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?

Melkite Catholic Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh: Latins, Orthodox and Eastern Catholics (1963)

After Met Antony Bashir published a rather negative assessment of the Melkite Catholic Church in 1957, it is interesting to see that in 1963 the Word magazine, under his direction, published a lengthy essay about Eastern Catholic identity by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh. There can be little doubt that this is a sign of the rapidly warming ecumenical relations during the Second Vatican Council, and much of what the patriarch says foreshadows the Balamand Document and Zoghby Initative of later decades. Reading it today, however, what stands out the most is just how much Maximos IV's outlook contrasts with the position of the current Melkite Catholic patriarch, Youssef Absi, who last year declared that "in dogma and canon law, we are Catholics, and in liturgy and sacramental life we are Byzantines"-- precisely the attitude that the essay below laments as as "uniatism"!

The following is taken from The Word / Al-Kalemat vol. 7, issue 2 (February 1963), pp. 4-9, accessed through the The Hoda Z. Nassour and Herbert R. Nassour Jr., MD, Archive of Lebanese Diaspora, here.

 

 

Latins, Orthodox and Eastern Catholics

A discussion of the Eastern churches and their role in Christian unity

by HIS BEATITUDE MAXIMOS IV

Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and of the Whole East, Alexandria and Jerusalem

Reprinted from "JUBILEE MAGAZINE"

We would not depart far from the truth by saying that the relations between the Roman Church and the various Eastern Churches were not definitively broken until the day when Rome, either losing her patience or giving up hope for a union of all churches, received within her fold a number of Eastern groups, granting them a separate hierarchy and organization. Paradoxically, therefore, it was the partial union of a number of Eastern groups with the Roman See that put an end to efforts directed at an ecumenic union between East and West. 

From these partial unions, following the failure of the Council of Florence, were born several Catholic communities of Eastern rite. In admitting them within the Catholic unity, the Holy See committed itself through the most solemn promises to respect their entire spiritual heritage. The Roman See thought that, while keeping their own rites and discipline, these communities now united with it would become the seed and first fruits of that unity which it one day hoped to restore with the entire East. The manner in which they were treated within the great Catholic family was to be, it was hoped, a guarantee and a model of the treatment held in store in the universal church for all Eastern Christian communities, should the reunion with them be restored.

Unfortunately, it so happened that these Catholic communities of Eastern rite were not always able to fulfill their mission. We must admit on the one hand that they were never fully accepted by the Western Catholics who, as a body, continued to ignore, try, and suspect them. Some went so far as to fight them only in their very homeland. These groups were hardly ever admitted into Catholic unity without reservations, at least on the part of the lower authorities. On the other hand, they themselves were at times so defenseless against the invasion of Western ways and customs that in the eyes of the East they often represented, not an accessible form of union to be achieved in truth and respect, but rather an instance of hidden absorption and almost total Latinization.

We can well raise the theoretical question whether the establishment of these uniate churches was good or bad for the cause of ecumenic union.

But we cannot deny that these churches now exist and that they are even fairly successful. If they have not yet fulfilled all the expectations centered upon them, we should perhaps raise this other question: Did the Orthodox as well as the Catholic world know them well and correctly, and did they help them remain faithful to their vocation?

In our opinion there is only one answer to this question. The Eastern Catholic Churches represent a powerful and indispensable means for the establishment of Christian unity, but only if they maintain, and are helped to maintain, a two-fold and equal loyalty to Catholicism and the East. If they are wanting in either regard, they can only harm the cause of unification.

To bring this point home, we shall first attempt to determine what we Eastern Catholics represent in the eyes of our Orthodox brethren in the East. Secondly, we shall evaluate the difficulties we encounter and the possible success we can hope for in the fulfillment of this vocation of "unifiers" which we believe to be our own.

What we represent in the eyes of the Catholic West

In times past the attitude of our Catholic brethren in the West was characterized by a rather widespread ignorance, a certain irrational distrust or paternalistic regrets; sometimes by a certain disdainful neglect, practical indifference, or calculated exploitation; and, in rare instances, even by hostility. Today, their attitude is marked more and more by respect, understanding and a spirit of cooperation.

