Reflections on the Special Vocation of the Eastern Catholic Churches

The talk by Bishop Elias Haddad raised various significant topics that need to be assessed. This will allow us to establish a reliable and well-founded idea of what the future of the Melkite Church, as well as the broader Eastern Catholic Churches, might look like.

Secure in One’s Own Identity:

The first point that can be drawn out of the talk is regarding the current place of the Melkite and other Eastern Churches within the broader Catholic Communion. Do they view themselves as fully Catholic, of an equal footing with the other sui juris Churches of the communion, or do they understand their union with Rome as merely circumstantial? Such communities living in their historical lands (mostly in the Levant and broader Middle-East) have well-integrated their rediscovered Catholic identity within the last three centuries. They live a faith that is both rooted in, and shapes, the cultures of their respective countries. Their traditions are alive and infused into the surrounding environment. Additionally, they view their union with Rome as an added blessing that distinguishes them from their Orthodox counterparts. In their daily lives, it adds and subtracts nothing. They respect the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church, occasionally being aware of his proclamations and homilies. However, beyond that, their faith is full and complete within the bounds of their respective Churches. In a sense, their geographical distance from Rome has allowed them to maintain a communion without the added complexities that arise from proximity. Any more complex matters are left to the bishops and theologians. As such, it seems that, for a people so well-integrated in the life of their Church, and for a Church so rooted in the surrounding culture, Communion with Rome is a non-issue. It merely exists, and that is sufficient to the laity.

One of the oldest churches of the Virgin Mary in Lebanon, belonging to the Maronite Church-SmarJbeil, Lebanon

The Politics of Separation:

Another question, and perhaps one of the most important, raised within the context of Bishop Haddad’s talk, is regarding the historical reality of the 1724 AD events of the Melkite Church. Were they, the Bishop asks, acts of reunion with Rome or of separation with the Church of Constantinople? The answer, like the question, should be rooted in historical reality. Today, this question is no longer important, because the Churches have developed through the past centuries to fully integrate this communion into their own identity. Today, they are in communion with Rome, not by accident, but simply because they wish to be so. However, one major point should still be noted regarding the particular events of the early 18th century that Bishop Elias mentions. The elected pro-Roman Patriarch of Antioch was not excommunicated by a Synod of his own Church, the Orthodox Church of Antioch. It was another Church, that of Constantinople, that did so. This creates a confusion regarding the Orthodox claim that Papal Primacy is a disfigurement of the intended hierarchical structure of the Church, as well as a hurdle to unity. Rather than a Synodality of “First Among Equals” that respects the self-determination of each autocephalous Church, it seems that Constantinople had carried out a form of Patriarchal Primacy in its own sphere of influence. It would be inconceivable today, among true equals, that the Maronite Church would dethrone the Melkite Patriarch and install another of its choice in his place. It is possible, however, for the Pope to do so. How, then, does Constantinople’s concept of “First Among Equals” differ from that of Rome’s “Papal Primacy”?

To Shape and Be Shaped:

Besides the Eastern Churches’ integration of their Catholic identity, one should naturally also note the Papacy’s incorporation of the Eastern traditions. The modern popes, as discussed in our previous article, have begun to efficiently fine-tune Papal Primacy into a more synodal form. This, as they themselves discuss, is directly attributed to the influence of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Clearly, this presents a more solid unity among the Churches of the various Rites. It could, however, create some tensions within the Latin Church itself. The man on the Papal Throne holds two positions. The first is as Pope of the universal Church, the second, as Bishop of the particular Latin Church. At various times, this has created a tension within the Latin Church, in large part due to the laity’s lack of differentiation between the two roles. Taking the example of Synodality, one can see how, from a Latin perspective, it may appear as a backtracking regarding Papal Primacy. In a Church made solely of Latin traditions, this perception might even be true. The Church is Catholic, though, and not solely Latin. This means that for the 23 other self-ruling Churches within this beautiful communion, a renewed openness to synodality indicates a genuine acknowledgement of the Eastern traditions, equal in dignity, within the Catholic body. It also means moving a step closer to the possible return of the Orthodox Churches to full unity with Rome.

