Jesus Christ spent His public life traveling through the Holy Land telling about the Kingdom of God, emphasizing that the Kingdom had begun. He gave His followers a command and mission to go make disciples of all nations, and when His work was accomplished the outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place on Pentecost. This event is often called "the birthday of the Church". The Holy Spirit would forever guide and sanctify the followers of Jesus.-the history of the Church began: the first community at Jerusalem was formed.
The Apostles soon left Jerusalem to preach the Gospel to other communities. Zeal to "convert all nations" and early persecutions further scattered the early disciples. In an astonishingly short time small Christian communities had sprung up in all main centers of the Roman empire and even in places beyond the Roman frontiers.
In the early days of Christianity the basic unit was the community in each city -- the local church headed by the bishop who was aided in administration by the presbyters (or elders) and deacons. The local church in union with other local churches formed the communion of churches: the universal church. The smaller communities in the surrounding countryside depended on the church of the city which was recognized as the "mother church" of the area. The role of the Eucharist in manifesting and realizing the unity of the local church was already taken for granted by Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century. In his view which is taught by the East and West generally, the church is the Eucharistic community which fully realizes its true nature when it celebrates the Lord's Supper. In the second century this celebration took place in each community with the bishop normally presiding.
Early Growth:
By the end of the second century, certain local churches were recognized as exercising leadership over the other local churches of an area. The churches so recognized were usually principal sees that were associated with one or more of the apostles. The bishops of these principal sees were preeminent over their fellow bishops, especially in the matter of the consecration of the bishops for the local churches of their area.
During the fourth and fifth centuries the principal sees developed a working relationship (taxis) to handle in an orderly manner disputes in church matters. At Nicaea in 325, the First Ecumenical Council sketched out this relationship in regard to Rome, Alexandria and Antioch while granting an honorary precedence to Jerusalem after Antioch. With the Council of Chalcedon in 451 this arrangement of the principal sees, including Constantinople, developed into the Pentarchy which proved an invaluable service to the Church during the centuries of the Iconoclastic controversy.
Rome was recognized as enjoying a certain primacy not yet adequately defined except in terms of guardian of orthodoxy. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West was considered to be the first bishop in the Church.
Liturgical Development:
Throughout the early growth of the church there as a great variety and freedom in liturgical worship. The Bishops, preserving the substance of Christ's mandate, felt free to improvise the prayers of the Divine Services, including the Liturgy. They kept to the generally accepted outline in use in their churches. By the fourth century certain liturgical prayers were commonly received in the various churches. They became standardized and by being attributed to famous bishops, were given special authority.
In time the influences exercised by the metropolitan churches were extended to the Liturgy as well. Daughter churches patterned their liturgical services on those of the mother churches and sometimes adopted their customs completely. From three major liturgical families (Antioch. Alexandria, Rome) others emerged developing and growing according to the customs and ways of the peoples involved. These families and the various liturgical sub-divisions are sometimes called rites. The major liturgical families are shown in the preceding chart.
These and all the different variants of the Liturgies within the church form a great spiritual heritage for us and clearly remind us that Christ wants all humankind to belong to the church. In these many different liturgical families, every nation and every people is able to feel at home and to become truly one in Christ.
The Divisions:
The Holy Spirit is certainly always present within the church community, but despite this presence, disputes and human quarrels have existed and will always exist. Many quarrels and heresies have been settled through the Spirit's guidance; others, however, have yet to be settled. The ruptures of church unity (discussed below) are important historically and to shed light on our own development.
Fifth Century Divisions:
In 431 the Council of Ephesus (Third Ecumenical Council) condemned the doctrine of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who refused to honor Mary, Christ's mother with the title of Theotokos (Birthgiver of God). Nestorius claimed that Jesus was born of her and that he was merely a "man" in whom the eternal Word of God came to dwell. This doctrine caused a rift in church unity resulting in the creation of the East Syrian Church, also called the Nestorian or Chaldean. It exists in Persia as the Chaldean Church and in India as the Malabar Church.