Most often the Catholic West ignored us. Even today, the East knows the West better than the West knows the East. With the exception of certain orientalists for whom the East is mostly an object of scientific study, the Catholics of the West, as a whole, are completely or almost completely ignorant of the existence of an Eastern Christendom, of its history, its proper discipline, hierarchic organization, rites, and spiritual heritage. We seem to be a revelation wherever we appear. For the average Western Catholic, we are still "Christians who make the Sign of the Cross backward." Our rites are for him an object of curiosity or scientific interest, nothing more. As a rule, all the orientalists themselves know about the East is its past. Too often, alas, the East represents for the West nothing more than a mummy or a museum piece. Such an attitude, when affecting certain religious leaders, compels them to adopt measures of rigid conservation, suddenly replacing the former attempts at gradual or violent absorption. But few Westerners know much about the life of their Eastern brethren, their practical problems, their immense need of faithfulness as well as of renewal and the great mission they must carry out, despite their weakness, throughout the world.

We must add that this ignorance of the East is understandable enough. The total number of Eastern Catholics is less than 7,000,000. The entire Melkite Greek-Catholic Church is hardly larger than an average diocese in Europe. If quantity was all-important, we would be practically non-existent. But small as our number may be, we feel that a great mission has been entrusted to us and that our first task is precisely to make ourselves known, to narrow the circle of traditional ignorance with which the West still surrounds us.

Occasionally this same ignorance gives rise to a certain irrational and confused distrust toward us, unexplained by the fact that we are "Easterners" and that the West traditionally distrusts the fides graeca. Nor is it that we have deceived the West. Rather, it is an uncontrolled impression born of fear of an unknown mystery and the fruit of a mutual ignorance resulting from isolation. Hence, the responsible Western leaders feel that supervision and control must be tightened more and more. They experience this fear of the unknown. The central authority maintains among us an increasing number of informants whose word, even if it is an isolated opinion, finds with them more credit than is warranted by their personal qualifications.

It seems that many simple souls almost feel sorry that we have not yet become "entirely" Catholic; that is, Latin. For many ecclesiastics who are less simple, the Eastern Catholic Church, or, as it is more commonly called, the "Eastern Rites," represents nothing else but a concession of the Holy See of Rome to the forces of ancestral traditions still alive among the Easterners, an act of condescension, a privilege, an exception. Since one cannot make the Easterners "fully" Catholic, that is, Latin, one must resort to the clever stratagem of tolerating their presence in the Catholic Church, even though they remain "Easterners"; or, in other words, bearing with them as second-rate Catholics. Near the end of his life, a high-ranking churchman disclosed, as in a spiritual last will and testament, that the fifty years he had spent as a missionary in the East enabled him to say that Easterners will never become fully Catholic unless they become Latin. We might think that fifty years in the East have taught this zealous missionary nothing. Alas, how many others still think as he did.  

Some Latin Catholics who live among us in the East establish themselves in certain areas as if we did not exist at all. Not being able to suppress us, they pretend to ignore us. In doing so, they invoke as an excuse the good of souls, compromised, as they say, by our narrow-minded oriental sensitivity or dangerous resistance. They think, for example, that the so-called "Oriental Catholicism" can  be considered in the Catholic Church only an exception, a group of closed communities, allowed at the most to exist but in no way called to expansion. Consequently, these communities are ordered--as once in the Malabar and more recently in Palestine--not to engage in any sort of apostolic activity among the infidels who, in their conversion, are supposed to become members of no other Church but the Latin. These authorities even open the way toward Latinism for non-Catholic Easterners in spite of the existing papal directives and official orders.

In other words, for many Westerners, the real reason why Eastern Catholic Churches should exist and why these uncomfortable "outgrowths" should be tolerated is the fact that, on the one hand, they are an instrument for the "conversion of dissidents," a sort of "bait" through a clever exploitation of the similarity of rites and external organization and, on the other hand, their eventual disappearance would seriously hurt the prestige of the Latin Church.

In rare instances we encounter outright hostility, motivated by political or racial reasons or simply by reasons of competition. In Poland, before the Second World War, the patriotism of the Ukrainian Catholics was questioned by some. Even today, some Latin authorities in America consider the existence of Eastern Catholics with their own clergy, discipline, and rites, as an abnormal and uncomfortable thing; or, at least, a source of problems. We must admit by this very fact of our being Catholic without being Latin, our very presence with a Catholicism almost entirely Latin cannot be anything but uncomfortable. Many Westerners are not yet capable of thinking of unity in terms other than of uniformity. In their opinion, that which is not yet actually absorbed falls short of complete unity. This gives rise within the Eastern Church to a two-fold tendency threatening to divide it ... a massive tendency toward outright and total Latinization and a more conscious but slower tendency toward uncompromised faithfulness to the East, and this for the spiritual advantage of the universal Church herself.

