[Webmaster's note: This doctoral thesis is reproduced by kind permission of Mgr. Raheb. The material is copyright and may not be reproduced without permission from the author and translator.]
To their Beatitudes the five Patriarchs, Orthodox and
Catholic, who bear the title of the city of God, Antioch.
In commemoration of the second Ecumenical Council held
in 381 in Constantinople, the General Council that inspired a new ecumenical
spirit in the universal Church of Christ invigorated by the Holy Spirit who proceeds
from the Father.
Archimandrite AbdallahRaheb, Doctor of Theology,
Licentiate in Philosophy,
Diploma in German Letters,
Professor of Ecumenical Sciences at the University of
Kaslik,
ex-Superior General of the Order of Saint Basil of Aleppo.
This whole thesis is available for downloading as a single file Adobe Acrobat file (PDF). To download please click this link: Orthodox Antioch Union (676 KB).
Historical Part
Introduction
After the Great
Schism of 1054, the Patriarchate of Antioch was the only one of the strictly
speaking Orthodox patriarchates[1]that entered into communion with the See of Rome, a communion remaining until
today.[2] However, the entire patriarchate did not accept the union movement, and a
sorrowful division took place within it; [3] this division had painful consequences and these remain until now. Moreover,
even those who accepted the union always had problems with the See of Rome for
most of the time Rome was skeptical about the purity of their Catholicism and
even treated them as Gallicans and “half schismatics.” [4] This dissertation, which does not pretend to be exhaustive, could shed some
light on the reasons for this mutual misunderstanding throughout the more than
250 years of union. This study is limited to a very important period in the
upheaval of religious ideas in the Near East. This period began in the 17th century when all the successive partial unions had fermented. [5] More precisely it began with the exposure to the Latin missionaries in the East
after the foundation of the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith. [6] From the reports that the missionaries addressed to it, this Roman Congregation
noticed that the Patriarchate of Antioch happened to be in a unique situation
in comparison to the other Churches of the East. It was not very hostile to the
Holy See of Rome and its separation with this see had never been sanctioned by
a formal act of excommunication, although it had followed the capital of the
Byzantine Empire and later the Ottoman Empire in its Eastern stance in the
second millennium. The conciliatory attitude of this Orthodox patriarchate was
very clear in 1054, when Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (1053-1056) wished to
assume the role of arbitrator between Rome and Constantinople. [7] When an occasion of dialogue presented itself, the Patriarchate of Antioch did
not give a deaf ear. Patriarch Theodosius IV Villehardouin (1275-1283/1284)
consented to the union proclaimed at the Council of Lyons (1274). [8] Patriarch Dorotheos I (1434-1451) seemed to have welcomed the decisions of
Florence, [9] and the retired Patriarch Michael Sabbagh (1577-1580 died in 1592) sent a
profession of Catholic faith with a letter of submission to Pope Sixtus V and
another letter to Cardinal Giulio Antonio Santoro di Santa Severina (May 1586). [10]
Despite its conciliatory attitude, the Patriarchate
of Antioch had not accepted to bend before the western theological
“bombardment” which lasted nearly one century of the missions, either Roman or
Protestant. [11] In fact,
the result was the splitting of the patriarchate into Catholic and Orthodox branches
(1724), while leaving some followers to the Protestants.
Our study is limited to the first fifty years
of the life of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to better
understand the concept of union in this patriarchate before the deep rooting of
the ideas of primacy and union that the missionaries brought with them. This
first fifty year period coincides with the death of the great Patriarch of
Antioch, Macarios III of Aleppo (1647-1672), who certainly was aware of the new
conceptions mentioned, but was also from the pre-missionary generation. He was
the disciple of Karmeh and later his successor in the episcopate of Aleppo in
1635. [12] Beginning with the successor of
Macarios of Aleppo we observe the presence of numerous students from Capuchin
and Jesuit [13] missionaries and even students of the Roman College for the Propagation of the
Faith [14] who were bearers of a new conception of Catholicism that was foreign to
traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. This brought about the collision between
these two ecclesiological conceptions that inevitably caused the dismemberment
and division of the patriarchate, and which also caused uneasiness in the
juridically Catholic branch.
Our research will consist of an exposé of the
life of this patriarchate and its relations with other Christians at that time
in order to trace the conception that it had for union with Rome, a conception
which could perhaps better regulate the relations between the Roman Church and
the Eastern Churches today.
Historical Context
While the Christian West was torn apart by the
Thirty Years War for already four years, [15] the East was suffering from a regime of absolute power [16] and did not know how to rid itself of the overwhelming yoke of the Ottomans,
who had conquered Syria (1516) and Egypt (1517) after the conquest of
Constantinople (1453).
It is true that a certain tolerance existed at
the beginning of this conquest but the conquerors’ thirst for money became more
and more fiery. This thirst was quenched only by exactions and deliberate
rebuffs imposed on the destitute Christians. [17] The painful situation of Christians was complicated by the interplay of western
rivalries, imported in all its acuteness in the center of the Ottoman Empire,
Constantinople, in order to develop political and commercial influences on one
hand, and to find support in Eastern Orthodoxy on the other hand. The first
deposition of Patriarch Cyril I Lucaris in 1623 was a very eloquent sign of
these political-religious rivalries which the western ambassadors brought to
Constantinople. [18] These
rivalries and divisions were very favorable to the interests of the Ottomans:
they allowed them a free field.
The deposition and enthroning of prelates
procured good sums of money for the Ottomans. Speaking only about the patriarchs
of Constantinople, there were thirty-two patriarchs enthroned during the fifty
years we are studying. [19] Christianity under the Ottoman yoke slowly became more impoverished and
consequently tried to survive its extermination while waiting for its liberation.
This oppression forced many eastern prelates to turn themselves toward the
Christian West or Russia and request help from the tsar and Christian princes. [20] Others had relied heavily on the influence of semi-autonomous princes such as
those of Mount Lebanon at that time, [21] but this sometimes cost them a blind obedience. The assistance brought by the
missionaries after the foundation of the Roman Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith [22] could only
have been applauded by Eastern Christians. As priests of the Church of Christ,
these missionaries were sent to them by the Lord to be liberators of the
oppressed.
CHAPTER I
A Questionable Patriarch in
the Patriarchate of Antioch(1619-1628)
In 1622 the Patriarchate of Antioch had two
canonically consecrated hierarchs:
Ignatios III Atieh and Cyril IV Dabbas. Both had been consecrated
patriarchs of Antioch on the same day, Sunday of the Samaritan Woman, April 24,
1619; [23] Atieh was consecrated in Constantinople and Dabbas in Amioun, near Tripoli,
Syria [present day Lebanon].
This division of the patriarchate of Antioch
was caused by the pretensions of the preceding patriarch, Athanasios II Dabbas.
He had promised that once he was elected patriarch he would pay what was
lacking of the kharage tax for the Greeks of Damascus. [24] His election took place in September 1611 [25] but the promise was never upheld. Then the tragedy began. Athanasios II
traveled across the country and arrived in Constantinople in1614. He demanded
that the Ecumenical Patriarch, Timothy II, depose Meletios Karmeh whom the same
Athanasios had consecrated on February 12, 1612 as Archbishop of Aleppo. [26] Meletios joined him in Constantinople and with his remarkable wisdom reconciled
himself with his patriarch and returned to Aleppo three months later. [27] Patriarch Athanasios was not able to complete the unpaid kharage tax for the
year 1619. He was brought before the pasha of Damascus who imprisoned him [28] until he paid a large ransom; he was then permitted to travel to Tripoli where
he died. [29]
Meanwhile, the Damascenes, unhappy with their
shepherd, sent the Metropolitan of Saida, Ignatios Atieh to Constantinople to
have him consecrated Patriarch of Antioch by the hands of Timothy II. [30] The consecration took place on the same day that Athanasios II’s brother, Cyril
IV Dabbas, Metropolitan of Bosra, [31] had himself consecrated at Amioun.
Since Ignatios III Atieh had Timothy II of
Constantinople on his side, Cyril IV Dabbas requested the support of another
patriarch, Cyril Lucaris of Alexandria, who was then very influential. In fact,
Dabbas returned to Alexandria around the end of 1619 and concelebrated there
with the Alexandrian patriarch. This patriarch exhorted the Damascenes to
receive Cyril IV Dabbas as their patriarch but the response of the faithful
only irritated Lucaris. [32]
The Patriarchate of Antioch thus found itself between
two equally powerful and equally legitimate obediences. On one side, Ignatios
III was supported by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emir of Mount
Lebanon, Fakhr ed-Din II Maanide; on the other side, Cyril IV was supported by
the Patriarch of Alexandria and the pasha of Tripoli, Ibn-Sifa. [33] The baraat of the sultan would be successively accorded to the highest bidder,
and the Greek-Melkite faithful of Antioch had to pay the expenses of it. [34] This is exactly what happened a little later for the patriarchs of
Constantinople, the only difference being that support did not come much from
non-Christian governors, but from Christian ambassadors themselves who had
disputed the Calvinization or Romanization of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. [35]
Ignatios III was less ambitious than his
competitor. He remained close to his protector, Fakhr ed-Din and always
occupied himself with his works which were under the domination of this emir, whereas
Cyril IV on several occasions had recourse to secular hands in an attempt to
obtain obedience from all the bishops who had not approved him. [36] The typical case was the Eparchy of Aleppo which at the first remained far from
all this dissention. [37] But the archbishop of this city, Meletios Karmeh, who had previously been on
bad terms with Athanasios II Dabbas, was not satisfied with the situation of
the divided patriarchate or with Cyril IV Dabbas, brother of his predecessor. [38] He expressed his dissatisfaction by refusing to be in communion with Cyril IV
who spent forty-two days in Aleppo without being able to concelebrate with the
local bishop. [39] From Aleppo,
Cyril IV returned to Constantinople. There he again met his old colleague of
Alexandria, Cyril Lucaris, who had become ecumenical patriarch on November 4,
1620 and who had returned to be enthroned in Constantinople after his first
deposition. [40] Cyril IV
went to Valachia and Moldavia to collect money for his patriarchate with
letters of recommendation from Cyril I Lucaris. [41] This collection permitted him to pay for a new order to have his competitor Ignatios
III deposed, [42] while
drawing from the new moral force by concelebrating with his old friend Cyril I
Lucaris in Constantinople. [43]
Cyril IV returned to Aleppo on August 28, 1624. [44] He asked the bishop of the city to
concelebrate with him even though he had refused to accommodate him in the
Greek Melkite archiepiscopal residence. [45] But Meletios Karmeh refused to concelebrate with him because of the divisions
he created in the Patriarchate of Antioch and because he had even appealed to
Turkish authorities to affirm his authority. [46] Some Greek faithful who were dissatisfied with their bishop regrouped around
Cyril IV and the diocese of Aleppo was divided in two: part for the local
bishop, Meletios Karmeh, and part for Patriarch of Antioch, Cyril IV. [47] Cyril, supported by the rebels and some favorable elements of the other
Christian communities of Aleppo, usurped all the rights of the local bishop. [48] He even hosted a great banquet gathering the notables of all the rites and all
the religious communities of Aleppo in the presence of the Armenian and
Jacobite patriarchs and some official representatives of European countries. He
forced the archbishop of Aleppo to come to the dinner that night (14 November
1624) and intimidated him in front of the whole assembly in order to make him
concelebrate with him. However, the archbishop, on the pretext of being ill,
excused himself and left the dinner. [49] The patriarch did everything possible to gain the favor of the local bishop,
but Karmeh left the diocese to the patriarch by permitting his priests to
concelebrate with him. [50]
On the feast of Pascha 1625, the bishops of
Hama, Homs and Paneas concelebrated with Patriarch Cyril IV in the cathedral of
Aleppo. [51] The next day the four met together and signed a document which the Greek
Melkite priests of Aleppo were forced to sign with some lay people. This
document solicited the patriarchal tax of twelve years from Meletios Karmeh. [52] This took place on May 11, 1625 before the Pasha of Damascus, Mustafa, who went
to seize Aleppo. [53] The
archbishop received eighty lashes and spent twelve days in prison until the
faithful paid two thousand ecus, and until he himself would sign a document in
which he declared his willingness to concelebrate with Cyril IV. [54] But Karmeh would not do it: he took refuge in the home of a notable Muslim and
only a few people knew of his refuge. [55]
On March 31, 1626 there was a large assembly of
the notables of all the Christian communities of Aleppo. Cyril IV invited
Karmeh to concelebrate with him but the archbishop refused a second time. The
next day, which was Palm Sunday, Karmeh went to the cathedral where he cried
before the people and the patriarch himself. [56] Immediately he left and settled himself
in the home of a great functionary of the Ottoman Empire in order to return to
Constantinople on April 10. Some time later, Cyril IV followed him to the home
of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Cyril I Lucaris; both presented their complaints
to him. After some never-ending discussion, Lucaris and his synod agreed with
the wise Archbishop of Aleppo. [57]
Karmeh returned to Aleppo by way of the sea and
passed through Cyprus and Tripoli. On March 30, 1627 he was in Aleppo where he
celebrated Pascha the next day to the joy of all the faithful of the city. [58] But the drama did not end there. For on October 3, Cyril IV Dabbas also arrived
in Aleppo armed with new orders from Constantinople and put Karmeh, with
twenty-seven persons, priests and laity, in the prison of Moutassellem. The case was taken before Moutassellem
in the absence of the pasha of Aleppo who was in Mosul. [59] Again the Aleppians paid the ransom for the prisoners and Cyril IV lived on,
abandoned and hated by the Christians of Aleppo. He even sensed that he would
be assassinated. He fled at night to Damascus where the faithful received him
only after he paid a considerable amount to free himself from the exactions and
the deliberate rebuffs which the cousin of the patriarch made him submit to. [60] He remained there until the feast of Pascha (13 April 1628) after which he
presented himself to Emir Maanide, Fakhr-ed-Din II, insisting on the necessity
of convoking a synod of all the bishops of the patriarchate to settle once and
for all the question of the legitimate patriarch, in dispute since 1619. [61] He soon regretted making this request because he knew very well that the
majority of bishops were already tired of this dispute between the two
patriarchs. More importantly he knew they were tired of the deliberate rebuffs
of the Turks that Cyril IV and his cousin aroused each time a diocese did not
want to receive him. Moreover, he had not forgotten that his competitor, Ignatios
III Atieh was the protégé of the Emir and the candidate of the Damascenes. [62]
The Synod gathered on June 1, 1628 at Ras
Baalbek where the Druze Emir Fakhr-ed-Din was then living. All the bishops of
the patriarchate were present with Ignatios III himself; only Cyril IV Dabbas
was not present because he sensed his end. [63] Dabbas was chained and taken by force from Damascus to Ras-Baalbek, but a
decision had already been made: Ignatios III Atieh was proclaimed the only
legitimate patriarch and Cyril had to disappear. When Dabbas arrived he was
assassinated by the soldiers of the Druze emir and thrown into Ain-ar-Raheb
near Hermel. [64] Ignatios
III Atieh and the clergy who were faithful to him were accomplices in this
wrongdoing; their involvement remained concealed. [65]
CHAPTER II
The Patriarchate
Under Ignatios III Atieh(1628 – Beginning
1634)
1)Synod of Ras-Baalbek (June 1628)
The extraordinary Synod of Ras-Baalbek in June
1628 which deposed Cyril IV Dabbas by recognizing Ignatios III Atieh as the only
legitimate patriarch occupied itself with several other urgent questions of the
patriarchate. It promulgated twenty canons reproving bad habits which had been
slowly introduced among the clergy and laity. [66]
The first six canons related to the election
and enthroning of the patriarch. This synod of bishops established the
inalienable law of electing three candidates with the consent of the people.