The doctrine of Christ still remained a problem and further discussions created more confusion and subsequent divisions. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical Council) declared that Jesus of Nazareth is one person in two natures -- divine and human. Those who did not totally accept the decisions of this council were known as Monophysite Christians (believers in one nature). They are more properly called the Non-Chalcedonians. This division claimed the Coptic Church in Egypt, the Ethiopian Church, the Western Syrian or Jacobite Church, the Syrian Church of India and the Armenian Church. The Churches involved in these fifth century divisions are often called by other names: the Lesser Eastern Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, or the Ancient Eastern Churches.
In recent years there has been much discussion about the actual doctrinal differences of these churches. There have been fruitful ecumenical exchanges between these churches and the Roman Church. It is recognized that both the Roman Catholic Church and these Oriental Churches hold the same basic position on Christology.
Eleventh Century Divisions:
Historians generally recognize that the event, sometimes called the Great Schism cannot be exactly dated. This division involved the two larger portions of the Church: The Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. The Byzantine Church or Church of Constantinople by this time had been vastly extended from Greece to countries such as Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania and Russia. Its influence was well established in the Eastern Patriarchates of Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem as well as in the Slavic countries while the Roman Church had spread throughout the Western world.
The division between these groups came about gradually as a result of a long complicated process, starting well before the eleventh century and not completed until some time after it. Many different influences were at work. The division was conditioned by cultural, political and economic factors; it then developed into a theological quarrel. Long before there was an open division between East and West, the two sides were becoming strangers.
Sad hostilities on both sides created the break which divided the Church of Christ. The date usually set for the finality of the rupture is 1054. Even after 1054 however, friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of the great gulf of separation between them. In fact, the average Christian was unaware of the rift. There is no doubt that after 1204, the plunder and devastation of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade and the establishment of a Latin Patriarch at Constantinople, Christian East and Christian West were divided. The Christian East involved in this rift came to be known as the Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox Church. The West was called the Catholic Church.
It has been recently argued, however, that the Catholic Church as such should really be called the Roman Church because Catholic means Universal and since the schism the Church has become too narrowly identified with the traditions of the Church as they developed in the Roman Patriarchate. Catholics generally take the practices of the Roman rite and speak of them as "universal," Catholic practices. For example, people say there is no such thing as married Catholic priests. This is not true of the church universal but only of the Roman rite. The presence of "Uniates" or Eastern Churches in communion with the see of Peter at Rome has not helped the situation very much nor have they been able to expand the universality of the church. Rather than be considered independent churches cooperating and in communion with the Roman patriarchate they are normally treated as nothing more than mere appendages attached to Rome through the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches. Our Patriarch and Church are vigorously working to correct the second class citizenship that Melkites and others generally have in the "Catholic Church."
The Antiochian Patriarchate:
As we have seen, the city of Antioch has been one of the great centers of Christianity since the time of Peter who was its first bishop. It was quite natural, however, that the Church, arising within the context of the Roman Empire with its own political structure, should also assume some the same organization as that used by the government of Rome. Yet Antioch always remained the "Queen City" and capital of the empire in the East. Eventually, five great urban centers developed by the fifth century; Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. This "pentarchy"of Sees comprised the universal Church before the sad schism which separated Rome from her sisters in the eleventh century. A contributing factor in the schism was Rome's attempt to take upon itself more and more jurisdiction -- just like the empire had done.
Unfortunately for the East, Antioch fortunes fluctuated with the times. For example, the city was captured and ravaged by the Persians in 538 and again in 611. Soon after Islam began its rise to power and Antioch fell under its influence by 638. In the tenth century, Antioch was recovered by the Byzantines under the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas and some semblance of religious normality and Christian life returned. The Turks captured the city in 1086 but their occupation was cut short by the invading armies from the West. The Crusades, which occupied the area in 1099, introduced a strong Latin and western influence which lasted for another 150 years. Under the guise of saving the Holy Land and its Christian inhabitants from the Turks, the Latin Crusaders forcibly replaced the local hierarchy with one subject to the Roman Church.
