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.

Fr Georges Massouh: Holy Wars... Ridiculous! (2015)

 Arabic original, written in 2015, here. May Fr Georges' memory be eternal!!!


Holy Wars... Ridiculous!

"My kingdom is not of this world" and not "My kingdom is not in this world" was Christ's response to Pilate when he interrogated Him before handing Him over to be crucified. Christ denied that His kingdom was "of" this world-- that is, in the image of this world, in the image of the kingdoms of this world.

Christ did not despair, despite His objectivity, of man's ability to attain perfection. He did not want to completely close the door in man's face. Rather, He wanted him to try to establish a kingdom that would be up to the standards of the Gospel. The "Christian state" in its various forms and identities has failed, from its establishment under Constantine the Great down to our present day. This state failed because it was "of this world"and was unable to be different from what prevailed among the nations. Indeed, with their brutal practices and the atrocities that they committed, Christian kingdoms have perhaps provided the ugliest examples among nations.

Christ realized this before it happened. He realized that nations are not built on sincere intentions, on righteousness and piety, or on lofty teachings. A state in this world means a state of this world. He did not have the slightest doubt that when Christians obtained power, they would be like all people who obtain power. They would be scornful, exploitative, despising the vulnerable. The logic of the state is not the logic of the Gospel. The Gospel calls for tolerance, forgiveness, love, and giving freely. The state calls for punishment, prison, law and taxes...

Christ realized this when He disdained and mocked political authority. On the day when He was crowned as a king, the day of His entrance into Jerusalem, unlike the custom of ancient or modern kings, He rode a donkey. He rode a donkey after having previously fled from the crowd when they wanted to make Him king. His closest disciples, like that crowd, did not understand Christ's logic, since they asked Him who among them would sit at His right and His left in His glory and almost quarreled over this question. They asked for an authority for themselves that they did not receive from Him.

Christ realized this, and nevertheless He called on Christians to be committed to the affairs of the world and of people, to defend values and virtues and proclaim the truth. Christianity, contrary to what some may imagine, is a religion that is not only concerned with spiritual matters but also strives for a better world where peace, justice, love and mercy reign... This requires struggle against evil and sin. Even though historical experience is discouraging in terms of the possibility of this promised, ideal kingdom, its realization is not impossible, even if it is difficult. A church historian once said that Christian emperors ruled more harshly than pagan emperors because a pagan emperor considered himself to be a god among many gods, while a Christian emperor considered himself to be the one God's sole representative on earth.

Christ did not establish a kingdom "of" this world that launches holy wars led by His successors, heirs or followers. There have existed what some consider "Christian" empires, but even apart from their assaults on non-Christians, they committed massacres against Christians opposed to them and their policies. The [Holy] Roman Empire launched Crusades that targeted Eastern Christians alongside Muslims. The Byzantine Empire persecuted Syriacs, Copts and even Chalcedonian Orthodox (during the reign of Heraclius), just as the Byzantines and Bulgars slaughtered each other while both were unquestionably Orthodox and Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other in Europe... and in the modern era--- and here we have no desire to open old wounds-- we can point to the Christians in Lebanon fighting and slaughtering each other in the name of Christianity...

In reality, today there is no "Christian" state and no "Christian" president or leader in the image and likeness of Christ on the face of the earth. Therefore the wars of this state and this ruler are not in any way "holy". People are free, in matters of politics, to support this or that state in their wars, but not in the name of Christianity or in the name of the Church and not under the pretext of protecting the existence of Christians or under the pretext of defending minorities. The logic of the Church must be other than the logic of this world.

Melkite Catholic Patriarch Yusuf al-Absi on the Zoghby Initiative and Orthodox-Catholic Relations

Arabic original here. My translation is, of course, unofficial, but I think is necessary because of the importance of this speech as a response to Patriarch John X's speech at Balamand last October and for Patriarch Absi's very clear statement that from his perspective "in dogma and canon law, we are Catholics, and in liturgy and sacramental life we are Byzantines", quite different from the vision of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" sometimes promoted among followers of the late Metropolitan Elias Zoghby.

The Speech of His Beatitude Yusuf in Honor of Metropolitan Yusuf al-Kallas

Sunday, April 7, 2024

al-Liqa' Centre, Rabwa, Lebanon

My speech today at this gathering in honor of His Eminence, the beloved brother and father Yusuf al-Kallas, former metropolitan of Beirut, Jbeil and the dependencies for the Melkite Catholics, centers on the book that he has worked for months to prepare together with the Rev Basilian Fr Nicholas Bustros under the supervision of the Rev Fr Gabi Hachem, which was published about a week ago with the title The Effort for Fraternal Reconiciliation in Antioch: History and an Analysis of the Initiative of the Melkite Greek Catholic Synod, 1996-1997. The book and my speech are thus both abut the initiative that was born in the mind and heart of His Eminence Metropolitan Elias Zoghby, of thrice-blessed memory, which was adopted by our church's synod and proposed to the Synod of the Byzantine Antiochian Orthodox Church.