All the gathered bishops would have to draw lots for one of these three
candidates without the laity interfering in it. When the candidate was chosen
he would be consecrated patriarch by the gathered bishops and then civil
confirmation would be procured. Recourse to the governor to have the patriarch
named without the consent of the synod of bishops was categorically reproved,
and all those who did not follow these norms were excommunicated. [67]
The seventh canon treated the question of
simony which was very wide spread among all the hierarchs mainly because of the
enormous sums of money the Ottomans exacted on the occasion of each new
patriarchal election. [68]
The patriarch obtained his money from his
bishops, they from their pastors, pastors from the faithful. The best occasion
for this was certainly that of the administration of the sacraments. [69]
The other thirteen canons relate mainly to bad
customs which had infiltrated among the Christians from contact with
non-Christians who surrounded them. [70] All this seems to give us more or less a clear view on the life of the
Christian in the Ottoman Empire, conveyed by the relationship between laity and
clergy, clergy and government. [71]
The reason for all these decisions was
certainly the continuous repetition of abuses committed by the clergy and the
exactions which the Christians suffered because of the Ottomans. [72] But what seems most decisive in these resolutions is the new pressure exerted
by the Latin missionaries since 1625. Touraine Capuchins arrived in Aleppo (Syria)
in 1625 [73] and founded a monastery there. [74] The Jesuits and Carmelites also established houses in 1627 [75] although two Jesuits were unsuccessful in the first foundation in 1625. [76]The British Capuchins already had
residences in Saida (1625) and Beirut (1628) and were attempting to influence
the local hierarchy there. [77]
2) Ignatios
III and Rome
The influence of the Latin missionaries is
revealed to us above all by the solicitation made by the Capuchin, Adrian of
Brosse, missionary in Beirut, in favor of Patriarch Ignatios III Atieh and his
clergy. [78] This missionary requested the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith for the faculty to absolve the patriarch and his accomplices for the
assassination of Cyril IV Dabbas. [79] He also solicited grants for the Greek patriarch of Antioch to deal with the
irregularities of simony among the Greeks, in case they wished to unite to the
Roman Church [80] for
Patriarch Ignatios III with his accomplices had shown a certain disposition to
“conversion.” [81]
This request of the Capuchin Adrian of Brosse
was misunderstood at the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and
surprised the Roman cardinals who naturally posed the union of the whole Greek
Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch as a precondition [82] since no member of the patriarchal clergy had officially requested this
absolution. Truly it was the initiative of the British Capuchins of Beirut who
wanted to hasten the global union of this patriarchate with Rome. [83] After speaking about it on 5 July 1631, neither the missionaries nor the Roman
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith mentioned it again. [84] For such a grave question, everyone wanted to do everything possible to bring
it to good terms; in all seriousness we see that the request was very
pretentious on the part of the Capuchins. [85]
3)
Death of Patriarch Ignatios III
Despite this whole question, agitated by the
Capuchin Adrian of Brosse, the name of Patriarch Ignatios III began to be
commemorated in the diptychs of the Eparchy of Aleppo on August 6, 1629. [86] The patriarch did not dare return to Damascus where the family of the deceased
Patriarch, Cyril IV Dabbas, was very influential. [87] He remained in Beirut and its surrounding area until the beginning of the
Ottoman war against Emir Fakhr ed-Din II in 1633. [88] With the defeat and capture of the emir, Ignatios III Atieh was deprived of his
powerful protector and had to flee from the Ottoman authorities. [89]
Atieh happened to be in Saida assisting at the
death and burial of the local bishop, Mark; he attempted to return to Beirut at
night in a military disguise. On the way he was ambushed by the Druze who
mistook him for a soldier and struck him down from his horse and killed him. He
was buried in a church near the Damour River near Choueifat. [90] This was probably in January 1634. [91]
4) Latin Missionaries at Work
According to the directives of the recently
established Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, the Latin missionaries
had two distinct purposes, both conducted for the edification of the kingdom of
God. On one hand they were obliged to affirm the Catholics and preserve them
from the dangers of schism, heresy and apostasy; on the other hand to convert
the schismatics, heretics and infidels. [92] The Catholics of Syria at that time were the Maronites who had been totally
united to Rome since the Crusades [93] but were no less suspect of errors and heresies. [94] Along with these united Easterners, there were a good number of Latins mainly
in the large cities such as Aleppo, Saida, Tripoli and Damascus. Most of them
were there for business reasons or for diplomatic functions, thus only
temporary. [95] The work of
the Latin missionaries was geared more toward conversion by combating Calvinist
infiltrations which were already made in the north of the Ottoman empire and
especially in Constantinople. [96]
The springboard from which these missionaries
had to throw themselves into the Greek-Melkite, Jacobite, Armenian and
Nestorian communities had to be the chapels of the consuls and particularly the
Maronite churches. [97] But the work was not so easy because these Christians were linguistically and
ethnologically different than the Latins. [98] There were also spiritual, intellectual and national rivalries among the
workers themselves. [99]
The Franciscans could in no way tolerate that
intruders would gather what they had sowed for centuries. [100] In fact, the affair of the first two Jesuits who arrived in Aleppo in 1625 was
only the prelude to so many other episodes requiring the repeated intervention
of the Roman Congregation by the intermediary of the superior generals and the
consuls. [101] There were
many who wanted to divide the Eastern Christian communities among the different
Latin orders who had sent their missionaries there. [102] Quarrels were sometimes so violent that they scandalized the non-Latin
Christians and even the Muslims. [103] Yet little by little their presence became necessary, either for the
instruction of the people or for the moral and spiritual support of these
Christians. [104] The
Greek-Melkite clergy and people of Antioch gained the sympathy of the Jesuits
and Capuchins while, before the arrival of the new wave of missionaries in
1625, the Franciscans had already won some recruits in Aleppo including their
bishop Meletios Karmeh. [105] The work of missionaries began to take root in Syria mainly through this Greek
Melkite metropolitan of Aleppo because he never wanted to distinguish between
Jesuits, Capuchins or Franciscans. Essential for him was the spiritual good of
these Christians who were suffocating because of Ottoman oppression and total
ignorance. [106]
CHAPTER III
From Metropolitan
(1612-1634) to Patriarch (8 Months) Karmeh, First Martyr of the
Union of Antioch With Rome
1) Meletios Karmeh: Metropolitan of Aleppo
(February 1612 - April 1634).
Born in Hama (Syria) in 1572, [107] the young Abdel-Karim Karmeh received religious education from his father,
Houran, a priest, and his mother Saadat who kept herself busy with him after
the assassination of his father. [108] At an adult age he made a pilgrimage to the Holy Places with his friend Barlaam [109] and became a monk in a monastery in Jerusalem where he remained two years. [110] Upon the request of his fellow citizens he returned to Hama and placed himself
in the service of the local bishop. Simeon ordained him deacon [111] and then much later priest [112] and kept him in his service in Hama. [113] This young priest, a flower of the Hamawites, was directed by Providence to
Aleppo to regulate some civil formalities on behalf of his fellow citizens
whose esteem and confidence he had earned. [114] The Aleppians were very perceptive of the eloquence of the young priest and his
virtue and begged him to remain with them as their shepherd after fifteen years
of widowhood. [115] Thus he
was consecrated Metropolitan of Aleppo on February 12, 1612 by the imposition
of the hands of Patriarch Athanasios II Dabbas in Damascus. [116] Immediately he went to work; he contacted the Franciscans in Aleppo to find the
means to instruct the ignorant people and to print liturgical books in Arabic.
The only language the majority of the Greeks of the Patriarchate of Antioch
understood at that time was Arabic. [117] In 1585 the Greek-Melkites of Aleppo witnessed negotiations between the Latin
Bishop Leonard Abel and their retired Patriarch Michael Sabbagh who had made
his profession of faith. [118] The faithful were already suspected of “Roman” sympathies more than the
hierarchy of the Patriarchate of Antioch and even those of other Orthodox
patriarchates. [119] The establishment of cordial relations between Metropolitan Karmeh and the
Franciscan commissioner in Aleppo only confirmed these suspicions. This
motivated Patriarch Athanasios II to go to Constantinople in 1614 [120] to obtain the deposition of Karmeh. [121] But the metropolitan was able to defend himself before Patriarch Timothy II and
his counselors and returned three months later to Aleppo; [122] there he continued his reforms in all the areas ordered by the Synod of
Ras-Baalbek in 1628. [123] Besides this he continued the translation of liturgical books, which he had
begun when he became bishop. In
September 1612 the Typicon of Saint Sabas had already been translated into
Arabic as well as the Sticherarion and a Liturgicon. [124] The other liturgical books followed but there were few copyists and little
money. Karmeh then resolved to ask assistance from the Franciscans of Aleppo, [125] whose commissioner wrote a letter to Rome in 1617. In this letter the
commissioner congratulated the dispositions of the Greek-Melkite Metropolitan
of Aleppo for union with Rome. [126] Around 1619 the metropolitan himself wrote directly to Pope Paul V (1605-1621)
informing him of the situation of the Christians under the Ottoman yoke, of
their ignorance and the lack of professors and books. He asked for specialists
in the Arabic and Greek languages to instruct the Christian children and to
help him with his translations from Greek into Arabic. [127] The pope responded very favorably by stimulating the teaching of Arabic in
Europe which had been instituted by Pope Clement V in 1311 in the universities
of Rome, Paris, Oxford, Salamanica and Bologne. [128] The metropolitan of Aleppo considered the response of the pope like the dove,
which announced the end of the flood to Noah; this was the end of ignorance and
the destruction of its tyranny. [129] Since he foresaw the financial difficulties which would follow, in 1621 he sent
his Protosyncellos Absalon to Rome with a letter addressed to Pope Paul V to
obtain his grants. [130] Absalon was accompanied by the Franciscan Father Thomas Obicini de Novare,
Guardian of Jerusalem. Absalon was well received and well heard. The
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith assigned him twenty five ecus on
his arrival to Rome and fifty ecus for the journey, and prescribed that he
purchase three collections of the Greek general councils and some books of the
Greek Fathers [131] with fifty
copies of the Bellarmine’s Catechism printed in Arabic. [132] The grants that Karmeh had solicited from Rome were not mentioned. The
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith had reservations about
translating the Bible into Arabic since the fourth rule of the Index prohibited
its translation into vulgar languages. [133] However, the Congregation had reassured Father Absalon that the Bible would be
translated into Arabic and printed. [134] In a later letter addressed to the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith, [135] Metropolitan Karmeh proposed five conditions for the success of this
translation: 1) to send the Maronite priest, Gaspar al-Gharib of Nicosia to
Aleppo; [136] 2) to also
send Fr. Thomas Obicini de Novare, Guardian of Jerusalem; [137] 3) to teach the missionaries that Rome intended to send him, Arabic as well as
Greek books; [138] 4) to
finish the translation before his death and the death of the old Fr. Gaspar; [139] and finally 5) that the work of translation would be done in Aleppo and then
sent to Rome; there it could be
compared with other manuscripts and then
printed. Karmeh also asked for the printing of seven liturgical Greek
books. [140]
On September 4, 1623, the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith examined Karmeh’s requests in its first gathering
under the new Pope Urban VIII and accepted to send him Fr. Gaspar while
creating a commission in Rome for the Arabic Bible. [141] It communicated its desire to Father Gaspar of Nicosia who excused himself in a
letter of 1625, stating that he was not able to go to Aleppo because of his
infirmities, his advanced age and the little harmony that existed between
Greeks and Maronites. The Roman Congregation accepted his regrets [142] but pursued the correspondence with Karmeh through its intermediary. [143]
Meanwhile the Capuchins and the Jesuits arrived
in Aleppo. [144] Karmeh,
who never recognized Cyril IV Dabbas as Patriarch of Antioch, [145] was unable to iron out the differences which had arisen with Cyril IV. On May
11, 1625 he had to appear before Pasha Mustapha at the request of Cyril IV. [146] He was beaten, thrown in prison and was not released until the May 23. [147] On April 10, 1626, he went to Constantinople to appeal to Patriarch Cyril I
Lucaris who agreed with him this time despite the sympathies Lucaris had for
his old friend, Patriarch Cyril IV Dabbas. [148] Strengthened by the support of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Karmeh
returned to Aleppo on March 30, 1627 and peacefully occupied his eparchy and
pursued his translations. [149] The Capuchins of Aleppo asked him immediately to send a testimony of their
apostolate in Aleppo to Rome.