Indeed, a Latinized East, while hardly causing a notable increase in Catholic membership, would no longer represent a valid witness in the eyes of the Orthodox. The incomprehension of our Western brethren is the heaviest price we have paid so far for our ecumenic vocation.

Fortunately, conditions will soon have changed. In the Western Church, ignorance, incomprehension, and occasional hostility have been superseded, especially in recent years, by an immense desire for a more intimate acquaintance with the East, by a sincere will of understanding and by actual cooperation, honest and loyal.

As a matter of fact, the last few years witnessed in the West an admirable flourishing of scientific institutions devoted to oriental research. There exist today many scientific or high-quality popular publications investigating the various aspects of the spiritual heritage of the East, and uncovering these riches for the benefit of their readers. Travel, meetings, conventions, and business give birth to numerous personal contacts between Eastern and Western Catholic. As an Arab proverb says, "we hate only the unknown." A better mutual knowledge will, no doubt, soon result in mutual respect and love between Easterners and Westerners. The younger generation of apostles, imbued with this new spirit, identify themselves more and more thoroughly with the Church they came to serve. Many of the old missionaries sent in auxilium Orientalium were a terrible burden for the East through their attempt at dominating or absorbing it under the pretext of more efficient assistance. The younger generation, on the other hand, comes truly in a spirit of service; adopts the East; and identifies with it, leaving aside all human ambition or hidden motives.

This change of attitude is comforting and promising.

What we represent in the eyes of our Orthodox brethren of the East

Considering now that we represent in the eyes of our Eastern brethren still separated from Rome, we have no choice but to say that the Orthodox East, while knowing us better, remains even harder toward us than the Catholic West.

In countries where the united Eastern communities numerically only represent a small minority, the Orthodox pretend to ignore them.

For most of our Orthodox brethren, "East" and "Roman Catholicism" are contradictory terms. One could not be Oriental and Roman Catholic at the same time.

Very often they still consider us spies and mercenaries serving the political and religious imperialism of the Vatican. The Soviet world tolerate religion in its Orthodox or Latin form but persecutes to death those who dare to be as Oriental as the Orthodox and as Catholic as the Latins while being neither Orthodox nor Latin.

The Orthodox authorities are inclined to consider us as ravaging wolves in sheep's clothing and, consequently, persecute us as the chief agents of Roman proselytism. Those among our Orthodox brethren who, knowing us a little better, refuse to believe that we are capable of such sinister designs, pity us as unwitting victims, who without realizing it, work at strengthening the ambition for supremacy and universal domination which, in their opinion, constantly inspires the Roman Church. At any rate, it is undeniable that our Orthodox brethren feel deeply hurt by what they call our premature, unconditional union, comparable in their minds to a separate peace treaty signed by political powers without the knowledge or approval of their allies.

But let us not dwell any further upon these painful aspects. After all, what people think of us is not the most important thing. The important thing is what we truly are and represent--what we desire to be--and what God expects from us.

What we represent for Christian unity

Superficial minds were capable of saying that the Eastern Catholics--the "Uniates" as they like to call them--are the least fit for promoting any kind of understanding with the Orthodox.

We must frankly admit that this is sometimes exactly the case. As an example, the Greek Church, which would be willing to deal with representatives of the Latin Church and is very favorably disposed toward it, pretends to ignore the very existence of the Hellenic Catholics of Byzantine Rite who, it is true, are of recent origin and few in number. Often legal restrictions are imposed upon them, which is a familiar practice with all religious groups representing a great majority and united with the State.

Careful reflection, however, reveals that this reaction of the Orthodox circles is entirely normal. It is the typical reaction of all Christian groups which refuse to consider any union because they think that any step in that direction is the beginning of disintegration. Union means dying to ourselves to a certain extent. They refuse to accept this death which would open for them the way toward a new life. They fall back upon their spiritual riches but, by the same fact, they give up the possibility of increasing their riches. For all Churches life consists precisely in self-renouncement for the sake of achieving their fullness through unity. It is a mystery of renouncement and death, preceding a mystery of renewal and life.