The initiative that we are discussing is, in short, for the Melkite Catholics to belong at the same time to the Catholic Church and to the Byzantine Antiochian Orthodox Church, for them to have a double affiliation, such that the desired unity between them and the Greek Orthodox takes place while they remain in communion with the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, they did not precisely or finally define how this affiliation would be in practice and how it would be arranged, remaining content to make some observations.

The initiative was launched with a declaration of faith agreed upon by Metropolitan Elias Zoghby and Metropolitan Georges Khodr, according to what Metropolitan Cyril Bustros says (p. 7). The declaration, on the part of the Greek Catholics says: "First, I believe in everything that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches. And second, I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome, within the limits confessed by the holy fathers of the East as first among bishops during the first millennium and before the schism" (i.e., in 1054).

Discussion of this initiative as it was formulated above, what happened after its announcement, its progress and its conclusion would be very lengthy. The time allotted now and the circumstance do not permit it and it can be found in the book. I will content myself with making a few observations from within the initiative and a few from outside it.

1. Observations from outside the Initiative

1.1 Those who elected Cyril Tanas most likely did not intend or have in mind that they were splitting from the Antiochian Church and establishing a parallel or substitute church. Instead, they thought they were doing what had been done after the death of a patriarch, that they were electing a new patriarch and consequently that the Patriarchate of Antioch would continue as usual, even if they were inclined toward unity with the Apostolic See of Rome. They also were not thinking that Constantinople would appoint another patriarch. Likewise, Constantinople, when it appointed Sylvester as patriarch for Antioch, most likely did not think that the new patriarch, Cyril Tanas, would persist and that other patriarchs would succeed him. Thus, it did not think that a new church would emerge in parallel to the existing Antiochian Orthodox Church, since there was more than one precedent for there being two patriarchs in the history of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

1.2 Our church continued in this manner, as an apostolic church-- that is, its head going back to the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders of the Church of Antioch-- and over the past three centuries it has done much good and great things. It has had an ecclesiastical, civil, social, cultural, literary, scientific and spiritual presence on various levels, inasmuch as it has had and continued to have illustrious members, prominent people nationally and globally in every field. What has distinguished our church, and continues to do so, over the course of its history is that it is an open church that transcends everything that seeks to limit it, hold it back, or cause it to isolate itself, shrink back, or reject the other. It is a church whose children belong to it without being chauvinistic about it, a church of dialogue and encounter that builds bridges and does not erect walls, a "universal" church, as we describe the Church in general in our Creed.

1.3 We wonder whether Patriarch Tanas and the movement for union that was with him, when they requested that the See of Rome recognize them-- and recognition means communion-- were clearly aware as to whether this communion was with Peter or under Peter. Did they believe that the Patriarchate of Antioch would remain as it had been with the See of Rome, that is, as between equals? The position of Patriarch Gregorius Yusuf at the First Vatican Council gives the impression that the answer is yes, that communion in their view was, until that council, between equals. But it seems that in the end Patriarch Gregorius Yusuf affirmed the acts of the council and it has become clear that communion in the view of the Roman See is between a leader and those led.

2. Observations from within the Initiative

2.1 The initiative taken by the Melkite Greek Catholics was, in short, that we Melkite Greek Catholics be in communion with the Antiochian Greek Orthodox and the See of Rome at the same time. We reconcile, in our opinion, our eastern, Antiochian Byzantine identity and our communion with the Church of Rome. In my opinion, this initiative was incorrect from its very beginning because the solution is not in our hands alone, but also in the hands of the Orthodox and the Catholics. It is a trilateral solution that requres the agreement of the three sides. Those who called it an emotional initiative, fated not to succeed, were correct. The proof is that the Orthodox set their conditions and we were led toward them on the one hand. Fr Gabi Hachem says, "The striking new thing in Metropolitan Zoghby's discourse is his adoption of the Orthodox position" (p. 105). The proof is also that on the other hand the See of Rome is the one that imposed its opinion and we submitted to it. Fr Gabi Hachem says, "[This See] stressed that the Greek Catholic Church is in full communion with the Catholic Church and that the plan for dual communion is incompatible with it" (p. 103). Thus we found ourselves between two options: either the Greek Orthodox or Rome. We preferred to retreat, since perhaps we had not realized that and were not yet capable of declaring where we wanted to position ourselves, since perhaps we were struggling between two identities. Did Metropolitan Zoghby and so also our church's synod not know this and realize that their initiative to put a foot on one side and a foot on the other would lead to a dead end? The Rev Fr Gabi Hachem says, "Metropolitan Zoghby was not versed in the details of theological matters" and "Metropolitan Zoghby's declaration of faith in a dual communion was a personal declaration not based on theological data" (pp. 102-103). Metropolitan Georges Khodr expressed the theological impediment when he stated in general, "We cannot enter into communion with a church that has completely Catholic dogma" (p. 58).