Karmeh gave it without hesitation. On May 19, he addressed a letter to
Pope Urban VIII manifesting his desire to see him personally as well as his joy
concerning the arrival in Aleppo of the Capuchin, Father Pacifico Scaligère and
his confreres whom the Christians of Aleppo loved and venerated. [150] He even asked for a letter of blessing which would honor him and bring him
closer to Christ. [151] But the Jesuit Fathers who had returned to Aleppo 12 April 1627, this time with
an order of the Sultan, were not mentioned in this letter. [152] In fact he took into consideration the recommendations of Cyril I Lucaris who
was hostile to the Jesuits. [153] Nevertheless, Karmeh came to an agreement with the new arrivals concerning the
education of the Greeks at his residence. During his absence from Aleppo (April
1628-August 1629) Father Queyrot opened a school in the residence Greek Melkite
headquarters in Aleppo and the number of Greek students increased immediately
to thirty-four. [154] Meanwhile the Synod of Ras-Baalbek took place and deposed Cyril IV Dabbas. [155] Karmeh made a short trip to the large towns under Emir Fakhr ed-Din II; his
intention was to study the subject of all the existing Arabic versions of the
Bible and to convey this information to the Congregation for the Propagation of
the Faith. [156]
In Aleppo, the Greek Archdeacon Michael had
very good relations with the Capuchin Fathers. In April 1629 he wrote two
successive letters to Pope Urban VIII in which he took pride in having taught
Turkish and Arabic to Father Pacifico and his companions who were going to
Persia. He added that he was starting to teach Arabic to the Capuchin,
François-Marie de Paris and his companions, who cared for their salvation and
that of the Christians of Aleppo among
whom they had sowed charity and concord. That, he said, is why all the Christians of Aleppo were
content with their conduct. [157] Michael asked for several Arabic and
Greek books: a book of Avicenna and a New Testament in Arabic and an Old
Testament in Greek. [158] The young archdeacon also manifested his desire to personally see the pope,
whom the Capuchins spoke about abundantly, but noted that distance and other
factors prevented him from making the voyage. [159]
The Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith thanked the Greek Orthodox archdeacon for his kindness toward the
Capuchins of Aleppo. [160] It even sent him the books he requested and exhorted him to attempt “diligently
to bring his nation to the holy union.” [161]
Upon his return to Aleppo, Metropolitan Karmeh
wrote to Cardinal Borgia and other cardinals of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith asking them to thank the pope in his name for his
kindness and to commend his Archdeacon Michael to those who sent him the books
he had requested. [162] On this occasion, Michael himself wrote and acknowledged the receipt of the
Congregation’s letter and manifested himself ready to remain “in the service of
Cardinal Borgia and our lord, the pope in order to obey God and in view of the
reintegration of the Christians and their fusion in the love of Christ.” [163] But it seems that the Capuchins had set him against the Franciscans of Aleppo,
especially on the occasion of a sermon which the Capuchin Father Agathange
wished to preach in the Maronite Church of Aleppo. The Venetians and the
Franciscans were in concert with each other so that the sermon would not take
place. [164] Michael
said that all the Christians of Aleppo had been scandalized by this fact,
especially since everyone knew the reason for which the missionaries had been
sent by the pope into the Arab countries: “to preach and instruct the
Christians.” [165] This
scandal was created among the Christians of Aleppo by the dissension of the
missionaries, and the Capuchins themselves had exploited it to attack their Franciscan
confreres. [166] Thought
was given to dividing the Christian communities of Aleppo among the
Franciscans, Capuchins, Jesuits and Discalced Carmelites. [167] The account of the Jesuit Father, Jerome Queyrot of December 26, 1629 proved
that all these quarrels, which took place in Aleppo, were true. [168]
According to the Capuchins the scandal made
three bishops of Aleppo, already won over to the Union, “return to schism,” [169] yet, the Greek-Melkite Orthodox metropolitan maintained his good relations with
the Latin missionaries and the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith. The Congregation even
confided to him and to his Archdeacon Michael the revision of the Arabic
catechism, [170] which it
had sent to them by the intermediary of Protosyncellus Absalon in 1622, [171] and the Gospel Book sent in 1629. [172]
In October 1631, Karmeh thanked the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for the “spiritual bread, i.e.
the holy books” which he had received from the hands of the Capuchin Fathers of
Aleppo. [173] He wrote,
“the one to whom Christ said, ‘feed my lambs,’ always occupies himself with the
lambs that Christ bought by his blood.” [174] At the same time he let them know he had already translated the Greek
Euchologion and Horologion into Arabic because some Greek Orthodox priests did
not know Greek. He wished to have the books printed in Rome since the
Christians of the countries in the East were poor and they could not pay the
cost of the transcription. [175] The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith examined the question on
April 26, 1632 and accepted to print them after their revision from the old
manuscripts of the Greek Euchologion and Horologion. They requested that Karmeh
send these Greek manuscripts with the Arabic version [176] because the Latins had discovered mistakes in the administration of the
sacraments among the Italo-Greeks of Calabria and of Pouilles. Because of the
mixture of unknown languages and less orthodox ceremonies the validity of the
sacraments among the Greeks was suspect. [177] Karmeh did not become discouraged. In 1632 he sent the first five chapters of
Genesis, [178] carefully
corrected with the assistance of Capuchin Father Agathange who Karmeh testifies
already knew the Arabic language well. Other experts of Aleppo were consulted
and tried to render the text as close as possible to the Vulgate. Sometimes, however, they had to correct
certain expressions which they had compared to the Hebrew texts and translated
them according to the rules of the Arabic language. [179] Karmeh excused himself from “daring” to do it since the experts of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith were (according to his own
expressions) “more learned and more virtuous” then he. He added that he
understood it was only for “the good of the Christians and nothing other.” [180]
In the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith on July 4, 1633, Cardinal Ubaldini showed the other cardinals that the
Arabic version of Genesis which was sent by the Greek metropolitan of Aleppo
contained improper words and some notable differences with that of the Vulgate. [181] The secretary, Francesco Ingoli, prepared two letters concerning this matter,
one to the Greek Metropolitan Karmeh and the other to Capuchin Father Agathange. [182] In the first letter he thanked the metropolitan for his “diligence in the
revision of the five chapters of the Arabic Bible which he had sent them.” He
thanked him also “for the new version which was given to some intelligent
persons and confirmed what the Capuchin Father Agathange said to him. As for
the Greek dictionary and the Greek Bible, the order had been given to send them
to him.” [183] In the
second letter, Ingoli exhorted Fr. Agathange to show the Orthodox metropolitan
“that it was not advisable to use elegant words in the sacred books because
they could easily lose their meaning. This is why the Latin version as well as
the Greek version had been made with simple words and ordinary phrases. Besides
it was not good to borrow the Alexandrian and Antiochian versions too much
because they were very ancient...” [184] Ingoli read a speech on the translation of the Vulgate in Arabic in front of
Pope Urban VIII [185]:
“the Bible, which is printed in France, [186] could not respond to the needs of the Eastern Churches represented by Matran
Karmeh, Archbishop of the Melkites of Aleppo; its price would be so high that
only an insufficient number of copies could be sent to these Churches. Besides,
the text whose printing was in progress there was one of six Arabic versions
used by the above mentioned Churches. It was filled with errors, as the
previously mentioned archbishop had remarked several times. It is necessary
then that our master (the pope) order our Vulgate version be followed by the
translators who used it there until the present for various reasons...” [187] The principal reason is that “if one sends our Vulgate to the East, without
doubt the six Arabic versions full of errors would disappear.” [188]
The Capuchin Father, Bonaventure of Loudes,
describes for us Karmeh’s reaction to the reading of the Congregation’s letter
in Aleppo. When his confrere, Agathange, was not in Aleppo, Bonaventure opened
the envelope which contained the two letters and gave one to Karmeh, who felt
“a little frustrated,” [189] but with the reasons given by the secretary of the Congregation of the
Propagation of the Faith in the letter addressed to Fr. Agathange, Karmeh “was
satisfied.” [190] Fr.
Bonaventure informed the Congregation of it on December 9, 1633.
2)
Euthymios II Karmeh, Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (May 1, 1634 - January 1, 1635)
The metropolitan of Aleppo soon became the
Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. At the death of Ignatios III Atieh [191] the Greek Orthodox of the Patriarchate of Antioch did not hesitate to choose
Karmeh as their shepherd and patriarch, [192] despite his “Roman” tendencies which were well known in the East. [193] He was chosen because he was a man of God wanting only the best for his flock
and for all Christians of the East without distinction> He was a holy and
educated man and that was enough for the sheep of Christ. [194]
The Damascenes, who generally did not look
favorably on those from the capital of northern Syria, [195] hastened to Aleppo to lead him to Damascus where he arrived on April 23, 1634. [196] The Greek metropolitans who were waiting for him there consecrated him
patriarch on May 1. [197] As he preached in Aleppo, he did the same in Damascus and sent encyclicals to
all the faithful of the patriarchate exhorting them to always remain faithful
to their Christian vocation. [198]
As we have seen, the episcopate of this great
man began when he sent his protosyncellos, Absalon, and the Franciscan father,
Thomas Obicini de Novare to Rome. [199] When Karmeh arrived to the patriarchate he prepared a new delegation, but this
time more decisive. With the visit in Aleppo of the Maronite Bishop of Tripoli,
Isaac Shiadraoui, [200] he prepared an expedition which began from Damascus in August 1634. The new
Orthodox Patriarch, Euthymios II Karmeh delegated Protosyncellos Pachomios for
the serious mission which awaited him. [201] He entrusted to him not only letters and Arabic translations of the Euchologion
and Horologion, but also his own seal. Pachomios was to renew the union of
Florence by signing it and applying the patriarchal seal in the name of the
Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. [202] The delegation arrived in Rome in the beginning of January 1635. [203] The secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Monsignor
Francesco Ingoli, [204] who knew how important the union of the Greek-Melkite Orthodox Patriarchate
with Rome would be, gave us an account which no ecumenist of our day should
ignore. [205] He writes,
“When Euthymios Karmeh became Patriarch of Antioch he took charge of printing
the Euchologion and the Horologion of the Greeks. With great diligence and
fatigue for fifteen years, he had translated them into Arabic and corrected
them according to the ancient manuscripts. By offering printed copies of these
books to all his churches, he had intended to attach his archbishops, bishops,
priests, and his people to the holy union. This affair was very important because
this Patriarch is one who could truly be called Patriarch of Antioch. In fact,
he succeeds those who intervened in the general councils, whereas the other
councils, those of the Maronites, Jacobites and Nestorians, [206] were more national than general.” [207] “Besides,” continued the eminent Roman prelate, “in view that the people of
Asia are without instruction, a better method to bring them to union could not
be found than to correct and print their cultural books.The costly manuscripts would
disappear and with time the printed corrections would be arranged; they would
be instructed in Christian doctrine and would no longer question their heresy. Union would be made and restored
without losing anyone among them.” [208] The same secretary, Francesco Ingoli,
was well aware of the role which Euthymios had played; after the arrival of the
Capuchins and Jesuits to Aleppo, this Orthodox metropolitan [209] had now become Patriarch of Antioch. For the Congregation’s meeting on January
7, 1635, Ingoli prepared a text on the necessary way of acting to coordinate
the reprisals that the king and princes of the Christian west wished to exert
against the Greek “schismatics” in order to have them return the sanctuaries of
the Holy Land which they had usurped. [210] He inserted a very significant phrase on the subject of the Greek Patriarch of
Antioch, requesting that he and the Greeks of his patriarchate be protected
from these reprisals released against the Greeks. In fact, he wrote: “this
patriarch had sent (some delegates) to Rome to make the union; he always had
good dispositions toward this Holy See (of Rome), and he had favored our
missionaries when he was archbishop of Aleppo.” [211]
This already shows the ambiance in which the
delegate of the patriarch of Antioch found himself when he arrived in Rome. The
three letters which he took to Pope Urban VIII as well as to the cardinal of
the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith said nothing about union [212] but they expressed a total confidence in the kindness of the Roman authorities.