With this in mind we can easily understand the sometimes very violent reaction of the Churches of the East when from among their own ranks courageous voices arise calling for efforts toward this universalism, when strong but loving hands are outstretched to meet and bring about the necessary renouncement that the body may survive in unity. The united Easterners are like a child warning his older brother against an unsuspected danger. Now, when brothers fight, any stranger seems to be welcome. But in actual fact no one can take the place of the younger brother. No one can understand and love these communities which are still afraid and hesitant as do those who had the courage of preceding them, paying with their own person, upon the road we all must travel sooner or later, in one manner or another if we are fully to rediscover the Truth of Christ.

We must admit, as we carry out our vocation of "unifiers," that several factors work against us. First of all, our "uniatism." This false form of union is a very bad example we give our Orthodox brethren. Our union has been practically an absorption. Every Christian who thinks of union wishes to see it accomplished in such a way that none of the treasures and charisms proper to each Church are lost. The advocates of uniatism have left only the rites of the East untouched ... in every other domain they attempted to take away from the East its best possessions, to give it instead, or impose upon it, what was often less good in the West. The Catholic West, as a whole, has not realized yet with sufficient clarity that, in addition to the liturgical rites, there are in the East other great riches--spiritual, artistic, theological, institutional--to be safeguarded for the benefit of the entire Church. Consequently, it endeavored in the past to destroy everything that did not resemble its own image. We must admit that this attempt was rather successful, for, except for the liturgical rites (and even there...) nothing could resemble the West more than this united East as we find it among the majority of the existing Eastern Catholic communities. Understandably, this model of union does not make our task any easier.

While the responsibility is not ours alone in the matter of this uniatism, some other obstacles to union are directly imputable to us. Very often we lose contact with our Orthodox brethren. We stop caring about them. When we arrive at a certain level of organization, of material and numerical prosperity, we settle down in sinful contentedness and convince ourselves that there is no need for us to look beyond our own "dear community."

In other instances, we unnecessarily depart from them in matters not affected by our union: liturgy, discipline, spirituality, theology, exterior appearances, etc. This is the way in which some Eastern Catholics like to express the difference between them and their brethren of the same rite. They forget that by doing this they lose their usefulness to the Church because for the West they are no longer Easterners and for the East they do not represent the West. Those in the Catholic Church who are determined to Latinize our institutions should understand that by bringing us so close to Latinism they do not increase appreciably the number of Latin adherents but they do lose for the Catholic Church the few Eastern members it has at the present time. The Church can have no special interest for us unless we remain both deeply Catholic and deeply Oriental. The "Latinizers" work, unwittingly perhaps, but certainly against the advantages of the Catholic Church. They set out to prove, indeed, that a sincere connection between these two qualities is impossible within Roman Catholicism.

Another obstacle to our ecumenic mission is our numerical inferiority. We are a minority almost everywhere, which not only makes massive action impossible for us but also gives rise in us to complexes and psychoses characteristic of minority groups.

We should add that the numerical inferiority is often accompanied by a certain spiritual poverty. We have lost our Oriental spirituality while acquiring only imperfectly the spirituality of the West. Assuredly, the union has been in general a cause of enrichment that was not at the same time a revival of all the spiritual values proper to the East, with the exception of the liturgical rites.

A last obstacle hindering considerably the work of unification has been a spirit of exaggerated proselytism displayed by some Catholics. In itself proselytism is an act of virtue, for it is defined as "zeal for making proselytes; that is, converts to a religious faith." We do not speak here of this legitimate and discrete proselytism but of its abuse, of that excess which we may call "conversion mania," not being able to work toward the union of churches or even knowing how to go about it (we must admit that the whole idea with its present methods is comparatively new to the faithful). Some Eastern Catholics, following in this the majority of Latin missionaries, arrived at a point where they could see the work of unification in no other light than in the form of "individual conversion."

