HISTORY OF THE MELKITE CHURCH

By Fr. Saba Shofany

 

1. FROM ITS ORIGINS TO THE 7^TH CENTURY

 

The Greek Melkite Catholic Church has its roots in the Eastern Church whose origins are intertwined with the preaching of the Gospels in the Greco-Roman world of the Eastern Mediterranean and with the spread of Christianity beyond the borders of the Empire.^[1]

           

During the first centuries there was only one Catholic Apostolic Church in the world comprised of five Patriarchal Sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Each patriarchate freely followed its own customs and calendar, and prayed in Greek, Latin, Syriac, or in the local vernacular. The faithful were united in the faith and in the charity of brotherhood, and were followers of the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. The bishops closely cooperated with each other, and when difficulties arose, the authority of the patriarchs, the Synod bishops, and the ecumenical council was recognized.^[2]

           

The 5^th century saw the first separations within the Church. The Monophysite heresy, which proclaimed one person and one nature in Christ, divided the faithful of the three Eastern patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Those Christians who maintained their adherence to the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon, which proclaimed the doctrine of one person and two natures in Christ, were called “Melkites” by the opponents of the Council, namely the Jacobites and the Monophysites. “Melkite” is a Syriac term that denotes a “Partisan of the Emperor”;^[3] Melkite literally meaning “King’s man”.

           

In the 6^th century, the followers of Chalcedon were a minority of strongly Hellenized Greeks. They followed a hierarchy that operated in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, but which continued to abide by the directives of Constantinople.  Their situation remained satisfactory as long as the Byzantine emperors ruled, and in spite of the hostility of the Monophysites and the Jacobites.^[4]  

 

However, the Persian invasions of 540, 576, 606, and 613-615 caused major upheavals. During several years, Melkite bishops were removed and replaced by bishops who opposed the official doctrine of the Byzantines.^[5]

 

2. FROM THE 7^TH TO THE 17^TH CENTURY

The arrival of the Moslem Arabs in 639 jeopardized the position of the Melkites who were suspected by their new rulers of being agents of the Byzantines. The hierarchical and administrative structure of the Melkite Church became almost completely disjointed because of its dependence on Constantinople. A large wave of Greek emigration followed; which resulted in a major reduction in Church membership.^[6]  Syrian (Melkite) monasteries sprung up in the region of Rome and several Popes of the 7^th and 8^th centuries were of Syrian origin: Pope Theodore († 649) born in Jerusalem; John V († 686) born in Antioch; Sergius († 701) born to a Syrian family in Sicily; Sissinius († 708), Constantine († 715), and Gregory III († 741), all claimed themselves of the Syrian Chalcedonian Church.^[7]

With the Arab-Islamic conquest, the Christians of the Melkite Church became known as “Roum” (Byzantine Roman), although Westerners continued to refer to them as “Greek”.^[8] The literal meaning of “Roum” is “Roman”.

Christians were not persecuted in the early years of the Arab occupation. However, they were assigned the status of “Dhimmis”, or protected community, which consisted of a system of humiliation and subjection.^[9]  During this period, the Melkite Church contributed writers to the Universal Church whose influence in theology and liturgy continues to the present time. Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem and Saint Climacus died early in this period.^[10]

Saint Andrew of Crete, made famous by his Great Canon of penance, was born in Damascus in 660 and began his religious life among the clergy of Jerusalem. It is also believed that Saint Maximus the Confessor was of Syrian origin, although there is no evidence to that. However, Saint John the Damascene (ca. 675-735), born in Damascus, first served in the administration of the Ummeyad Caliph before retiring to Saint Saba where he wrote his triple defense of the Holy Images, his theological Somme, as well as several writings in poetry and music that went into Byzantine liturgy and whose most famous is the Easter Canon. His competitor in hymnographic composition was his adopted brother, Cosmos, who later became Bishop of Maiouma in Gaza. In this movement of the defense of icons and liturgy, the two “Grapti” brothers, Theodore and Theophanus, played a major role. There is also the Bishop of Harran in Syria, Theodore Abu-Qurra (ca. 740-820), whose very person represents the first attempt at adapting and inserting Chalcedonian Christianity in the Arab-Moslem environment.^[11]