Patriarch Karmeh addressed himself to Pope Urban VIII as the steward of our Lord Jesus Christ. [213] He reminded him of his relations with the holy popes, Paul V (1605-1623) and
Gregory XV (1621-1623), and asked him to have the Arabic Euchologion and
Horologion which Pachomios brought printed in sufficient quantity for the whole
Patriarchate of Antioch. [214] In his letter to the Congregation he also asked the cardinal to have the two
mentioned books printed, not only for the usage of the eparchy of Aleppo but
for the whole patriarchate of the East for which he was delegated. [215] But the most significant letter is the third, addressed to the pope and
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. [216] Patriarch Karmeh, who called himself “the minor disciple who loves the
highest,” [217] at first
cites the phrase of Christ: “ask and it will be given you, seek and you shall
find; knock and it will be opened” (Lk 11:9; Mt 7:7). He applied this counsel
by asking the “generosity of the pope, our venerable master, and for the
reverend Sacred Congregation to have the books printed for the Church of
which Christ is the founder and the foundation and the base.” [218] He reminded them that they had asked him to quickly send the manuscript
versions to have them printed in Rome. For this, he says, through his “reverend
confrere, Matran Isaac [219] and through his disciple, Protosyncellos Pachomios from the patriarchal
residence, he had sent two books, the Euchologion and the Horologion, which he
had translated from Greek into Arabic as best he could from a printed Greek
copy and several manuscripts. [220] He added two rules which should be observed so that the edition of these two
books be “useful and correct,” and asked for a thousand or so of each book. [221] All these letters were signed: “Euthymios the poor, Patriarch of Antioch.”
The presence of the Maronite Bishop Isaac in
this delegation was significant. He had not informed his patriarch of this
mission, [222] but was a
friend of Karmeh since his first mission in Aleppo in 1629. [223] In fact, the Greek Patriarch of Antioch could not write everything he thought
about on the subject of the union with Rome without running the risk of losing
his life and attracting all the persecutions which were possible and imaginable
against his clergy and faithful. [224] This was the solution: the letters said nothing about this union in case they
fell into the hands of the Turks. Father Pachomios represented the patriarch in
Rome for the printing of the mentioned books and mainly to sign the union in
the name of the patriarch. For this reason he carried the patriarchal
seal. The Maronite Bishop Isaac,
well known at the Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, had to
be the witness of this union and above all, to testify to the authenticity of
the mission of Pachomios. All this was understood by Rome. Bishop Isaac
addressed a letter to the secretary, Francesco Ingoli, exposing the meaning of
his mission and added that, by the printing of the Euchologion and Horologion
in Arabic, the Greek Patriarch of Antioch wanted to unite “his whole flock with
the Apostolic See” of Rome. [225]
The question was treated at the Congregation’s
meeting of January 19, 1635 [226] but was not that simple to be resolved in the course of one session. On March
19, 1635 the same question was studied in the presence of the pope. [227] Cardinal Capponi gave his account in these words: “Patriarch Euthymios of
Antioch sent us Father Pachomios, his archpriest, with the order to unite
himself in the patriarch’s name to the Apostolic See (of Rome), by accepting
the Council of Florence; he gave him his seal as well to use as his signature.
Once this approbation would be signed, he should seal it with the aforesaid
seal on which is engraved in Arabic: Euthymios, Patriarch of Antioch. In the
letters which the aforesaid patriarch wrote to Your Holiness and to the Sacred
Congregation he said nothing of this detail because, I believe, he feared that
the letters would fall into the hands of the Turks. However, he approved it
through his nuncio and envoy, the aforesaid Pachomios, who affirms that the
patriarch told him to subscribe in his name to all that the pope and
congregation said by sealing it with his seal and in particular to say that he
accepted the Council of Florence. Nevertheless it is necessary that Your
Holiness order a public act of union drawn up for this patriarch who was won
over by the missionaries of Aleppo, so that the aforesaid Father Pachomios may
take it with him and have it ratified by the Patriarch.” [228]
Pope Urban VIII saw the importance of the
question and wanted to institute a particular meeting to study it better before
taking the final decision. [229] It is noted, however, that the pope insinuated the possibility of concluding
the union through the delegate of the patriarch. So that this union with the
“reception” of the sacred Council of Florence be canonical, it would be
necessary that he should make a public act in the name of his patriarch. [230] The particular meeting which would examine this question would be held in the
presence of Cardinals Cremona, Ginetto and Antonio, as well as Fathers Herera,
Horace Giustiniano and the Théatine Vincent Richardo. [231] It took place on July 16, 1635 in the palace of Cardinal Cremona and in the
presence of all those who were expected; also present was Abbot Hilarion. [232] The question of this union was discussed and then Bishop Isaac of the Maronite
nation and Fr. Pachomios “monk of Saint Basil and archpriest of the patriarch”
in question were allowed to enter. They listened to them again and their
petition was authenticated by the seal which Pachomios showed them. [233] After sending them out, the congregation rejected the petition, since the
delegates did not bring special letters or at least letters of witnesses, nor
even the profession of Catholic faith of the patriarch. [234] It was then decided to write to the patriarch and ask him to make a profession
of faith according to the recently corrected formula which was imposed on all
Easterners in the presence of two or three missionaries, or better yet, in the
presence of the monks of the Family of Jerusalem. The patriarch himself had to
sign it in his own hand and send it to Bishop Isaac either with his special
letters of union or with the letters of witnesses. It would be better to send
Father Pachomios again to Rome with these documents. [235] To reinforce the union it was proposed that the patriarch send some young Greek
boys to be educated in Rome and be the promoters of the union once concluded. [236] These decisions were approved by the general congregation held in the presence
of the pope on the following July 30. [237]
The Euchologion and Horologion sent by
Patriarch Euthymios II Karmeh with his delegate Pachomios were submitted to
Rome for a first censorship. The result was that the desire of the patriarch
could not be satisfied because the books contained the same “errors” which were
in the Greek books from which they were translated. It was necessary to correct
the Greek text and then compare it with a Latin translation of the text of
Patriarch Karmeh. [238] But this could take quite some time and it was feared that this would never
finish, “if the habitual way of the congregations was followed.” [239] According to the views of Ingoli, the correction of these books was very
important because they could be of service to the “Greek Catholics” themselves, [240] since the Greek Euchologia printed in Venice had “some heresies, many Judaic
ceremonies, altered prayers of the Greek Fathers and various troparia and
prayers of the new schismatics and heretics...” [241] Patriarch Karmeh was informed that his Arabic versions would be translated into
Latin by Bishop Isaac of Tripoli so that they could be reviewed by the Roman
theologians and corrected, if needed, in the questions of Catholic faith. [242]
In August 1635, Protosyncellos Pachomios returned home
to his patriarch with the letters of the Congregation for the Propagation of
the Faith and some examples of the Arabic Pentateuch which had been recently
printed in Rome. [243]
3)
Patriarch Karmeh, Martyr of the Union
Since his accession to the episcopate (1612),
Karmeh never wanted to conceal his enthusiasm for the union of the Greek
Orthodox Church with Rome, in view, above all, for the safety of Christians in
the midst of Muslims. [244] But to appreciate the courage of an Orthodox prelate who openly declared
himself in favor of those who were called “Franks,” it is necessary to consider
the political and social conditions in which the Christians of the Near East
lived under the Turkish yoke during the 17th century. [245] In all probability, an Orthodox prelate such as Karmeh, with such a
conciliatory attitude toward the Roman Church, would never have been able to
survive for ten years with the Turks on one side and the Greek speaking people
on the other side. [246] Yet, for twenty-two years Karmeh had resisted all the attacks and persecutions
which were inflicted on him by the Turks and the Greeks. His martyrdom began
soon after 1614 [247] and ended with “a malady of famous water” which attacked him suddenly. [248] He died on January 1, 1635, the feast of Saint Basil. [249]
The sad news of his death reached Rome in September 1635 in a
letter sent to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith by the new
patriarch of the Maronite nation, George Amira. [250] Rome manifested its visible sorrow when it heard about it, for “it had hoped
that by his intermediary, the whole nation of the Greeks of Syria and adjoining
provinces would unite with the Apostolic See” of Rome. [251]
Karmeh was not able to receive his delegate,
Pachomios, on this earth [252] or formally sign the act of union drawn up by the group of Roman theologians
who had gathered in the particular congregation on July 26, 1635. [253] However, he had the power to give the example to those after him who fought for
the reconciliation of Christians at the risk of losing all, and also left a
testament which he wrote on his deathbed. [254] In this testament he asked his brother, Thalge, who was living in Aleppo, to
announce his death to the pope and to ask His Holiness to remember him in his
prayers so that Our Lord Jesus Christ may pardon him his sins. [255] Because of his constant concern for the instruction and spiritual good of his
faithful, he foresaw the days after his death. He prayed the pope greatly as
“steward of God to all men,” [256] to send the Euchologion and Horologion to Aleppo when they had been printed at
his expense. From Aleppo they would be distributed among the churches of the
East under the control of the Father Guardian in order to avoid some priests
doing business. [257]
The Congregation’s meeting 222 of November 11,
1636 learned about the testament of the deceased patriarch, [258] although the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith itself knew of his
death since September 1635. [259] It is very significant to note the attitude of the Congregation in the remarks
which its secretary, Ingoli, wrote on the back of the letter of Thalge: “this
patriarch, Euthymios of Antioch, sent his archpriest (Pachomios) to unite with
the Holy See (of Rome), conforming to the Council of Florence. This union was
clarified by the aforesaid archpriest who had returned with the necessary
letters, but soon after he left, [260] this patriarch died. It is piously believed that he was saved: for he gave full
authority to the archpriest to accept the Council of Florence.” [261] It is known that the Euchologion was confided to Bishop Isaac of Tripoli to
translate it into Latin. [262]
Thus ended the “ecumenical” mission of this
holy prelate who had no enemies other than the enemies of the Church of Christ,
and who patiently accepted their persecutions until his martyrdom. The accounts
of the missionaries and other Eastern prelates, who had known him and all his
students, are unanimous in proclaiming him a saint. The Jesuit Father, Amieu
called the Orthodox-Catholic patriarch a “saint, a true Roman Catholic.” [263] The union which so profoundly began with this holy patriarch did not die with
him: his martyrdom was the blood shed for the reconciliation of his
brothers. This is proven to us by
the attitude of his students and successors in the patriarchate, Euthymios III
of Chios and Macarios III Zaim, who perhaps did not have the same courage of
their teacher.
4) The
Latin Missionaries at Work (1625-1634)
Under the impetus of the definitively erected
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, [264] all the large missionary orders of the west tried hard to respond to its
wishes. Since Aleppo was then the
capital of commerce in the east, it also became important for the “merchants of
the Gospel.” [265] Among the
cities of Syria, Aleppo had the largest percentage of Christians [266] and to it quickly came the Franciscans who were there since 1571, the
Capuchins, Jesuits, and Discalced Carmelites. [267] The harvest was great and the newly arrived workers were very numerous and made
a good harvest but their excessive zeal and mediocre preparation [268] left the Christians perplexed as they witnessed discord and quarrels among the
missionaries. [269]
In 1629 all Europe knew that the Capuchins of
Tourane had won over three archbishops of Aleppo to the Catholic faith, those
of the Greeks, Armenians and Syrians.
