antioch.[8]

---

[1] See J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), 353-354. Also notes 1 and 2.

[2] B. Homsy, Les capitulations et la protection des chrétiens au Proche Orient au XVI, XVII, et XVIII siècles (Harissa, 1956), 361.

[3] J. Nasrallah, “Chronologie des Patriarches Melchites d’Antioche de 1500-1634,” Proche-Orient Chrétien 7 (1957), 26ff and continuations.

[4] J. Charon, “L’Eglise grecque melchite catholique,” Echos d’Orient 4 (1900-1901), 331.

[5] d’Avril, “Relation de l’évêque de Sidon,” ROC 3 (1898), 4ff.

[6] On the following, see: de Vries, “Der selige Papst Innozenz XI…” OCP 23 (1957), 45ff.

[7] Mansi 46, 37ff.

[8] Mansi 46, 581-582.

 

Serge Descy on the 20th Century Historiography of Cyril Tanas' Election

The following is taken from The Melkite Church: An Historical and Ecclesiological Approach, trans. Kenneth J. Mortimer, (Newton, MA: Sophia Press, 1993). The French original of this section is available here. While Descy, a Belgian Melkite Catholic priest, gives a very useful overview of positions taken by various authors, he himself ignores important facts about the Patriarch Sylvester that they mention, including that he was an Arabic-speaker (in addition to Greek), designated as successor by Athanasius III Dabbas, and requested from Constantinople by the people of Aleppo (where all members of the Holy Synod of Antioch, apart from those created by Euthymius Sayfi were located at the time). But more on that in future posts.

Most authors who have striven to grasp the ins and outs of this new Antiochian schism of 724 have, unfortunately, always presented it within the traditional framework of the canonical legality of the patriarchal elections. Thus it is that C.L. Spiessens[1] envisages only two canonical procedures for the patriarchal succession to Athanasius III Dabbas: either election by the Holy Synod of Antioch, presided over by the Metropolitan of Tyre, or the transfer of the election to the Synodos Endemousa of Constantinople.[2] As far as the latter is concerned, it is true that during the period of Ottoman domination the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was once again playing a preponderant role in the internal affairs of the Church of Antioch, proceeding with several depositions and elections of its patriarchs.[3]

After the Byzantine conquest of 969, the patriarchs were nearly all Byzantines, because they were designated by their colleagues of Constantinople. As we have already said in the first chapter, some patriarchs continued to reside at Constaintople during the occupation of the crusaders and even during that of the Ottomans. So there was nothing astonishing or exceptional about the intervention of Constantinople in 1724. But should we not see here an abuse, due to a privileged political situation, of the primatial right accorded to Constantinople once and for all at the Council in Trullo in 692, and a violation of the juridical autonomy of an apostolic see? In any case, in the Arabic Canonical Collection of the Melkites,[4] which has come down to us in the form of numerous manuscripts of the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries, there is to be found a paraphrase of the fourth Greek canon of the First Council of Nicaea, which considers the election of a patriarch as the right of the people of his diocese, of the metropolitans, and of the bishops, who should all be present at his installation.[5] It is a matter here of one of many variant texts that allow us to conclude that there was a unique canonical discipline in the Greek Church of Antioch. Although deeply influenced by Byzantine law from the eleventh century onward,[6] this clearly shows a particular form of autonomy[7] in which the election of patriarchs was an element of no mean importance. So of the alternatives proposed by Spiessens, we would rather turn our attention to the designation of the patriarch by the Holy Synod of Antioch, for this procedure seems more in accordance both with local tradition and with the general tradition of the Eastern Churches.[8] But on this basis the election of Sylvester, in which no Damascene and no Antiochian bishop took part, does not induce us to consider him, as Spiessens maintains, the one who “would continue the true line of Chalcedonian patriarchs before and after the Severian schism.”[9]

We are, however, also obliged to admit that neither does the election of Cyril VI satisfy the conditions required for canonical regularity and for his subsequent consecration. There was in fact no bishop present at his election nor any meeting of the Synod.[10] As for his consecration, the same author maintains that it was irregular, in view of the uncanonical nature of the consecrations of Basil Finan and of Euthymios Fadel, the absence of any consent from the bishops of the Synod, etc.[11]

Thus, from a canonical point of view, Cyril VI could hardly be the “legitimate successor of Peter at Antioch” as J. Nasrallah would have it in his well-known doctoral thesis, which takes just the opposite position from that of Spiessens.[12] The documentation that Nasrallah presents is certainly rich, convincing and historically founded, but his polemical method may well leave many a reader bewildered.[13]

In any case, the “canonical” interpretation of the schism is older. Of the many apologists of the Greek Catholic Church who took the side of Cyril VI, P. Bacel is the first Catholic historian we know of who openly questioned the legitimacy of his election, without going so far as to support his rival, Sylvester.[14] He is contradicted by the argument of the papal confirmation, needless to say from an entirely Catholicizing perspective.[15]

More surprising is the contribution of S. Gholam, representing the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch at a theological symposium organized in 1980 at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at Chambésy-Geneva.[16] Taking the side of Sylvester, he simply revives the old question without however bringing any new element into the case.[17]

 

---

[1] See C.L. Spiessens, “Les patriarches d’Antioche et leur succession apostolique,” L’Orient Syrien 7 (1962), pp. 389-434.