In 1154, Antioch was retaken from its Western occupiers by the Byzantine Emperor Emmanuel Commenus who, allowing Latin occupation to continue under his overlordship, insisted that an Orthodox patriarch be returned to the Throne. This agreement to have the Antiochian Patriarch appointed from Constantinople did not last long and many subsequent Orthodox patriarchs, of Antioch such as the famous twelfth century canonist Theodore IV (Balsamon), were unable to live under the hostile Latin occupation and remained either in Constantinople or in some other congenial location. Between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries the Patriarchs of Antioch were again elected and consecrated by the Antiochian Synod of local Syrian hierarch's.
Our Church, then, was well within the orbit of Orthodoxy and up until the eighteenth century all MELKITES were Orthodox. The reason being that in the fifth century when the MONOPHYSITE heresy began to spread in Syria, some Syrians failed to accept the condemnation of the heresy given by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Other Syrians remained loyal to the orthodox Catholic doctrines and looked toward the Roman Emperor of Constantinople in order to counteract the Monophysite Syrians. For this reason they were called MELKITES, i.e., King's Men, from the Syrian word "Malok" or King. In the course of time, they came to adopt even the rite of Constantinople which is known today as the Byzantine rite.
All Melkites were members of the same church and were united with each other under one hierarchy and
patriarch. Because of the prestige and grandeur of the Byzantine Emperor at Constantinople and his protection of the Christians of Antioch our forefathers also adopted the rite of that city. The Melkite Church, then, has always been a growing, vibrant and versatile Church which knows how to accommodate to its environment in order to survive.
The Catholic Melkites:
After the great schism, the Antiochian church entered into informal relations with the Church at Rome. The East-West Schism had nothing of the rigidity which later developed after the establishment of the so-called "Uniate" Churches and the prohibition of "communicatio in sacris" which exists at the present time. However, at the beginning of the eighteenth century the Patriarchate of Antioch was disturbed by upheavals and factional feuding and the Roman Church saw an opportunity to enter the area as "missionaries." The fact that the patriarchate was Christian from the time of Christ did not seem to matter to the Roman authorities. Papal propagandists made inroads throughout Ottoman Syria and laid the groundwork to what was to become the Catholic Melkite Church.
Most scholars agree that their motives were suspect at best. Instead of helping the Orthodox Church survive in what was a very hostile atmosphere, they introduced another tradition which could only grow by winning converts from the "Roum." While they were alien and powerful, they were also generous, advanced and scholarly. At the order of Rome, Franciscans, Jesuits and Capuchins were working side by side in an endeavor to rally the Orthodox to the cause of unity. Rather than prepare the ground for a healthy, symbiotic and historically appropriate relationship, they basically intimidated the Melkites into accepting Papal authority as it was defined in the West. Quite bluntly, they "won" the Melkites by giving them financial aid and an education. Unfortunately, many Melkites, in their enthusiasm for what the West represented, not only became Catholic but Latins as well. This seems to sit well with the Roman Church and is still a common practice in the Middle East.
Basically, the aid that the East receives from the West has strings attached to it. If your church and patriarchate are poor, then, you must rely on the services of the missionaries who are more than willing to give what they can as long as you eventually break your tie with your tradition. Instead of being treated like the equals that they were, Melkites were led to believe that Rome had no interest or desire to latinize or convert them. In fact, as history attests, the opposite occurred.
Be it as it may, the Melkite bishops of the eighteenth century did not intend to sell their church short. They perceived of unity as a natural, necessary, and just relationship with the patriarchate of Rome. When some of them entered into unity, they assumed that it would be similar to the unity of the church as it existed before the great schism. Some bishops, of course, remained skeptical of Rome's intentions and decided not to enter into any formal, contractual relationship with the Roman Pontiff. The most important bishop to establish a working relationship with Rome was Euthimios Saifi, the true founder of the Melkite Catholic community. In 1711, he founded the Basilian Order·of Salvatorian monks, who were the real agents of union with Rome.