But soon it was learned that they returned to schism because of the
Franciscan Fathers who were, according to the Capuchins, the origin of all
evil. [270] The
“Responsalis” of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to Aleppo,
Doctor Louis Ramiro, had attracted the anger of the Franciscans because he
condemned their less evangelical attitude toward the other missionaries of
Aleppo and so informed the Congregation. This obliged the secretary Ingoli to
prepare a defense of the zeal of this doctor and ratify it at the
Congregation’s meeting 85 of December 17, 1627. [271] Peace was proclaimed at the beginning of 1629 [272] but new complaints were heard at the beginning of December 1629. [273] Various solutions regulating these differences were thought of but none bore
lasting fruit. [274] It is sufficient to look at the attitude of these missionaries a century later
in 1724, when there were two patriarchs of Antioch, one clearly “Roman” (Cyril
Tanas) and the other clearly “Byzantine” (Sylvester of Cyprus). [275] But the most flagrant scandal was the interdiction that the Franciscans made
against the Capuchins, prohibiting them to preach in the Maronite Churches; for
this they invoked the authority of the Maronite patriarch. [276] Preaching in the Maronite Churches was
the only means the Capuchins had to contact the other Christians of Aleppo and
the Franciscans wanted to stop them. [277] The letter of Capuchin John Chrysostom of Angers to Cardinal Borgia on December
28, 1629 [278] gives us
an idea of what took place in the capital of the missions in the 17th century. After relating that all the dissensions were due to the “hypocritical
attitude” of the Franciscans who wanted to chase the Capuchins out of the East
at any price, Fr. John Chrysostom proposes some solutions:
1) “As I have already written to the Sacred Congregation,
what should be done to reduce the schismatics is to preach to the Maronites
because the biggest problem of this country is ignorance; when ignorance is
driven out, they will be converted. When we preach in a Christian church, whether
Maronite, Greek, Armenian or Syrian, the other groups come to the sermon... and
little by little we can infiltrate the salvific doctrine of the holy Church
into their spirits.
2) “It is necessary to consider the fact that
the Franciscans only lived in these regions for three years and in this brief
time did not strain themselves to learn the Arabic language. The Maronites
remain so ignorant that they know nothing about questions of the Holy Faith.
3)
“The division provoked in this case begins as a small fire but could be
amplified enough to make a new schism..., and some poor Maronites would say: we
are less subjects of the pope than the patriarch... The Greeks confirm this in
their sect by saying: where there is love there is God and He is not with them
(the missionaries) since they do not have love among themselves... The Greek
Archdeacon Michael said: Those who have posed such an obstacle cannot be
Catholics or even Christians.” [279]
In 1627, the Carmelites already had a house in
Aleppo for their fathers who were on route to Persia; [280] they were less ardent in their missionary zeal. They were in good relations
with the other missionaries, especially the Jesuits, [281] and they began mainly to introduce western devotions to the Virgin Mary and
visits to the Blessed Sacrament [282] without discussing problems of faith with the Christians of Aleppo. Those who
worked more radically and very silently were the Jesuits.
After the foundation of the school in the home
of the Greek Metropolitan Karmeh in January 1629, [283] the Jesuit Father Jerome Queyrot soon had thirty-four students; all were Greeks
with the exception of one Maronite. [284] This school functioned for sixteen months, after which they had to leave there
and establish another school which could accommodate the students of all the
Christians of Aleppo. [285] This took place in 1633 and a Muslim property was used for the school. In his
account of December 26, 1629, Queyrot explained “the reduction” of Greeks to
“the obedience of the Holy Roman Church,” mainly because of the good
dispositions of their Metropolitan Karmeh. Karmeh accepted the doctrine of the
Fathers of the Church and proposed some cases of conscience to the Jesuit
fathers for their opinion. [286] The Jesuits tried to explain the erroneous opinions about “communicatio in
sacris,” the books on the index, and the authority of the pope over the east
which was not recognized by these Easterners. [287]
With the foundation of the “interritual” school
of 1633, the work of the Jesuits in Aleppo became more intense. This urged
Father Queyrot to request a third father for this mission; he attempted to
engage an Armenian professor so that he could finally establish a seminary in
Aleppo. [288] Instruction of the young men would prepare the future generation for formal
unions at a later time. [289] We cannot forget the activity of the College of the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith in Rome which exercised its influence over the
Maronite, Syrian and Armenian communities rather than over the Greeks of the
Patriarchate of Antioch. Much later, even the Greeks of Antioch had their “native-born
missionaries” instructed in Rome. [290]
It is important to note that Capuchins and
Franciscans agreed about the identity of the Christians of Aleppo: if they were
“outside of the Church,” it was only because of ignorance, materially not
formally.
In November 1629, the Capuchin John Chrysostom
of Angers said that many were Catholics without knowing they were “converted.” [291] In the words of the Guardian of Aleppo, Antoine de Veglia, in May 1634, many
who communicated from the missionaries at Pascha were of the “Greek Nation” and
yet were Catholics. [292]
In other regions of Syria where Capuchins and
Franciscans were found, the situation became critical until the explosion. A
typical example is the analysis of the situation in Saida. The British
Capuchins had seized the chapel of the French consul and the Franciscans did
not tolerate it. [293] In September 1627, Franciscan William Lombard of Avignon wrote that he had been
chased out of the chapel of Saida by the Capuchin Egidius de Loches. On the
door of the chapel Egidius had written: “those who want to gain indulgences
(published beforehand) must confess himself to the Capuchin Fathers and none
others.” [294] In October
1627, Father Egidius replied that he had never found enemies so “perfidious”
than the Franciscans. Even the schismatics and the Muslims had witnessed that
they never saw men so “impious.” [295] To this he added their quarrels on the subject of the Maronites. The Capuchins
located some errors in the depraved rites of the Maronites and informed the
Congregation for the Propagation of Faith about them; the Franciscans called
these Capuchins “spies.” [296] The Jesuits as well were poorly viewed by the Maronite Patriarch Jean Makhlouf
(1609-1634) because they had spread, even in writing, that the “Maronite nation
was heretical.” [297]
From this account we see that the progress of
the missions in Syria outside of Aleppo remained very limited until the
definite departure of Fr. Queyrot in 1643 to Damascus. There, as in Saida, some
Greek prelates inclined to union would be found. [298]
CHAPTER IV
The Patriarchate of Antioch
Under Euthymios III, Originally from Chios (1635
– 1647)
1)A Timid Patriarch
Sensing that his
death was near, in December 1634, Euthymios II Karmeh designated his successor
in the person of Meletios of Chios who had been a hieromonk of Saint Sabas of
Jerusalem and an iconographer. [299] The chirotonia of the new patriarch of Antioch took place soon after the death
of Karmeh (January 1, 1635). [300]It was Patriarch Euthymios III [301] who received Protosyncellos Pachomios when he returned from Rome after
accomplishing the mission Euthymios II Karmeh had confided to him. [302] But the new patriarch did not have the courage of his predecessor to see
through what Karmeh had begun. [303] The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith learned about the death of
Karmeh in September 1635 [304] and wanted to continue its relations with the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch and
its new patriarch through the intermediary of Pachomios. The Congregation’s
meeting 219 of August 4, 1638, held in the presence of the pope, decided to
“write again to Father Pachomios, in order to process a union with the new
patriarch, to be made according to the profession of faith that he had brought for
Patriarch Euthymios (Karmeh). He should solicit the response of learned men on
the subject of the Arabic Pentateuch and he was informed that part of the
Arabic Euchologion had already been translated into Latin and that now the
cardinals and theologians would diligently correct the Greek Euchologion so
that it could be printed in Greek and in Arabic.” [305] This exhortation of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith received
no written response from the new patriarch. [306]
Despite this, in
1636, the two nephews of Euthymios III of Chios were students of the Jesuit
Fathers in Aleppo [307] as well as other Greek boys who learned Greek in the school of Fr. Queyrot. [308] The Jesuits proposed opening a seminary in Aleppo [309] while the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith intended to assure the
instruction of the young boys in Rome itself. Soon afterwards, the Cardinal of
St. Honophrius established scholarships in Rome in the College of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith; there were twelve students: two
each from the Georgians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Copts, Melkites and Persians (?). [310] Jesuit Jerome Queyrot and the Franciscan Antonio de l'Aquila were charged to
recruit these students mainly from Aleppo and to send them to Rome. This was not very easy. [311] Patriarch Euthymios III promised to send his two nephews to Rome, [312] following the example of Patriarch Metrophanes of Alexandria. On May 25, 1637,
this patriarch of Alexandria had requested two places in the Greek College for
two young Greek boys whom he wanted to send immediately. [313] But Euthymios III was well aware what had happened to his predecessor and what
would take place in Constantinople at this time; [314] in no way could he submit to the desires of Rome. [315] The letters of the Franciscan Antonio de l' Aquila are very significant on this
subject. On November 10, 1639, this missionary in Aleppo wrote to the secretary
of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith with bitterness: “I have
not failed to execute what your most illustrious eminences asked of me in the
letters of December 4 of last year
(1638) and of July 16 (1639)... I am still very surprised about the patriarchs
of the Melkites and Jacobites. The one of the Melkites who resides in Damascus
immediately received and greatly welcomed the opinion of the Sacred
Congregation with the brief. He said that he wanted to send his two nephews to
the new college but lately he responded that he feared the tyranny of the Turks
if he sent the young men of his nation to a Christian country. Despite all this, since there are still
some in Aleppo who want to leave with the permission of their parents. The
patriarch would give them permission, provided that their archbishop (Meletios
Zaim), who appears somewhat inclined to this holy project, would write to him
about this matter. The Jacobite patriarch who resides in Mardin has not
responded... At present we have one Melkite and one Jacobite who wish to go and
their parents are also agreeable. The Jesuit fathers advise me to send them
without waiting for another permission from their prelates which will never
arrive.” [316]
On May 1, 1640
the same Franciscan missionary wrote another letter from Aleppo: “Conforming to
the new notice of September 17 (1639) that your eminences sent me, [317] I have continued to do everything possible to solicit the two patriarchs of the
Jacobites and Melkites for students for the College of the Cardinal of St.
Honophrius. But in fact we see ingratitude and the bad reply of these
patriarchs, who, since last year received the letters of the Sacred
Congregation with the briefs. They have yet to take charge of finding some
students, nor have they responded. Their excuse is the fear of their enemies
who will inform the Turks that they have relations with the Christians of
Europe. I myself have found some students but their parents are not willing to
entrust them unless one religious conducts them to Rome.” [318] In a third letter of April 19, 1640, Antonio de l'Aquila added: “according to
the general opinion of the Capuchins, Jesuits and other missionary fathers,
recruitment of students by the intermediary of the patriarchs will never come
to completion, since the facts are already very visible. However, I will very
diligently find them in another way.” [319] In spite of all the difficulties, on December 24, 1640, the Franciscan
missionaries landed at Livourne with six boys; [320] among them was the young Greek-Melkite Aleppian, Peter Dib. [321]
Meanwhile,
Patriarch Euthymios III visited the Eparchy of Aleppo where he remained from
August 7 until November 22, 1640. [322] He returned to Damascus with one of his nephews [323] and Jesuit Father Jerome Queyrot; [324] there this Jesuit father began to teach Greek to the Greek-Melkite boys. [325] Soon the patriarch was abandoned by Queyrot, since he had no power against the
harshness of the Hellenes in Damascus. [326] However, he remained in contact with the Latin missionaries whom the secretary
of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Francesco Ingoli,
exhorted to meet with this patriarch. [327] Ingoli himself really wanted these
transactions with the Greek-Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, and wrote about the
indecisiveness of the Guardian of Jerusalem: “The Maronite priests in Damascus
are not capable of teaching their Maronite (faithful) the way of salvation and
literature and even less capable of dealing with the patriarch (Euthymios
III).It is ‘simpliciter’
necessary to send there two fathers. One of them should know the Arabic
language to be able to frequently deal with this patriarch, whose predecessor,
Matran Karmeh, finally accepted to be a Catholic and died as a Catholic. If
this prelate could be reached, there would be fruit on the part of his
students. If one of the students learned the Italian and Latin languages it
would not be difficult to have other students who would do the same. Father
Sansverini would be the best person to send to Damascus to this patriarch. He
should bring (letters) of his mission so that he could deal with this prelate
with the authority of this Holy See (of Rome) and its spirit. May Your
Paternity order this mentioned father to go and write for (obtain his letters
of) his mission with one or two companions for all of Syria and I will send the
missionaries to these Christians. Give the order that, above all, courses in
Italian and Latin languages be given in each procuracy (of the missionaries) so
that they may teach the young men Christian doctrine and piety. In this way in
time there will be great progress.” [328]
An interesting
account of the Capuchin Father Michel de Rennes gives us an idea how the Latin
missionaries dealt with Euthymios III around the year 1640. After long
discussions with a Greek bishop of Nazareth visiting Damascus, [329] de Rennes had an interview with the Patriarch of Antioch. The patriarch
explained what he thought about the primacy of the Apostolic See of Antioch, [330] and according to Michel de Rennes ended by saying: “I confess and I know that
the Roman pontiff is the head of the Catholic Church, and I hold all his
beliefs as true; and, if I did not fear the other Greeks, I would myself extol
before all, that I am subject of the aforesaid Roman Church, but ten thousand
écus would not be sufficient to pay the evils which Constantinople would give
out.” [331] Euthymios
III promised that he would write to the pope of Rome to show that he held the same
belief of his predecessor Euthymios II Karmeh, but he did nothing. [332] He wanted to consecrate one of the missionaries of Damascus a bishop [333] and asked Fr. Michel de Rennes to send him the writings of the Greek Fathers,
promising to pay him for them. [334]
Even if
Euthymios III never wrote on the subject of his philo-Roman sentiments, he
nevertheless put them in concrete form by his relations with the missionaries.