2.2 The failure of the initiative was expressed in strong terms by Metropolitan Kallas: "the termination of Metropolitan Zoghby's initiative" and also "the collapse of the initiative" because both the opposing sides in dialogue with us held fast to their position in a way that caused some to describe the solution as impossible and which caused Metropolitan Cyril Bustros to conclude that "Our step was perhaps hasty, but it showed us that the great distance that separates us from our Antiochian Greek Orthodox brothers remains great" (p. 86). He adds, "Therefore I propose to turn our efforts toward meetings between the Catholic churches and the Orthodox churches in the east and to leave the issue of reuniting the Patriarchate of Antioch until after a comprehensive union is announced between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches" (p. 86). This is also the position of the Orthodox Church, as explained by Metropolitan Georges Khodr when he said, "The Church of Antioch cannot unilaterally reconcile with the Catholics in isolation from the Orthodox of the world. The reconciliation of the Orthodox Church requires the reconciliation of all the world's Orthodox" (p. 52). Moreover, Metropolitan Khodr adds that the reconciliation of the Greek Catholics cannot take place individually, without the reconciliation of all the Eastern Catholic churches, because these churches have a single faith and a single canon law, placing them all on the same side of the scale.

2.3 In its failure, this initiative once again raised the issue of our church's identity. In fact, the initiative for "fraternal reconciliation in Antioch" was nothing other than an attempt to define a new identity and role for us as Greek Catholics, perhaps because we still feel that we are not at ease in our situation, even after three hundred years. But the attempt failed because the identity that we dreamed of was greater than the reality. For this reason, the other characterized our initiative as being ambiguous. Metropolitan Georges Khodr says, "What is required of the Greek Catholics is to move past the fog and explain Orthodox dogma to their people," revealing that "the fusion of the two churches is a serious matter requiring a great deal of care. Unity cannot take place arbitrarily. There are differences that must be resolved" (p. 56). I believe that the issue of our position was settled from the time that we restored union with the Church of Rome, but perhaps we do not want to say it explicitly: in dogma and canon law, we are Catholics, and in liturgy and sacramental life we are Byzantines. We wanted, in all sincerity, to be a bridge, but in reality from the very beginning we planted our feet on the Western side. This is what the Orthodox Church believes, as indicated by His Beatitude Patriarch John X in his speech at the international academic conference held at Balamand on October 16, 2023, when he said, "Fraternally, I leave it to those who departed from us and joined the West, in accordance with an agreement that allowed them to preserve their rituals and maintain their patriarchal system, to evaluate the results of their choice."

2.4 The unity of the Byzantine Antiochian Church is the demand and desire of both sides and effort toward it is being made by both sides. Both sides welcomed the initiative to realize it. Our Orthodox brothers continue to desire it and work towards it. As His Beatitude Patriarch Yazigi stated at the closing of his speech mentioned above, "It is our hope that this conference will add to the foundations we have put in place in order to restore unity and harmony between our church and the Rum Catholic Church." We have failed, but the failure will not put an end to the hope that unity will occur, whether at the level of the Patriarchate of Antioch or at the level of the international committee for dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

3. Conclusion

3.1 "An Effort for Fraternal Reconciliation in Antioch". This is what Metropolitan Yusuf al-Kallas wanted to title his book. Indeed, our church has worked and made initiatives along the lines that Patriarch Maximus IV al-Sayegh, of blessed memory, spoke about around sixty years ago when he said from the Vatican, "For many of the world's bishops, the union of the churches might be an important and lively dilemma, but they only feel it theoretically. As for us, the wound of separation is something that we feel acutely and constantly...The issue of unity is our greatest concern, the first of our tasks, and the deepest desire of our heart. It is the goal we aim for with every fiber of our soul... It seems to us that the effort for the unity of the churches is the cause of our existence and the primary mission that divine providence has placed upon us, collectively and individually" (al-Masarra 1967, p. 744). 