Opening the discussion on the ordination of married men to the priesthood is another point of contention. A Bishop representing a Latin flock can very easily adhere to its traditions without adjustments. The Pope, on the other hand, shepherds a Church that holds, acknowledges, and respects both traditions. It is not inconceivable, then, that the Eastern traditions would seep into and help shape Western ones.

Those two simple examples, among many others, should be enough to outline how the presence of the Eastern Churches, including Melkite, has been and will continue to be an engine of adjustment of Latin traditions.

Beautiful mix of East and West, with the Martin Family (Latin) depicted in Byzantine Iconography

The Courage to Be Ourselves:

The increasing influence of the Eastern Churches within the Catholic Communion shows a shift towards a greater recognition of their beauty and value. The Catholic world has crossed leagues from the days of Latinizations, even though Delatinization itself has been relatively slow. The Catholic Church in its entirety is “holy”, and its sui juris Churches equally so. As such, one can only praise such a shift that encourages each Church, and each member of these respective Churches, to live out their full traditions proudly and unequivocally. However, as this internal healing slowly progresses after centuries of separation, our perception outwards also needs to be addressed. The inquiry into Eastern Catholics’ engagement with the Orthodox Churches reveals nuanced considerations to be had. It prompts exploration into whether there exists, at times, a sense of inferiority in comparison to the Orthodox tradition. An intriguing aspect is the shift of what I call the “Inferiority Issue”—from the Latin extreme to the Orthodox one. Notably, such an inferiority issue does not seem to appear among Easterners in the Old Countries, where the cultural context and history provide a well-defined framework for identity. In contrast, among Easterners in historically non-Eastern lands, there is a strong struggle with the loss of identity, raising questions about the impact of one’s cultural context on their Eastern identity. In other words, Eastern Catholics of the Old Countries seem well-grounded in their identity, finding they lack nothing in comparison to the more established Orthodox. Of course, they have had to leave institutions, monasteries and centuries-old communities to start over after their relatively-recent reunions with Rome. This left them materially and culturally poor for a significant period of time, especially relative to the Orthodox. However, and though many intellectual leaders in these communities are aware of the need for a renewal, they remain proud of their heritage. Even more, as Bishop Elias stated, they view their Catholicism (and union with Rome) as an added richness that the Orthodox are yet to be blessed with. On the other hand, some Eastern Catholics, especially Byzantines, in the New Countries, seem to have a heavy reliance on the Orthodox for guidance in the living out and development of their traditions. This is materialized into a stronger affinity towards the latter rather than Rome, contrary to their counterparts, such as in the Levant for example. It is understandable that without being ingrained in a Church’s historic land, language and culture, it is easy to drift into a sense of identity loss.

The dynamic nature of Eastern Catholicism becomes evident, especially as it further transcends its original form. Up until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, both Byzantine and Syriac Churches were not only National Churches, but Nation-Churches. Patriarchs were as much political leaders of their communities as they were religious ones. In countries like Lebanon, they still play significant political roles to this day. However, the expansion of Syriac and Byzantine Catholics into diverse cultural landscapes raises significant questions about their Churches’ identities. How is identity perceived, maintained, and adapted? Should Fasting Rules be fine-tuned to reflect the cultural context of each Eparchy? For example, is the Melkite abstinence from Olive Oil and Wine lived out similarly by an American of Lebanese heritage as one of Irish heritage? After all, one culture uses it in most of its dishes, while the other almost never does. Questions such as these help shed light on the complex interplay between cultural context, tradition, and the evolving expressions of Eastern Catholic heritage. They also lead one to wonder if it is not time for each Church to have a Synod addressing such modern issues, as the Maronites have done over the past half-century.