Despite his first failure to keep Father Queyrot in Damascus, [335] he did not hesitate to make him come in the beginning of 1643, “for the
instruction of the young (Greeks), namely his nephew, and for the composition
of his circular letters and his Greek and Arabic trading licenses.” [336] In view of the Turkish exactions which obliged the patriarch to go make
collections in the dioceses of his patriarchate [337] and in view of the “secret persecutions which were jealously excited against a
Frank religious who was employed in the most important affairs of the
patriarchate,” [338] Fr. Queyrot remained in Damascus for some time, and left only after the return
of Euthymios III to his residence in the summer of 1644. [339]
This Orthodox patriarch stayed away from all those came into the
Orthodox world in his time [340] and never officially dared to declare his union with Rome. [341] He finally succumbed to a grave illness in September 1647 and died on the
following October 11, leaving the patriarchate to the Metropolitan of Aleppo,
Meletios Zaim. [342]
2) Beginning of a Roman Crusade
in the Patriarchate of Antioch
The missionaries
were well established in the large city of Aleppo but could not shine forth in
the other cities of the Patriarchate of Antioch. It was the Capuchins and
Jesuits, who little by little, founded residences in Damascus, Saida and
Tripoli [343] where they
had direct relations especially with the Greek prelates and with their
faithful. [344]
During the patriarchal reign of Euthymios III of Chios (1635-1647) the missionaries
continued to gain the sympathy of the Christian people in Aleppo and even made some
individual conversions. [345] Their missionary work was directed mainly toward the Christians rather than the
Muslims or Jews of Aleppo. [346] On one side, they had some theological discussions with the local educated
clergy who were little prepared for the speculation of the Franks. [347] On the other side they instructed the people, mainly the young boys, in their
schools. [348] Their
influence became so great that the Christian people of Aleppo began to leave
their legitimate pastors and joined the missionaries. [349] The Maronite patriarch himself had to intervene with his synod to keep the
unity of his faithful in Aleppo who were “divided in four parties,” one group
with the Capuchin Fathers, the second with the Carmelite Fathers, the third
with the Jesuit Fathers and the rest of the people with the Maronite priests. [350] This radical intervention of a Catholic prelate against the equally Catholic
missionaries alarmed those who risked disappearing and also alarmed those whom
they had won over from the other non-Catholic Christians. [351]
In order not to lose ground in the large missionary city of the Near
East, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith quickly named a Latin bishop
of Aleppo “for the Latin merchants who lived there and who passed through
there.” [352] This
nomination of a Latin bishop in Aleppo in 1645, which had a precedent in 1638
in Baghdad, [353] took the
missionaries away from the growing jurisdiction of the archbishop of Goa, [354] and assisted in the creation of autonomous Latin missionaries for the conversion
of their nations. [355] This did not pass unnoticed by the Maronites who were also Catholic and who had
their own hierarchy there: the same diocesan territory could not have two
equally Catholic jurisdictions! [356] But the spirit of the crusaders and the prevalence of the Latin Church over the
Eastern Churches awakened once again the idea about having a resident Latin
patriarch in Jerusalem on whom all the Latins of the Near East would depend. [357]
Before the nomination of a residential Latin bishop in Aleppo, the
Jesuits had already considered establishing a seminary. [358] But the uncertainty, in which the Christian schools in the Ottoman empire
lived, obliged the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to establish a
college in Rome for the Orthodox or non-Chalcedonian Easterners of the Near
East. [359] The
preoccupation of the missionaries was to prepare candidates to go to Rome, [360] but the result was not always fortunate for the Greek-Melkites of the
Patriarchate of Antioch. [361] Before the difficulty of transferring these young men into Europe, the
missionaries themselves were transferred.
The Jesuits provisionally established their first school in Damascus in
1641 and then definitively in 1643. [362] The nephew of Euthymios III who later became Patriarch of Antioch in 1672, [363] was formed there as well as hundreds of Greeks who presided over the destinies
of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. [364] In 1637, the British Capuchins established a residence in Damascus near the school of the Jesuits in
order to have direct contact with the resident patriarch and any visiting Greek
prelates. [365]
Little by little the Jesuits installed themselves in Saida near the
Franciscans and British Capuchins; several years later the Capuchins
established a school there. [366] The Capuchins established themselves in Tripoli in 1634 and before them the
Franciscans; several years later the Carmelites and Jesuits arrived. [367] In all these Syrian cities the missionaries were very successful despite the
discord and jealousy which existed among them from time to time. [368] Michael de Rennes bragged that he had been able to confuse a Greek bishop of
Damascus by converting the patriarch of the Greeks himself. [369] From Tripoli on March 6, 1641, Brice of Rennes wrote: “regarding what we do for
the Greeks, most of them believe in the Roman Catholic Church and recognize His
Holiness (the pope) as its pastor and true successor of Saint Peter. I myself
have often preached in their church, [370] and they listened to me and respected my words as if they were Roman Catholics.
We preached on the procession of the Holy Spirit and demonstrated that he
proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one single principle; everyone
believed my words and not one of them said anything against me. Every time we
discussed with them the preeminence of the great pontiff, the pope, they
remained confused and did not know how to respond; convinced, they recognized
him as vicar of Christ and true successor of Saint Peter. [371]
In view of these satisfying results, the British Capuchins could not
tolerate the superficial presence of other missionaries who came after them to
harvest what they had sowed!. [372] They wanted a new crusade of the Christian princes of Europe to crown their
spiritual crusade with a temporal one. [373]
CHAPTER V
The Patriarchate of Antioch
on the Way to Catholization under Macarios III Zaim (1647-1672)
1)
The “Zaim,” Macarios III of Aleppo
Following the
example of Euthymios II Karmeh who designated his successor before his death,
Euthymios III of Chios, while he was dying in Damascus from May to
September1647, also chose his successor: Meletios Zaim, Metropolitan of Aleppo. [374]
According to the
account of Father Queyrot, Meletios Zaim was a weaver before becoming
metropolitan of Aleppo. [375] He was a married priest who lost his wife around 1627, the same year in which
his famous son, Paul was born. Paul became archdeacon of the patriarchate and
biographer of his father. [376] Before becoming patriarch, Metropolitan Karmeh promoted Zaim to sacred orders;
Zaim had been a disciple of Karmeh. [377] On October 27, 1635, Euthymios III of Chios consecrated Zaim Metropolitan of
Aleppo in Damascus and also made him catholicos, “supervisor,” of the whole
patriarchate and exarch for the region of Diarbaker and Antioch where he had
permission to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. [378]
During his
episcopate which lasted twelve years, the city of Aleppo witnessed the
blossoming of its Christians and the breathtaking activity of the Latin
missionaries. Father Queyrot was so enthusiastic that he proposed to open a
seminary in Aleppo. [379] The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith counted so much on the
mission of Aleppo that it appointed a Latin bishop there in 1645 after the one
in Baghdad in 1638. [380] The Greek Eparchy of Aleppo was so rich that Patriarch Euthymios III of Chios
went there twice to collect the necessary money to pay to the insatiable
Ottomans. [381] Under the
episcopate of Meletios Zaim a great number of his faithful made a pilgrimage to
the holy places of Jerusalem; there Patriarch Theophanes hastened to receive
them with “all attention and all honor.” [382] In Jerusalem, the metropolitan of Aleppo met the catholicos, Maximos of Georgia
who accompanied him to Damascus and Aleppo in May 1642. [383] Zaim was on such good terms with his patriarch that the patriarch ordered him
to celebrate the Divine Liturgy pontifically and to preach in his place in the
Cathedral of Damascus. [384]
In September
1647, Meletios Zaim left Aleppo to hide at Killiz [385] "because of the prejudice of the governor (of Aleppo), Qara Hassan Pasha,
who committed numerous injustices.” [386] A messenger from the Damascenes went to Killiz to ask the metropolitan of
Aleppo to come to Damascus because the dying patriarch and the clergy of
Damascus wanted him as successor, but the metropolitan declined the invitation,
“especially when he knew the gravity of the illness which had affected the
patriarch.” [387] In view of
the displeasure of the patriarch and the arrival of a second messenger,
Meletios “sent a response that he would arrive without delay.” He then headed for Damascus “despite
himself” in the company of his son, Paul. [388] On the way he learned that the patriarch had died on October 11, 1647. Meletios
was consecrated the new patriarch on November 12, 1647 by four metropolitans of
the Patriarchate of Antioch who came to Damascus for this purpose. [389]
2)
Macarios III and the Orthodox World (1647 - 1660)
Macarios III
spent the time immediately after his elevation to the patriarchate raising the finances of his church which was
weighed down with debts since 1644 under Euthymios III of Chios. [390] He convoked a synod in Damascus to examine the financial situation and it was
certified that the patriarchate was in debt 6000 piastres, [391] without counting the new expenses “to obtain the firman of the pasha in the
name of the new patriarch according to custom, plus that which had been spent
to make this a legal act with the consent of all.” [392] Recognizing this situation, the patriarch had only to extend his hand to
generous Christian countries. He made two trips to the Orthodox world, from
1652 to 1659, and 1664 to 1669 to collect funds.
Before leaving
on his first trip, he carefully provided all the eparchies with bishops who
were worthy of their function as pastors of souls. He even designated an exarch
in Georgia, who returned three years later to inform his patriarch about the
situation there. [393] In June 1650 he had to deal with some Greeks of Gaza who came to him
complaining against the exaggeration of some taxation on the part of the
Ottomans. They had declared themselves at the point of passing to Islam,
following the example of other confreres, who found it impossible to pay the
kharage, and who renounced their Christian faith. [394]
On January
6,1651, Macarios III consecrated a catholicos whom he designated several months
later as vicar general of the patriarchate during his absence. [395] Then he left Damascus on February 11, 1652 after consulting the clergy and
people of Damascus. [396] He traveled north, at the invitation of the Voivode Basil Lupa, Prince of Moldavia.