[2] Spiessens, p. 427

[3] Some examples, among them that of the election of Athanasius Dabbas III, can be found in Delikanis, Patriarchal Writings (in Greek) (Constantinople 1905), vol. 2, pp. 155-159, 165, 172-177, 638-641; cited by Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardis, “Le Patriarcat Oecuménique dans l’Eglise Orthodoxe,” Théologie Historique, 32 (Paris, 1975), pp. 352-353. In fact, close ties had existed between the sees of Antioch and of Constantinople since the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) and even some time before. Later, in 702, under Arab doination the patriarchs of Antioch were forbidden to reside in Islamic territory and had to reside for forty years in the imperial city.

[4] The expression is taken from J. B. Darblade, La Collection Canonique Arabe des Melkites (XIIIème-XVIIème siècle) in Fonti Codif. Can. Orientale, 2^nd Series, part 13 (Harissa, Lebanon, 1946).

[5] E. Jarawan, La Collection Canonique Arabe des Melkites et sa physionomie propre, d’après documents et textes en comparaison avec le droit byzantine, Corona Lateranensis, 15 (Rome, 1969), pp. 54-55.

[6] See P. Nabaa, “Influence du droit byzantine sur le droit melkite,” thesis, Oriental Pontifical Institute, Rome, 1947.

[7] Jarawan, p. 49

[8] Duprey, “La structure synodale de l’Eglise dans la théologie orientale,” P.O.C. 20 (1970), p. 4. We also refer the reader to the canonical rules in effect in the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch, for example, canons IV and XIV of Nicea I, and canons XIX and XIII of Antioch.

[9] Spiessens, “Les Patriarches d’Antioche,” p. 433.

[10] Spiessens, p. 428, finds only one precedent for this election of a patriarch by the community of Damascus alone, that of Mark of Saidnaya in 1451. Hoever, the election was subsequently confirmed by the Holy Synod of Antioch.

[11] Spiessens, pp. 428-429. The following studies can be usefully consulted: P. L’Huiller, “La pluralité des consécrateurs dans les chirotonies épiscopales,” Messager de l’exarchat du patriarcat russe en Europe occidentale 11:42-43 (1963), p. 102 ff. L. Mortari, Consacrazione episcopale e collegialita. La testamonianza della Chiesa antica (Florence, 1969).  

[12] See Nasrallah, Sa Béatitude IV et la succession apostolique du siège d’Antioche (Paris, 1963); and “Le Patriarcat d’Antioche est-il resté, après 1054, en communion avec Rome?” Istina 21 (1976), pp. 374-411

[13] The thesis developed by Nasrallah can be summarized thus: Cyril VI Thanas, unlike Sylvester of Cyprus, is the only legitimate patriarch on the throne of Antioch. So there is perfect continuity between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Chalcedonian Church of Antioch. Throughout its history, this see has never been truly in a state of disunion with Rome. The Greek Orthodox, on the other hand, have the unhappy privilege of being “separated” from the authentic lineage of the see. In this way, since 1724, the Antiochian identity has gradually been lost; one part of the community turned towards Constantinople and became more Byzantine than Antiochian, and the other, subjugated to Vatican policy, became more Roman.

[14] P. Bacel, “Le Patriarche Cyrille VI et les Chouérites (1731-1735)," E.O. (1906), p. 283.

[15] See C. Bacha, “L’élection de Cyrille VI hanas au Patriarchat d’Antioche,” in E.O. 10 (1907), pp. 200-206; also the answer of P. Bacel, summarized by S. Vailhé, “A propos de Cyrille VI Thanas,” E.O. 11 (1908), pp. 40-41.

[16] S. Gholam, “Evolution et originalité de l’Eglise locale d’Antioche,” in Eglise locale et Eglise universelle, Etudes théologiques, 1 (Chambésy, 1981), pp. 45-68.

[17] This significant passage is worth quoting: “The first Greek Catholic Patriarch was Cyril Tanas, ordained in 1724 in a way contrary to the canons and laws in force in the Orthodox Church. Despite this, in 1729 Benedict XIII sent him the decree of confirmation accompanied by the pallium [NB: In fact, the 1729 confirmation was informal and the pallium was only sent in 1744. -Samn!]. He took possession of the patriarchal palace by force but had to abandon it when the Sublime Porte became aware of his intentions and of those of his protectors. The Orthodox then had a legitimate patriarch elected in the person of Sylvester I (1724-1766), who came from Mount Athos and was consecrated bishop at Constantinople at the demand of the Orthodox of Damascus [NB: this should be ‘Aleppo’. -Samn!] (Gholam, p. 62.