3.2 The initiative did not succeed, but hope remains. Reconciliation shall remain our goal until it happens. Our church's initiative was doomed, but there is another option available today, as it seems from reading the book that both sides have come to hope will bear fruit and outside of which neither side shows any effort toward reconciliation, at least at the present time and in response to the initiative. This is the global theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. This option, for us Melkite Greek Catholics, means a reorientation. Until today, we counted ourselves as interlocutors between the Catholic and Orthodox sides and we said of this dialogue that we were the bridge that connects them. But the failure of the initiative in the way that it happened blocked the path and posed questions for us that we should not be afraid to put a finger on now: Does this failure threaten our mission? Do we remain suspended over the bridge that we have built? Has the time not come for us to plant our feet on this or that side of the river?

3.3 In the effort to regain our unity, the effort for reconciliation, we can blaze more than one trail. Thus there was the proposal of the Catholic theological commission that met in Jerusalem on October 1, 1996, advising effort and progress at the moment along a local, pastoral path "which concerns the easterners in their daily life ... to engage in ecumenical activity, to turn theological understandings (as in the Balamand Declaration, for example) to practical applications that appear on the ground. Therefore, the dialogue of life and pastoral care must progress to the greatest degree possible and in a bold and realistic manner. Realizing these practical applications, if they take place between the two churches, will be a strong factor for advancing the ecumenical movement on the global level" (p. 73). We add that it is perhaps also possible for us to have joint activities such as studies about Antiochian identity and its distinctive features.

3.4 After what became of our church's initiative, Metropolitan Yusuf al-Kallas states that Metropolitan Elias Zoghby, the author of the initiative, took the opportunity to say at the the meeting of our church's synod in July 1996, "In any case, Christian history will preserve about the Church of Antioch, which was always a byword for reconciliation, cooperation and peacemaking, that it refused for the second millennium of Chrisitian history to come to a close while the burden of the schism between the Christian East and West weighed down upon the entire Church, and that it once worked to solve the dilemma by removing it, inasmuch as it made an initiative to restore unity to the Antiochian Church" (p. 88).

4. Postscript

In closing, it remains for me to thank the brother and father, Metropolitan Yusuf and the Rev Frs Gabi Hachem and Nicholas Bustros for publishing this valuable book since the "initiative" that the book is about is covered from every aspect, from the cradle to the grave, from its opening to its closing, not leaving any room for anyone who wants to add to it, which makes the book a precious resource for researchers, who do not need any other resource for everything pertaining to this initiative, not only with regard to the presentation of its history, but also with regard to commenting on it, explaining it, and expressing opinions about it.

I will permit myself at this celebration that we are holding for His Eminence Metropolitan Yusuf to wound his humility and single him out with warm thanks on behalf of myself and of our entire church for what he has offered to our church and for his spotless priestly and episcopal career. He has offered a great many works in various fields that many of us know about. In particular, he has offered us a model of how to be a priest in the likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostle Paul. Innocence, purity, zeal, humility, impartiality, effort, precision, conscience, determination, love, listening, silence, hiddenness... Abouna Yusuf is a school where many have learned and grown up, and I have had the grace myself to be among them. Thanks be to God who has given him to the Church. May the like of him multiply. 

Abouna Yusuf, thank you. May God give you perfect health and prolong your life.

Met Ephrem (Kyriakos): Death

Arabic original here.

Death

One who believes in God does not die. He reposes. After his repose, he encounter's the Lord's face and hopes for His mercy.

Entering into heaven or the kingdom is something connected to divine mercy. Our spiritual father once told us students, "You will not enter the kingdom after you die unless you bring with you have with you a friend that you have drawn with you to God during your life." During your life, you are responsible for fighting the passions and practicing the spiritual exercises of prayer and charity, but entering into heaven or the kingdom is something connected to divine mercy.

A secular person clings to the health of the body and fears death. Contemporary people have become secularized, this culture of the flesh, thus the fear of death.

Our faith states that man is eternal through God's grace. The believer surpasses death by thinking of the resurrection.

This Body that we receive in the divine sacrifice is the cause of new life. When we receive, the priest says, "The servant of God receives the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins and for life everlasting."

The Evangelist John says, "He who eats of My body and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him forever."

Christian preparation for death is through seeking forgiveness. That is, through the mystery of confession, without diminishing the importance of doctors' work.

With regard to old age, scientists today work to lengthen human life and to a certain extent have succeeded in this effort. Within this domain, however, the philosophy of hedonism is a philosophy outside the Church, since it claims that life is only centered on health and wealth and not on the spiritual life and obedience to God.

Old age is a mystery of great humility. In it, the Church reminds us of our life's entire meaning as a work of repentance and preparation for eternal life.

Earthly happiness has taken the place of the believing Christian's concern for receiving the gladness of God's giving eternal life.

+Ephrem

Metropolitan of Tripoli, al-Koura and their Dependencies