He arrived in
Constantinople on October 20, 1652 and remained there until January 10, 1653. [397] There he concelebrated with Patriarch Paisios [398] and participated in the local synod which was held against the deposed
Patriarch Joannikios II. [399] Macarios III of Antioch also hurled the anathema against the unworthy patriarch
of Constantinople who poisoned the metropolitan of Corinth and usurped four
episcopal sees before claiming the patriarchate. Macarios signed this anathema
in the acts of the synod. [400]
Macarios III continued his voyage passing
through Constantsa, Galatz and Jassy where he went to the Monastery of Saint
Sabas and had an interview with Voivode Basil Lupu. [401] On November 29, 1653 he was in Targoviste where he was very well received by
Prince Matthew Bassarab and Metropolitan Ignatios. There he celebrated the
feast of Pascha in 1654 and left the following June for Kiev. His entrance to
Moscow took place on January 26, 1655. [402] He was received by Tsar Alexis and paid a visit to Patriarch Nikon who quickly
invited him to celebrate a Liturgy with the Serbian archbishop also visiting
Moscow. On September 1, 1655 he celebrated the feast of Saint Simeon the
Stylite of Aleppo in Novgorod and returned to Moscow where he concelebrated
again with Nikon on Christmas Day. [403] During his sojourn in Moscow a synod for liturgical reforms took place. It was
undertaken by Nikon, and Macarios of Antioch had a large part mainly because he
brought with him the new recension of the Euchologion made by Karmeh and other
liturgical books of the Patriarchate of Antioch. [404] From April 1656 the patriarch of Antioch had assumed the role of arbiter
between the Patriarch Nikon of Moscow and Tsar Alexis, at the express
invitation of the Tsar. [405] When everything quickly returned to normal, Macarios concelebrated several
times with Nikon. He participated again in a synod in which the question of the
baptism of Polish people was discussed. Macarios wrote a small treatise on this
subject in Arabic proving that the baptism of the Polish people was valid
according to the canons of the Orthodox Church. The Russian version of this
treatise was approved by Nikon and his synod. There had been an imperial law,
which “prohibited rebaptism of Polish Latins or Frank partisans of the pope
because they were the closest to us among all the sects.” [406] Macarios left Moscow on May 29, 1656 and passed again through Kiev, Jassy,
Targoviste, Bucharest, Galatz and Aleppo. He arrived in Damascus on July 1,
1659. [407] There he
paid five thousand piastres toward the debt and offered three thousand piastres
to the pasha and notables of Damascus. [408] Soon he convoked a synod of seven metropolitans to condemn the abuse of
Athanasios Ibn Amish, Metropolitan of Homs, who, during the absence of the
patriarch, took upon himself the prerogatives of the patriarch. The synod
deposed this metropolitan and reduced him to the lay state. [409] In 1660 Macarios devoted himself to the preparation of the Myron necessary for
his patriarchate because the last patriarch who had made it was Joachim Ibn
Ziadeh in 1594. [410] On May 7, 1661 he was in Aleppo, his city of birth, where he began openly to
approach the Latin missionaries and the French consul. During his episcopate
(1635-1647) he remained very reserved toward the missionaries and their
projects, [411] even
though he voluntarily accepted the services of the Jesuit Fathers who looked
after him when he was sick in Aleppo. He did not forget their care when he
became patriarch in 1647. Jesuit Father Amieu wrote in his account for the year
1650: “he had visited Seyde (Saida) and saw me as good oil, and had clearly
preached that it was necessary to love the Catholics and not to flee them: this
was a great change for the Greeks of Seyde. He also came to Tripoli where I
was, and I heard him in his church; and if he became more knowledgeable, he
also had better sentiments. Very often he visited our Fathers in Damascus, who
supported him in his good wishes, and because of this the fathers are better
accepted by the Greeks.” [412]
3)
Macarios III and his Ecumenical Mission (1661-1672)
Some months after the martyrdom of David, a
Greek Aleppian, Patriarch Macarios III arrived in Aleppo to relieve his
faithful in their distress. [413] In view of the tireless charity of the missionaries during the months of the
1661 famine, he publicly praised the Roman Church and “invited the consul
(Picquet) and the missionaries to his church to listen to the Liturgy and allow
his people to see that the Franks were in the true path of salvation, as he
noted in the sermon which he preached in Arabic.” [414] He also sent a letter (dated September 30, 1661) to Consul Picquet and asked
him to personally give it to Pope Alexander VII. The letter was sent with
Arabic manuscripts of the Euchologion and Horologion so that they could be
printed at the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith printing press. [415] The consul was in Rome before May 22, 1662. On that date the contents of this
letter were communicated to the general assembly of the cardinals of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith: “The patriarch of the Greeks of
Antioch expressed a great desire of (coming) to see His Holiness the pope, but
since distance did not permit him, he prays that God bring to a good conclusion
his belief on the subject of the union of the Holy Church, wishing that it
would be easy with the help of God and the Holy Virgin, although it seems to be
difficult (to realize). He also asks His Holiness to pray for the poor
Christians who are reduced at the present time to extreme misery. He compares
the flourishing situation of the ancient Church of the East to its actual very disastrous
state and attributes this great change to the fact of being separated from the
Roman Church. Now he has the resolve to finding all the ways for reunion
because this separation had not been caused by any heresy, but by haughtiness.
It is true that it is necessary to proceed secretly in order to avoid many
disturbances. For these reasons he says that Mr. Picquet will expose his
designs to His Holiness. He praises the rare virtues (of this consul),
particularly his piety toward the poor, his zeal and his efforts for the
conversion of heretics, and he declares that if this virtuous man was left
there (in Near East), he would
arrange the union of the nations to perfection.”
He adds that Patriarch Euthymios [416] “had already requested from Urban VIII to print some (translated) books
necessary for religion in the Greek and Arabic languages, [417] since the pope had ordered them to be printed. But this patriarch had died [418] before this was done. (The present patriarch) renewed the request and selected
two from among the ten books which the latter had asked for, [419] the Euchologion and Horologion.
“He explained the misery in which these people
were living under the tyranny of the local governors because it was very
difficult to appeal to the sultan who was very far away. If this tyranny lasted
ten years, all the Christians of this country would be exterminated. For this
reason, if His Holiness was willing to persuade the King of France to send Mr.
Francois Picquet as his ambassador to Constantinople, it would be the only
remedy for this evil. The Christians, besides, would be very disposed to the
obedience and love of His Holiness if they saw that he cared for them. In the meantime, they waited to be
consoled by a letter of blessing.” [420]
Picquet had spoken with the secretary of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Mario Alberici, suggesting to
him that it was sufficient at that time to have the two requested books printed
and to respond to Patriarch Macarios, observing how he would behave before
conceding another favor to him. [421] The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith decided to print the
Euchologion and Horologion after they were corrected, to ask the pope to
respond to the patriarch, and to write to the Discalced Carmelites of Aleppo
“so that, if the patriarch had made the profession of Catholic faith, they
should transmit it to Rome in order that it be kept in the registers of the
Congregation.” [422]
Macarios was sure that the two books requested
would be printed immediately. To the preface of the two manuscripts he added
that he sent this significant note with Picquet: “this book was printed in the
city of Rome, at the time of the excellent in holiness, Macarios, Patriarch of
Antioch, by the care and costs of our master, Pope Alexander VII, full of
virtue. May God keep His Excellency in the favor of men and may he elevate the
edifice of his virtues and his favors, for all in general and each in
particular. May God reward his favors with a magnificent prize and an eminent
position in this life and in the next. In the year of the Incarnation of Our
Lord Jesus Christ 1662.” [423]
The Congregation’s meeting of July 7, 1662
examined again the question of the Euchologion and the Horologion and found
that it was presently difficult to reconstitute the commission for the
Euchologion. [424] Five days
later, Pope Alexander VII responded to Patriarch Macarios with the reassurance
that the two requested books would be examined and printed as soon as possible.
From this letter we could guess the oral message that Macarios had confided to Consul
Picquet when he gave him the letter to take to the pope: “From everything in the letter of Your
Fraternity of September 30 of last year, and the oral message of our dear son
Francois Picquet, we have understood that you not only firmly follow the truth
of the Orthodox faith and recognize the Roman Church as head and master of all
the other Churches, but that you also display that you will do everything
possible, with the blessing of the Lord, to bring back all the Churches and
people who are your subjects into the unity and to communion with this
Apostolic See; this we have apprised as certain with great joy...” [425]
Meanwhile the enthroning of the first Syrian
Catholic Patriarch, Andre Akhi-John was being prepared in Aleppo. [426] On August 20, 1662, after receiving the order of the pasha, Patriarch Macarios
went to assist in the enthroning ceremonies in the Jacobite Church in Aleppo. [427] Six days later, French Consul Baron gave a banquet honoring the new Catholic
Patriarch and invited Macarios with the Armenian Patriarch Khachadour. On this
occasion Patriarch Macarios “drank to the health of His Holiness the pope by
pronouncing words with very Catholic sentiments; the other two patriarchs as
well as their clergy approved by standing with heads uncovered.” [428] Rome learned about this in February 1663. In view of the enthusiasm and
optimism of the consul and the missionaries in Aleppo, [429] the secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Mario
Alberici, informed the pope and the cardinals about the ill-fated consequences
of installing Catholic prelates by paying money to Turkish authorities: this
could bring more sorrow than good to the Catholic faith. [430] The missionaries were alerted to
the views of the secretary when he responded to their request to confirm the
new Syro-Maronite Patriarch. [431]
Carmelite Father Jerome of St. Therese went to
Rome to obtain this confirmation and asked the Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith for a chalice for Patriarch Macarios and one for the Armenian
Patriarch Khachadour. [432] He informed the Roman authorities that these patriarchs were disposed to send
two bishops to Rome to “render obedience” to the pope. [433] On April 2, 1663 the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded to
the desire of the Carmelite and ordered that the requested chalices be sent;
they approved the idea that the Carmelites would send him the two bishops. [434] However, the promised bishops were never sent. [435]
Patriarch Macarios thought so much of the
missionaries in Aleppo that he defended them against the Maronite Patriarch,
George Bseb'eli (1657-1670) who had prohibited his faithful from receiving the
sacraments from these missionaries. They were also not allowed to enter the
Maronite Church in Aleppo. [436] The Syrian and Armenian patriarchs followed the example of the Greek patriarch. [437] The Greek patriarch was surprised by the unjustifiable measures of the Maronite
Catholic Patriarch and wrote to him: “Since you have been one with the Franks
for a long time, may Your Paternity with your faithful, follow the Franks in
their feasts; since the aforesaid Frankish monks have always had ‘open eyes’ to
assist and do good to Maronites especially in Aleppo. I can truly say that all
the other nations respect yours because the Frankish monks are considered by
all these nations as disciples of Jesus Christ — since Your Paternity, I say,
forms a single entity with them, how is it possible that you have believed
(some) ignorant words, and that you have separated yourself from them and that
you now are the cause of trouble among the Christians of Aleppo...!” [438] Macarios recognized the solidarity
of all the Christians of his patriarchate, despite the diversity of the
denominations. Even Calvinists in the East formed a single block with the other
Christians in the event of calamity or deliberate slights, while in Europe the
events were different at this time. [439] The missionaries manifested their gratitude toward the Greek patriarch by asking
the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith again for the printing of the
Euchologion. [440]
These good relations between Macarios and the
missionaries of the Roman Church had been so successful in mutual understanding
that on December 14, 1663, Macarios wrote a letter to the Roman Congregation of
the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith which was thought to be more
cordial than ecumenical: [441]
“Glory to God always. Macarios, by the mercy of
most High God, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, to the Sacred
Congregation excellent in virtue.
‘Salaam’ of our Master and God, our Lord Jesus Christ who took on
Himself the salvation of our souls, and the grace of his Holy Spirit, conferred
upon his holy disciples, the most pure apostles in the holy cenacle. May this
divine peace and this very blessing descend always [442] on the souls and bodies of the spiritual brothers and fathers, the most
reverend cardinals, heads of priests, accredited by God and authorities of the
Holy Congregation in the city of Rome, mother of the Holy Cities. May the Lord
God bless them and their actions by the most perfect celestial blessings,
protect them, guard them by his strong arm and preserve them [443] from all evil and heavenly or earthly calamities. May God grant all that we
supplicate for these dear (persons) in our evening and daytime prayers and in
the Divine Liturgies, through the intercession of our pure Lady and ever Virgin
Mary, of the great Apostle, St. Peter, Coryphaeus of the Apostles, [444] and all the saints. Amen.
“Besides
this, we bring to the knowledge of Your Kindness and Holiness, first our great
desire of seeing you. Then, if you deign, to inform you on the subject of our
humble person, thank God and thanks to your prayers we bring you ourselves in
good health. Lastly, we inform you that we received your letter which merits
respect and honor, [445] and we rejoiced greatly in it. Thanks to the translation of the brothers,
Father Sylvester the Capuchin [446] and Father John the Carmelite, [447] we have understood its content, rendering thanks to the most High Creator for
your good health, and we thank Your Kindness, who wishes to console us by this
letter which is a great joy to us. In it you mention that you were apprised
from the mouth of Consul Picquet [448] of our great love for the Apostolic See, our application and all our intentions
for the holy union: union of the Eastern Church to the Roman Church. [449] Yes, we maintain our word and this profession until the last breath of our
life, why not! [450]
“You have perhaps learned about our great love
for your disciples, the brothers, the Capuchins and Carmelites, their continual
frequenting of our church and their visits in the homes of our Greek faithful,
to whom they preach and teach. We are pleased with all this and we have been waiting for it for a long time. [451]
"Yes, we ask our Lord Jesus Christ, source
of every good thing and of all holiness, to destroy the wall, [452] the barrier of enmity erected between us and you by the (diabolic) enemy of all
good. In fact, since this separation, [453] the affairs of the Christians of the Eastern Church have declined to dispersion
and to destruction. This is what we admit and confess. This is what we always
preach and instruct our flock.
“You have observed that the Roman Church is
mother of all the faithful, that it loves the children of the Greeks for whom
it has built a college [454] and that it loves the Christians of the East for whom it always cared for by
sending priests to enlighten them and instruct them. We understand that, my
brothers. For this reason we implore our Creator and our Lord Jesus Christ,
head of the Holy Church, that He strengthen the Roman Church, elevate its
grandeur, consolidate it for the end of ages and guard our master and our
father, the honored pope, its head and our head over all, [455] wishing that you be always preserved from all evil. Amen
“Brothers, we have asked you not to forget us
in your prayers, because we have many concerns and pain each day, especially
because of debts, their interest and continual humiliations. This is why we
have neither tranquility nor stability, and we are anxious and sad. Since the
Apostolic Roman Church, solid and rich, gave innumerable alms, we ask it to
think of us in its continuous benefits. In fact, since children always have the
habit of asking for nourishment from their mother, we also ask our mother to
think of us in her mercy, as it is said in the holy law: it is the duty of the
rich church to aid the poor church. We do not have the right to submit this to
Your Fraternity, but necessity and love have obliged us to address ourselves to
you without any obstacle.