Pending the achievement of an ecumenic and definitive union of the churches, it is completely normal that certain souls, convinced of the truth, should request admittance to the Catholic Church in one form or another. Under pain of violating the freedom of conscience, we must accept the souls who come to us. Our Orthodox brethren do the same, which is normal. In our own Patriarchate, the practice prevailing for several decades now has been the following. When groups, even small groups, ask us for admittance, we welcome them only after a long waiting period, sometimes extending to several years, and only after referring these groups repeatedly to the Orthodox authorities. Only after all negotiations prove fruitless and these groups are in danger of being absorbed by certain sects offering them attractive material advantages do we finally decide to admit them. It must be granted that this new method is not adopted always and everywhere. We should never attempt, under the pretext that the union is humanly impossible to achieve, or is far removed in the future, to ravish by all available means from the Orthodox a few particularly weak and defenseless souls or take advantage of internal discords existing among the ranks of the same Orthodoxy in order to undermine it. Precisely because the West has at time looked upon the Eastern Catholics as "tools of conversion," the latter have lost in the eyes of their Orthodox brethren some of the prestige indispensable for the accomplishment of their essential mission which is to work at bringing West and East close together in view of an eventual union to take place in the manner and at the time it will please the Lord to set.

Fortunately, opposed to those elements hindering our mission there are others working in our favor as so many valuable, unique assets we have in our hands.

First of all, is not the greatest source of strength in the work of unification is the acute awareness we have of the great misfortune the present separation means? In countries with an overwhelmingly Catholic majority, such as Italy or Spain, the separation of Christians is a distant evil; an "evil of reason," so to speak, having no serious consequences in public life. Consequently, Catholics in these countries are often tempted to yield to a spirit of passivity and self-sufficiency. More than one responsible Catholic in the West must have secretly thought at one time or another that there are enough Catholics as it is, and that a union with the Orthodox Easterners would be practically more troublesome than advantageous. As for ourselves, we could never reason in this manner. We suffer in our minds, in our hearts, in our very flesh, because of the separation of Christians. We are filled with the desire Christ expressed at the Last Supper: "That they may be one." The schisms divide the members of the same family, hinder any deep-going action on our part upon our social environment, and expose our Christians to the ridicule of their Moslem compatriots. The problem of union haunts us constantly. It is for us a consuming thirst--it is part of our very existence.

For the work of unification we have certain unique advantages. We are of the same race, language, mentality and even liturgy as our Orthodox brethren. We are brethren in the full sense of the word. Union could only be a family reconciliation for us, not a humiliating submission or an avowal of guilt. In suggesting this union, we seek no personal advantage. On the contrary, we further our own disappearance as a hierarchized community. To be exact, we are hoping that once the union is achieved, there will no longer be a united or uniate Eastern Church but simply an Eastern Church, among whose ranks we ourselves shall reenter as if we had never departed.

Another element working in our favor is our faithfulness to the East, a faithfulness finally recovered and vigorously defended. There was a time when some Eastern Catholics thought it was an honor to be able to come as close as possible to to the West and to copy its particular features in the smallest detail. In other words, become Latinized. Admittedly, our Greek Melkite Catholic Church has been the one resisting the most strongly the Latinizing tendencies that have disfigured other Eastern Catholic communities. We have spoken above the willingness of the Catholic West to spare only the liturgical rites of a united East. In fact, in a certain official style of writing, "Eastern Rites" are synonymous with "Eastern Churches." As the Roman Church endeavored to save the "Eastern Rites," so some of its representatives were determined to deprive the Oriental Churches of their own heritage, canonical institutions, and traditional organization and give them a Latin feature.

To quote only one example, the recent code of Eastern canon law, we must unfortunately state that despite an impressive critical apparatus and a terminology inspired by Eastern sources, despite also a great amount of labor worthy of praise, the very core of the new law remains extremely Latinizing in tendency. This has not always been the fault of the specialists doing the work but rather of the environment in which the work was done. For this environment, the closest possible similarity in substance and form with the Latin canon law remains the supreme ideal. Institutions proper to the East, such as the Patriarchate, are tolerated as exceptions and confined within the strictest possible limits when they are not altogether cleverly deprived of every meaning and practically neutralized as a result of an excessive administrative centralization.