In typical Arab/Melkite fashion, things went along as usual until 1724 when our fluctuating relationship with Rome became formalized. It would not be unreasonable to say that had things continued informally, with the Melkite people changing as the times dictated in their relationship with Rome, that things would be different today. What probably happened was that the newly elected Melkite Patriarch, Fr. Seraphim Tanas, a nephew of Bishop Saifi, succumbed to the Latin mentality of formalizing everything and simply was pressured to make up his mind about unity. The Latin mentality assumes, of course, that if a bishop or Patriarch orders something to be done, then, it is done. In the Melkite tradition of collegiality, however, the Patriarch consorts with his bishops especially when such a momentous decision like re-union is at stake. To complicate matters, Tanas was a graduate of the Propaganda College in Rome and hardly could have been objective in his deliberations.
At any rate, when the Orthodox Patriarch Anthanasios III (Debbas) died in 1723, Seraphim Tanas was duly elected Patriarch according to custom by the clergy and laity of Damascus and consecrated with the name Cyril VI. He sent his profession of faith to the Pope and considered himself a Catholic but not a Latin. Thus began the Catholic line of Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch. His consecration and enthronement came as a serious shock to the rest of Orthodoxy. Rightfully so, (from the Orthodox perspective) Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople excommunicated Cyril and his consecrators, and ordained Deacon Sylvestor of Cyprus -- a nephew of the deceased Patriarch -- and dispatched him to Damascus, armed with the necessary "firmans, and charged him with the mission of reclaiming the errant and punishing the new "schismatic's."
What we have now is an unbelievable paradox: two authentic and legitimate Patriarchs of Antioch one Catholic and the other Orthodox. Cyril VI was elected by the clergy who favored union and Patriarch Seraphim had the support of those who did not. Cyril could not order all the bishops into union (as Rome supposed and/or hoped) and Seraphim could not hope that all would stay Orthodox. Each group did as it saw necessary. All we can say is that the time was not right for a total union of the two churches.
Even today, Rome prefers its Bishops to be educated under its direct supervision. Apparently, this assures a greater fidelity and conservatism. It also leads to the loss of autonomy and is not consistent with the Eastern belief that the "Bishop is the head of his diocese" and that he can be trusted to enter into meaningful and fruitful collegial relationships with his peers.
The partial union which has resulted has not been particularly helpful. As a result of the union of 1724, the Patriarchate of Antioch was again weakened having lost churches, monasteries and many of its richest members to the "unia" who gained commercial and financial opportunities from the West. Further inroads and threats to the ancient Orthodox Faith of Antioch continued with the arrival of numerous Protestant missionaries." Throughout the nineteenth century the Antiochian Orthodox had to struggle against the well financed campaigns of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant propagandists. The presence of Catholic Melkites only led to more jealousy and competition for favors from the ruling powers. The Catholic Melkites more often than not served as a warning to the Orthodox that the price of union would be the haphazard alteration of their tradition and subjugation to the see of Peter at Rome. Even the valiant struggles of Patriarch Maximos IV and his successor Maximos V have not been able to successfully alter the Roman concept of church (ecclesiology) so that a viable union between East and West could truly be possible or exist in reality.
Melkites have always held fast and can only hope for the best. We must be true to the East and patient with the West. We can not return to the bosom of Orthodoxy but can not be latinized any longer. If we stay consistent with our heritage and don't waver in our objectives and struggle, we can prove that one can be Catholic without being Latin. More importantly, we can show that a unity of faith can exist without a uniform administrative structure and that being Catholic does not mean being a papist as defined in Vatican I. The Catholic world must learn to become pluralistic. It must learn to be Orthodox in history, spirit and outlook. The common faith must again be emphasized so that a truly orthodox Catholic religion can be born or a more catholic Orthodox church be developed.