In the 8^th century, Moslem persecution against Christians began, which resulted in several vacant Patriarchal Sees in Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.^[12] The nomination of Arab Melkite patriarchs was the only condition for assigning them among the faithful in the Moslem world.^[13]

For more than a century (960-1085), the Byzantines succeeded in occupying Antioch and re-establishing the authority of the Patriarch in Northern Syria by introducing the liturgical traditions of Constantinople.^[14]

The Melkite patriarchate fell within the orbit of the ecumenical patriarchate. It was the Byzantine patriarch who chose the resident patriarchs from the ranks of the clergy in the capital. John III (996-1021) gave up the autonomy of Antioch and accepted to be consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople instead of the Metropolites of the Patriarchate of Antioch. Peter III (1032-1056), born in Antioch but educated in Constantinople, defended the freedoms of his Apostolic See and refused to side with Michel Cerularius in his polemic with the See of Rome and the schism that followed it (1054). His courageous unionist position is well known. However, his successors lacked that courage, and relations between the Melkite Church and the Church of Rome became increasingly difficult.^[15]

The system put in place by the Crusaders (1098-1250) hastened the byzantinization of the Melkite Patriarchs. On the arrival of the Crusaders, Jean IV the Oxite of Antioch was for two years the only Patriarch for all Melkite and Latin Christians. He was then forced to leave his position and seek refuge in Constantinople. The Crusaders replaced him with a Latin Patriarch from their own people to head the Antiochian Patriarchate. Similarly in Jerusalem, Patriarch Simeon could not stay in the Holy City. The Crusaders installed a Latin Patriarch there, relegating the Melkite Clergy to subordinate functions.^[16]

After the departure of the Crusaders, the Melkite Patriarchs returned to Syria and elected residence in Damascus since Barbar, the Mameluk Sultan of Egypt, had destroyed Antioch in 1268. This transfer favored the arabization of the patriarchate and slowed down the process of hellenization.^[17]

During the Palamite crisis (14^th century) and the dispute with the Latins, the patriarchs attempted to adopt an autonomous stance but in the end aligned themselves on the official position of the ecumenical patriarchate. At the Council of Florence in 1439 the Melkite patriarchs were represented by Isadore, the Kiev Metropolitan, who supported the union. The faithful rejoiced at the idea of union, a joy that was unfortunately destroyed by the journey undertaken by Arsene, Metropolitan, Cesarea, Cappadocia, to Jerusalem in 1449, and the union was short-lived. Florence, however, upheld the Melkite tradition in the 8^th Ecumenical Council. ^[18]

The conquest of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt by the Ottomans in 1516 had little impact on the status of the Christian Churches. The Sultan demanded one leader for all the Orthodox of the Empire to be subordinated to his direct control and in his capital. As a result, the Melkite Patriarchs now reported further to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.  From the 16^th century onward, the Hellenes would seize control of the Sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem at the expense of the local Arab Patriarchs who were now in minority. They managed as well during the following period to dominate the patriarchate of Antioch in its Orthodox branch from 1724 to 1898. ^[19]

 

3. FROM THE 17^TH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT

 

During the 16^th and 17^th centuries, new relations were forged between Rome and Syria. In 1625 the Archbishop of Aleppo, Melece Karmi, invited the Jesuits and the Capuchines to establish themselves in Aleppo and work for rapprochement of the minds with the Carmelites who had arrived in 1626.^[20]

 

The efforts of the Jesuit Father Queyrot († 1653) had rallied several thousands of Melkites to the cause of the union. Patriarch Macarios III (1647-1672) became interested in this rapprochement and sent his profession of the faith to Rome in 1664 but without making it public; He had excellent relations with the Orthodox leaders and the Court of Moscow and did not want them jeopardized.