St. Stephen's Maronite Cathedral in Batroun, Lebanon

Engaging with these urgent questions could help certain communities within both the Byzantine and Syriac Catholic worlds better perceive themselves as they truly are: perfect in both their Eastern and Catholic identities, rather than stray Catholic offshoots of Orthodoxy.

The Zoghby Cause?

It is in this refined sense of self-worth that one can root the Zoghby Cause, a profound exploration of identity within the Byzantine Catholic community. Though its author was a Melkite Bishop, its call can be expanded to the entirety of the Eastern Catholic communities, except the Maronites (who have no Orthodox counterpart). Bishop Zoghby had proposed a dual-communion of the Melkite Church with both the Orthodox and Rome, being rejected, at least for now, by both sides. It is on this proposal that Bishop Elias built his call for the Melkites to uphold their cause, naming it the “Zoghby Cause”.

While the theological ramifications are left to the discernment of the Catholic Church, the “Zoghby Cause” can have other valid roles.  Eastern Catholics are uniquely situated at the crossroads of Eastern and Western traditions. Unlike their Orthodox counterparts, they find themselves in a nuanced position, challenging certain Orthodox claims while defending a narrative that adds layers to the broader Eastern Christian story. In the eyes of the Orthodox, Eastern Catholics can be viewed as a thorn in the side, disrupting a more streamlined narrative and challenging certain historical and theological assertions. They are the counter-narrative to the claim that one has to give up one’s theological formulations, liturgical practices, and identity in order to be in union with Rome.

On the Latin front, there is still a need for a deeper knowledge, understanding and acceptance of Eastern Catholics as an integral part of the broader Catholic communion, each with its unique traditions contributing to the diversity of the Church. Some less-informed communities within the Latin Church still view Eastern Catholics as not fully integrated into the Catholic fold or as outliers within a Latin-centric narrative.

The Zoghby Cause could then be lived out as a call to witness to both Churches, Latin and Orthodox. It is a call to be an ecumenical bridge by simply, and faithfully, being oneself. As it unfolds, it serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing journey toward understanding, acceptance, and mutual recognition within the diverse tapestry of the Catholic Church. The dialogue around dual identity prompts reflection not only on the historical schisms and reconciliations but also on the contemporary challenges and opportunities that shape the Eastern Catholic experience. Through this ongoing exploration, the Eastern Catholics continue to contribute to the richness of the Catholic Church, fostering communion amid diversity, and diversity amid communion, by embracing the complexity of their dual heritage.

In Defense of an Eastern Renewal:

The imperative for an internal renaissance within the Melkite and other Eastern Catholic Churches becomes evident, so as to fully live out their call to witness. A cornerstone of this renewal lies in the targeted formation of the laity, empowering them with the knowledge and tools necessary to actively engage with their faith. The Latin Church has significantly mastered this with Television, Radio, Youtube Channels, Social Media Pages, Publications, Universities, Newman Centres, and many more examples. The Eastern Churches can delve into the depth of this rich experience and fine-tune it to their own needs. Concurrently, the promotion of formal education emerges as a pivotal strategy, fostering intellectual growth and theological awareness among the clergy and laity alike.

Melkite Musings presents itself as such an effort in the education of the faithful.

Crucial to this internal rejuvenation is the unwavering encouragement of their identity. Embracing the distinctiveness of their traditions, liturgy, and historical journey becomes not only a celebration of heritage but also a reaffirmation of the unique contribution they offer to the broader Christian landscape. This emphasis on identity goes hand in hand with their Cause of Communion. Combined with an intellectual spring and a renewal of traditions, this has the potential to position the Eastern Catholic Churches as nurturing teachers and role models, rather than pupils, towards the Orthodox Churches.

The “Cause of Communion”, as Bishop Elias called it, envisions a role of leadership and unity, calling upon the Eastern Catholic Churches to be a beacon of communion that transcends historical divisions. By embracing this role, they aspire to foster a spirit of unity, mutual understanding, and collaboration. As such, they can live out their call to be not an “offshoot” of Orthodoxy, but the “roots” of its return to full communion with the Catholic Church.