The efforts our Church is making to insure that the East is given back its proper features are well known. Our faithfulness to the East must not be interpreted as a tendency to archaism, a blind clinging to ancestral traditions, a sign of certain reservations about the faith, a narrow-mindedness neglecting the essential for the sake of the secondary, a new form of gallicism, or an unlawful desire for independence within the Catholic fold. We are attached to the East because we love what is true and good. We are attached to it because we desire to safeguard the truly apostolic physiognomy of the Church with all the treasures and beauty this means and all the generosity of organizational concepts that render the Church capable of assimilating all nations without taking away from them the qualities that fundamentally characterize them as nations.

Maintaining the Eastern Catholic Church is not a trap we set for the Orthodox. They do not represent a transitory stage before final and total Latinization, nor a temporary concession to the atavistic forces working in Oriental souls. The Eastern Churches must be willed for their own sake in the framework wherein God and nature have placed them for their normal development. In Catholicism, the area of faith is untouchable, immovable, and uniform in its essential lines. But in the details of Christian life as a social phenomenon, many combinations are possible and desirable.

We must be convinced that Christianity can never accomplish its mission in the world unless it is catholic; that is, universal, not only in principle but also in actual fact. If one cannot be Catholic unless he gives up his own liturgy, hierarchy, patristic traditions, history, hymnography, art, language, culture and spiritual heritage, and adopts the rites, philosophical and theological thought, religious poetry, liturgical language, culture, and spirituality of a particular group, be it the best, then the Church is not a great gift of God to the whole world but a faction, however numerous, and a human institution subservient to the interests of one group. Such a church could not be the true Church of Christ. In resisting, then, the Latinization of our institutions, we are not defending any petty parochial interests or an out-dated traditionalism; rather, we are aware of defending the vital interests of the apostolic Church, of remaining faithful to our mission, our vocation which we could not betray without betraying ourselves and disfiguring the message of Christ before our brethren.

We have, therefore, a two-fold mission to accomplish within the Catholic Church. We must fight to insure that Latinism and Catholicism are no longer synonymous, that Catholicism remains open to every culture, every spirit, and every form of organization compatible with the unity of faith and of love. At the same time, by our example, we must force the Orthodox Church to recognize that a union with the Great Church of the West, with the See of Peter, can be achieved without their being compelled to give up Orthodoxy or any of the spiritual treasures of the apostolic and patristic East which is open toward the future no less than toward the past.

If we remain faithful to this mission, we shall arrive at shaping and finding the kind of union that is acceptable to the East as well as the West, a union that is neither pure autocephaly nor an absorption, in principle or in actual fact, but a sharing of the same faith, same sacraments, and same organic hierarchy, in a spirit of sincere respect for the spiritual heritage and organization proper to each Church, under the vigilance, both paternal and fraternal, of the successors of the One to Whom it was said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." 

Elie Dannaoui on the Transition from Syriac to Arabic in the Orthodox Liturgy

 

When Scribes Switched Languages: Curious Patterns in Syriac Rūm Orthodox Manuscripts

by Elie Dannaoui

Imagine opening a centuries-old manuscript and finding three different languages woven together on the same page—Syriac prayers in elegant script, Arabic translations squeezed between the lines, and Greek annotations scattered in the margins. This isn't the work of confused scribes, but rather the ingenious solution of a religious community navigating one of history's most significant linguistic transformations.

The Rūm Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch experienced a major linguistic transformation over its first millennium. What began as a Greek-speaking church that also embraced Syriac gradually transformed as Arabic spread throughout the region following Islamic expansion in the 7^th century. By the 19^th century, Syriac had virtually vanished from the church's daily life—a language that had once echoed through monastery halls and parish churches was effectively silenced.

But here's where the story gets fascinating. The manuscripts from the 14^th to 18^th centuries—a period that has received surprisingly little scholarly attention—reveal that this wasn't simply a case of one language bulldozing another. Instead, these documents showcase remarkable creativity: scribes developed sophisticated strategies to preserve ancient traditions while making them accessible to communities whose daily language was shifting to Arabic.

The surviving manuscripts tell a story of adaptation rather than abandonment. Monastic communities emerged as guardians of the Syriac tradition, creating innovative multilingual arrangements and parallel translations. Most intriguingly, they developed a nuanced system where Syriac remained the language of priestly prayers and sacred elements, while Arabic served the growing needs of lay participation.

Read the whole article, with many images of manuscripts, here! 

 

Jad Ganem: The Feast of Martyrdom

 

Arabic original here.

 

 

The Feast of Martyrdom

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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.