“As for Mr. Consul Baron [456] who is in Aleppo, we thank you for his generosity because he has been very
useful to us, and he continues to assist us by his benefits, especially in the
difficult times. May our Lord Jesus Christ repay him in his heavenly kingdom
after many and happy days for his efforts and generosity toward us. We thank
you also for the beautiful chalice which we received. [457] May God guard you and multiply your goodness. We wish that you continue your
benevolence towards us by pursuing the printing of the Arabic books [458] and sending them to us, because they are a great good and always a memorable
gift for these poor priests.
“We have ended the present address to Your
Kindness. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be always with you. Amen. Amen. Amen. With our wishes.
“Written December 14, one thousand six hundred
sixty-three A.D. in the God-protected city, Aleppo.” [459]
This letter had remained in Aleppo at least
until the month of April 1664 [460] so that it could probably be sent with a formulary of profession of faith
signed by Macarios himself. [461] On January 19, 1665, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith learned
about the philo-Roman sentiments of this Orthodox patriarch and was content to
note: “Monsignor Macarios, Patriarch of the Greeks in Aleppo, wrote, having
made his profession of faith and sent a copy of it. He relates the difficulties
in which he is found with the Greeks because of taxes and some charges which
must be paid and he asks to be helped. He praised the piety of Consul Baron who
helped him by some benefits and finally was thankful for the chalice sent by
the Sacred Congregation.” [462] The complete profession of faith of Macarios was sent to the Holy Office. [463] Those in charge of this Congregation did not react in any way to this
profession of faith of Macarios, while the same formulary signed by the
Armenian Patriarch Khachadour in 1664 aroused their review; this obliged the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to ask Khachdour for a new
profession of faith, the one reserved to Eastern bishops. [464]
Meanwhile, Macarios went to Moscow with
Patriarch Paisios of Alexandria at the invitation of Tsar Alexis to depose the
dauntless Patriarch Nikon in 1667. [465] In 1665 and 1669 he passed through Georgia where the Orthodox hierarchy
recognized a certain patriarchal jurisdiction in him. [466] In Moscow he tried to ask the King of Poland, John Casimir, to be the
intermediary between the Roman Church and the Eastern Church in view of union, [467] while the first Greek edition of the Orthodox Confession was prepared at Amsterdam with the signature of four
Eastern patriarchs. [468]
On his return to Syria, Macarios continued his
good relations with the Latin missionaries without making any public act of
union with the Roman Church. [469] At the request of the French Ambassador, De Nointel and the insistence of the
anti-Calvinists, on several occasions he signed some documents manifesting the
Orthodox faith in order to corroborate the proofs of the perpetuity of the
Catholic faith. [470]
Neither Macarios nor his delegates were at the
Synod of Jerusalem on March 20, 1672. [471] On June 12 of the same year, the great Patriarch of Antioch died in Damascus,
truly poisoned like his teacher Euthymios II Karmeh. [472] From then on, the students of the missionaries began to occupy the patriarchal
throne of Antioch, finally allowing a student of the College of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to take the
throne in 1724. This date inaugurated the split of the Patriarchate of Antioch
into two branches. [473]
4) The
Greeks of Antioch on the way to Catholicization under Macarios.
A year before his death, Francesco Ingoli, the
first secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, delivered
to the cardinals of this congregation the fruit of his long experiences on the
conversion of some Christians of the East. He believed it was necessary to
instruct the young men by opening schools, especially in the large cities of
Aleppo, Diarbaker and Aspahan, for through them a new generation could be
prepared. [474] The views
of Ingoli had the greatest success that the history of the missionaries had
known. In 1660, Jesuit Father Besson related: “Father Queyrot left several
heirs of his virtue, among whom are one thousand excellent students, who
brought the Catholic religion to blossom in the midst of schism, and notably
changed the face of these Churches.” [475] Henceforth, the missionaries could count on the young Greeks who were formed by
them in the large cities of Syria: Aleppo, Damascus, Saida and Tripoli. [476] This was not enough: it was necessary to convert the older and more influential
people so that they would not have the time to destroy what the missionaries
had built. All the more, the missionary activity in the east was now being
defamed in the west and the appearance of Holy Syria by Fr. Besson in
1660 was necessary to calm the spirits. [477]
Individual conversions of the Greeks in Aleppo
were very rare until 1651, because the people feared the excommunication of the
bishop and the accusation to the Turks. [478] In 1653, French Consul Picquet arrived in Aleppo. Until 1661 he favored the
Latins, Maronites and new converts to Catholicism among the Jacobites and
Armenians. [479] Among the
Greeks there were only sympathizers who assisted from time to time in some
dogmatic discussions and agreed with the Latin missionaries. [480] In 1660 and 1661, the general distress and the martyrdom of the Greek David
brought the Greeks and Latin missionaries together. [481] The presence of Patriarch Macarios in the Church of the Jacobites at the
enthroning of the Catholic Patriarch, Andre Akhi-John, had a great effect on
the Greek clergy and faithful present. [482] These clergy and people received the missionaries into their homes and often
saw them present in their churches. [483] The letters of Macarios, sent from Aleppo to the pope and King of France, [484] did not have a great effect in Aleppo, since all was done secretly in agreement
with the missionaries. [485] Several times they asked the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to
print the Euchologion and Horologion sent to Rome by Macarios in order to be a
good sign to the clergy of Aleppo, but their requests were doomed to failure. [486] In 1664 they began to lose a little prestige with the Roman Church in view of
the ordination of a bigamous Maronite, since the Maronites were considered of
the Roman Rite. [487] It was in 1674 that a Greek Aleppian archpriest make his profession of Catholic
faith. [488]
In Damascus, Greeks and Jesuits understood each
other very well despite the intrigues which they made from time to time against
openly philo-Roman prelates.
Patriarch Macarios and his vicar, Archbishop Gerasimos, encouraged the
young Greeks to profit from the teachings given by the missionaries. [489] It was with the missionaries in Damascus that the young Saifi, who would be the
future bishop of Saida, was formed [490] as well as the nephew of Euthymios III of Chios, who immediately succeeded
Macarios in 1672. [491] The murder of a Greek by the Turks in Damascus in 1671, only provisionally hid
the philo-Roman sentiments of the Damascenes. Soon a large number of them were
clearly won over to the Roman Church. [492]
After the visit of Macarios to Saida in 1648, [493] the Jesuits soon won over Metropolitan Jeremiah who allowed them to preach in
his church. [494] But the
quarrels between the Capuchins and Franciscans continued [495] and this retarded the progress of the other missionaries. However, a
philo-Roman nucleus was slowly formed and spread to Beirut where some Greeks
were called Catholics since the end of 1659. [496]
The Capuchins and some Franciscans quarreled in
Tripoli [497] where the
Greek majority had very little relations with the missionaries. The
missionaries then turned themselves more toward the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. [498] Yet people soon got used to the teaching of the missionaries and a nucleus
formed in the monastery of Balamand. The first Greek monks who worked for the
union of the Patriarchate of Antioch with Rome came from this monastery. [499]
Beside the pastoral activity of the missionaries
in the Patriarchate of Antioch and the constant efforts of the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith to implant a Latin hierarchy there, which
temporarily failed, [500] most of the promoters of the Catholicization of the East intended to win over all
these Christian people and their pastors by the means of money, especially
after the successful enthroning of the first Syrian Catholic Patriarch. [501] Thus some collectors traveled Europe and especially France to find the
necessary funds to pay the Turks and the converts. [502] Despite the condemnation of this method by some missionaries and by the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith itself, [503] this new campaign would continue until the installation in 1724 of a Greek
patriarch on the apostolic throne of Antioch who was completely Catholicized. [504] The essential thing for these promoters of the union was to submit all the
Churches of the East to the authority of the Pope of Rome by sinking them into
the post-Tridentine mold of the Western Counter-Reformation. [505] However, these Churches had only intended to be assisted in their misery and
their ignorance by a very rich and very flourishing Church (=Roman Church)
according to the example of the primitive Church. [506]
Conclusion
Following the exhortation of the Ecumenical
Council, Vatican II, in the decree “Unitatis Redintegratio” of November 21,
1964 on the subject of the research in the relations between the Catholic
Church and the Eastern Churches in view of the restoration of full communion
between them, [507] we have
attempted to provide a stepping stone which would perhaps serve for the
reconstruction of the One Church for which Christ prayed for in a particular
way “that the world believe” (Jn 17:21).
The paradoxical situation of the Eastern
Catholic Churches in general and of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of
Antioch in particular [508] has urged us to study the relations between this patriarchate and the Church of
Rome before the deep rooting of the new ideas brought by the Latin missionaries
to the East. For the fifty years between 1622 and 1672 we have noted how
prelates, clergy and Orthodox people could live as Catholics and Orthodox at
the same time without any direct intervention of Rome or Constantinople in the
internal affairs of this patriarchate. On one side people lived in a
disciplinary, liturgical, spiritual and theological autonomy; on the other side
they recognized the privileged place of the Church of Rome whose head remained
the steward of God toward men, to whom Christ once said in the person of Peter:
“If you love me more than the others, feed my sheep.”
But, since the installation of a distinct
Catholic hierarchy of this Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, they were
excommunicated by Constantinople, they were condemned to social and liturgical
isolation, and finally they lost their disciplinary, spiritual and theological
autonomy. Since then, this Catholic branch never knew how to find its
equilibrium in the womb of Orthodoxy of which it was a part. [509]
We cannot deny that this Catholic branch of the
Patriarchate of Antioch represents one of the greatest difficulties for the
dialogue with Orthodoxy. The dialogue has been profoundly injured by an act of
domination on the part of some missionaries who wanted to impose their
post-Tridentine theology down to its last corollaries to constitute a community
by no means heretical but orthodox and apostolic within one local Church. We
can no longer deny that this Catholic branch is an object of shame which we do
not dare present to the Orthodox Churches as a sample of what they could be one
day if they intended to restore the union according to the principles mentioned
by some uniformist theologians. [510] But fortunately after the Vatican
Council II the way opened.
Vatican Council II promised the safe-guarding
of the liturgical and spiritual patrimony of the Easterners [511] and the restoration of (all) the rules and patriarchal privileges which were in
vigor at the time when union existed between east and west. [512] It also found that “communicatio in
sacris” in some opportune circumstances, and with the approbation of the
ecclesiastical authority, is not only possible with the Orthodox, but even
recommended. [513] Without
returning to the first millennium where the situation of the Patriarchate of
Antioch was very confused, especially after Nestorianism, Monophysitism,
Monothelitism, the Arab invasion and iconoclasm, we strongly feel that the
period studied in this text should be considered as one of the models of the
Orthodox-Catholic life in the Patriarchate of Antioch, either in the
collaboration between Latins and Orthodox, or in the autonomy vis-à-vis the new
and ancient Rome, or finally in “communicatio in sacris.” Since it would be desirable that after
the lifting of the excommunication of the Catholic branch and after the
approbation of the Orthodox branch, “Communicatio in sacris” would be the
normal state between the still separated brothers of this same patriarchate and
that its interdiction be an exception, so that brothers would recognize each
other as such after a sorrowful “estrangement” of more than 250 years. In fact,
before breaking “the wall of separation between east and west” it would be
desirable to lift it in each local Church by living the union daily, especially
when it is not agitated by heresy but rather by a separation of pride. The
durable union of the holy universal Church would not come uniquely from the
summit or the experts, because the Church is not only the hierarchy. [514] The desire that Pope Paul VI expressed
for the Church of Alexandria on January 21, 1969 could be accomplished even for
the Church of Antioch: “We do not have in our heart the desire more lively and
the will more closed than to explore all the possibilities, of seizing all the
occasions, of putting into work all the means which would permit us to
reestablish between the Church of Rome and the Greek Orthodox Church of
Alexandria, the full communion of faith, sacramental life, and hierarchical
fraternity.” On April 1, 1969 he added to his message: “Docility to the Holy
Spirit will permit us, to us who are already united by the very intimate links
of faith and sacramental life, to also deepen more the signification and the
exigencies of this unity which we already possess, and to value it more.” [515]
DISCLAIMER:
Opinions expressed
in this site do not necessarily represent Phoenicia.org nor do they necessarily reflect those of the various authors, editors, and owner of this site. Consequently, parties mentioned or implied cannot be held liable or responsible for such opinions.
DISCLAIMER TWO:
This is to certify that this website, phoenicia.org is NOT in any way related to, associated with or supports the Phoenician International Research Center, phoeniciancenter.org, the World Lebanese Cultural Union (WLCU) or any other website or organization foreign or domestic. Consequently, any claims of association with this website are null.
The material in this website was researched, compiled, & designed by Salim George Khalaf as owner, author & editor. Declared and implied copyright laws must be observed at all time for all text or graphics in compliance with international and domestic legislation.
Contact: Salim George Khalaf, Byzantine Phoenician Descendent
Salim is from Shalim, Phoenician god of dusk, whose place was Urushalim/Jerusalem
"A Bequest Unearthed, Phoenicia" — Encyclopedia Phoeniciana