 

Competition over his succession between several prelates led to troubles. Athanasios III who was elected in 1685 declared his Catholic faith, thinking this would strengthen his candidacy. He succeeded, and on June 16, 1687, the Propaganda Fide Congregation confirmed his election, which did not bring an end to his quarrel with Cyrille V Zaim. In October 1694, he withdrew his candidacy to the benefit of his opponent and received the See of Aleppo in exchange. Pope Innocent XII stepped in; canceled the agreement between the two prelates and asked Athanasios to reoccupy the Patriarchal See. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Aleppo sent his profession of the faith to Rome at the same time as Macarios of Tripoli did; the latter had been converted by the Capuchins in Tripoli in 1698.^[21]

 

The union would, however, become a reality with Seraphim Tanas who was consecrated in Damascus on September 20, 1724 under the name of Cyril VI.^[22]

 

But the Holy-Synod of Constantinople elected Sylvester of Cyprus who was consecrated in Constantinople the following Sunday, September 27, 1724.  The Melkite hierarchy was thus divided by this duality into two branches, one Catholic and one Orthodox. Patriarch Cyril VI Tanas became the Patriarch of the Catholics and was officially recognized by Rome in 1729 after pledging not to change anything to the Eastern rite.^[23]

 

Having become Catholic, this Church with few followers began organizing internally. New monastic orders were founded. New parishes were created with new churches and charitable foundations. Local councils provided it with solid discipline and organization. It kept it Eastern rite under the protection of Pope Benedict XIV’s Demandatam Encyclical of 1743.^[24]

 

Patriarch Maximos Mazloum who had officially made his entry to Damascus in 1834 reorganized the patriarchate and worked at improving the spiritual level of both the clergy and the laity. He also equipped the Melkite Church with a solid hierarchy, assembling two synods to specify the discipline, one at Aïn Traz in 1835 and the other in Jerusalem in 1849, both approved by Rome. He was granted personal jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria. The Melkite Catholics, who had been praying clandestinely in homes and in the chapels of missionaries, were now able to build their own cathedrals in Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Cairo, Alexandria and Jerusalem.^[25]

 

Patriarch Mazloum is also credited for having secured the Sultan’s recognition of the complete independence of his Church in 1848.^[26]

 

With Gregoire Youssef (1846-1897), the Melkite Catholic Church made its full-fledged entry into contemporary life. He reestablished calm within the community and worked at improving its cultural and spiritual levels. ^[27]

 

At Vatican Council I he proved himself to be, on behalf of his Church, a passionate defender of Eastern ecclesiology, cautious not to widen the divide between the Roman Church and Orthodoxy. However, his words were not heeded. He had a significant contribution to the Eucharistic Congress of Jerusalem in 1893. His suggestions made their way into the elaboration of the Orientalium Dignitas Encyclical, which is essentially a charter for Eastern churches and through which Leo XIII ordered an absolute respect for the rights of Patriarchs and the Eastern rite, thus correcting in many ways the mindset of the majority of Latin missionaries.^[28]

 

By the turn of the century, the renewed freedom of the Melkite Catholic Church and the cultural and spiritual levels of its clergy attracted a large number of faithful from the Orthodox ranks. Special missions were even organized in regions where Catholicism was not present, such as the Valley of the Christians in Syria.^[29]

 

Patriarch Maximos IV, elected in 1947, put a stop to this activity and worked at the unification of the two sister branches. He even declared he would relinquish his place to the Orthodox Patriarch if and when union with the See of Rome was reestablished.^[30]

 

In Vatican Council II, Patriarch Maximos IV and his hierarchy played a major role in ensuring that the voice of the East was heard in the areas of liturgy and ecclesiology. H.B. Athenagoras, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople welcomed him at the Phanar in 1964 saying: “You spoke in our name.”^[31]

 

Since his promotion to the Patriarchal See, his successor H.B. Maximos V Hakim, elected on November 22, 1967, stayed the ecumenical course of his predecessor, while paying special attention to the diaspora of his Church.^[32]

With the zeal, the preaching given by the Melkite Clergy present in Europe, in North America and South America, in Australia and New Zealand, since the last century, many fellowships from different nationalities abide by the Melkite rites today. ^[33]

 

In this present time the Melkite Catholics count about one million and half spreads in the five continents. ^[34] Like the other communities, they are recognized as an entity with personal-status jurisdiction, but do not have special political status. They participate in public life according to the freedoms granted to the rest of the citizens and often occupy positions of trust in the government and the army, not because of their denominational affiliation, but because of their personal merit and their affinity with the parties in power.^[35]