The Melkite Church: Faith, Identity, and Ecumenism
- Melkite Musings
- Jan 5, 2024
- 10 min read
Updated: Apr 27
The Melkites of the 21st century trace their spiritual and cultural lineage back to the first community to be called "Christian", in the ancient city of Antioch. The proud and complex history of this Church allows it to offer a compelling modern narrative enriched with theological depth, historical resilience, and active participation in ecumenical dialogues. Exactly 300 years ago, a segment of the Antiochian Orthodox Church entered into full communion with Rome, and this newly recognised Church came to be known as the Melkite Catholic Church. At the start of this Jubilee Year, declared by Patriarch Yusuf Absi, what is the place of the Melkite Church within the Catholic communion, and what role does it fulfill regarding ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Churches? This report delves into Melkite Bishop Elias Haddad’s understanding of the history of the Melkite Church and his answers to those questions as communicated during a talk in South Lebanon titled “The Role of the Melkite Church in Ecumenical Work”. As bishop of Sidon, Lebanon, he shepherds the flock of the same diocese where his predecessor, Orthodox Bishop Aftimios el Saifi, planted the seeds of reunion exactly 300 years ago. Though the talk contains invaluable input, it is imperative to note that it is a reflection of the personal knowledge and view of the bishop. Neither the talk, nor this consolidated report, are being presented as an absolute historical analysis or the official position of the Melkite Church.
“As such, there was no longer a physical Antioch. It became a mere symbol of our history there, to which we belong.”
City of God, Church of Martyrs:
Antioch, renowned as the City of God, used to rival both Constantinople and Alexandria in Biblical Studies and Theology. It weathered numerous challenges, both natural (Great Earthquake of 525 AD; Plague of 542 AD) and political (Persian invasions; Arab-Islamic conquests). During the first centuries, Antioch maintained a full unity with Rome. Though theological and ecclesial distinctions did appear, they were not grounds for serious tensions. However, this began to gravely change after the Islamic conquests of the 7th century. The fall of the Levant to invaders created a geographical and relational separation between Antioch and Rome. All the while, Constantinople and its Eastern Roman Empire was slowly but surely drifting from Rome politically, culturally, theologically and ecclesiastically. The unification of the previously warring and weak Arabian tribes now created a new and dangerous foe on its borderlands. The city, even the empire, was forced to look East for both war and diplomacy, further distancing it from Rome.
One such serious example of the mingling of political and religious conflict lies in the understanding of Peter’s primacy in the Church. For Rome, it translated into a pyramidal structure of hierarchy, in which it held primacy over the other four patriarchates of the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). For Constantinople, on the other hand, it meant a primacy of honour among equals. Even more, now that Constantinople had become the political "Nova Roma", or New Rome, it sought to claim this title and honour ecclesiastically.
In the Shadow of Constantinople:
The mutual excommunications of 1054 AD between the Papal Envoy and the Patriarch of Constantinople consolidated the city's long-brewing geopolitical and religious conflict with Rome. The developing tensions and subsequent excommunications are well documented in historical documents. However, the same cannot be said regarding Antioch. The City of God, and history, are both silent regarding open conflict with the Papacy. Antioch itself did not announce its severance from Rome. It was Constantinople’s cultural and religious influence on the Churches to its East, paired with the widening political chasm between these now Islamic lands and Rome, that resulted in the Antiochian Church being swept into the catastrophe of schism and separation.
In 1323 AD, the Antiochian Patriarchate finally moved to Damascus. From this point on, “Antioch'' became a symbol of that Church’s history and roots. The next centuries of Ottoman and Islamic dominance in the Levant maintained a certain status quo in religious relations between East and West. Constantinople was now under non-Christian influence, and keeping it distanced and cut-off from the rest of European Christendom was to the benefit of its conquerors.
Antioch: Torn or Restored?
In the late 16th century, the Ottoman Empire began to weaken. Western diplomats and Catholic missionaries started gaining steadier and stronger footing in the East. This influx planted a Catholic seed in the hearts of many Orthodox, not least of them Aftimios el Saifi, Orthodox Bishop of Sidon, Lebanon. His rapprochement with Catholic missionaries and Rome created an openness to Catholicism within Antiochian Orthodoxy, especially in his eparchy of Sidon, which became the first to openly and publicly approach Rome.
Shortly before Bishop el Saifi’s death, his uncle, Kyrillos “Cyril” Tanas, was elected patriarch. Because of their closeness to Rome, Constantinople rejected this election, dethroning Patriarch Tanas and replacing him with a deacon named Sylvester the Cypriot. This development spiralled into an open persecution of the pro-Roman community within the Antiochian Church. Patriarch Kyrillos was exiled, fleeing to the mountains of Lebanon, Bishop el Saifi was imprisoned, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople excommunicated them and their followers. Rome, however, recognised Kyrillos as Patriarch, and thus was born in 1724 AD the reunited Antiochian Church under the name of the Melkite Catholic Church.
Bishop Elias Haddad, basing himself on other scholars, raises an important question regarding these historical developments: Were the events of 1724 AD an act of reunion with Rome or separation from Orthodoxy? He argues that the Melkite section of the Antiochian Church did not initially intend to reunite with Rome. However, it found itself excommunicated by Constantinople and welcomed by the Papacy. As such, he argues, it can be said that 1724 AD was initially a schism within the Antiochian Orthodox Church that then developed into a reunification with Rome. These events add another nuanced layer to the Melkite Church's historical narrative. They did not necessarily signify a clear desire for unification or separation. Instead, they represented a willingness to remain open to Rome without rejecting or severing ties with Constantinople. In other words, it seems that Antioch both initially separated from Rome due to Constantinople’s influence, and parts of it now reunited also as a result of Constantinople’s actions.
“The main question here is whether the reunification of 1724 was a Unification or a Separation. There was no initial desire to reunify with Rome, nor to separate with Constantinople. There was merely a desire of openness, as Orthodox, towards Rome, without the desire to unite to Rome or separate from the Orthodox."
From Sickness Comes Healing:
Navigating the challenging terrain of the Ottoman era, the Melkite Church faced repression and persecution. The Patriarchate of Constantinople incited Ottoman authorities against the new “uniate” Churches: Melkite, Chaldean, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Maronite. They were neither given ecclesial rights nor recognised as millets, semi-autonomous religious nation-groups within the Ottoman Empire. Their members were openly persecuted. However, the now hastening decline of the Ottoman Empire, and the increasing European pressure, marked a turning point. Negotiations by French diplomats, efforts by the Vatican, and the influence of Catholic missionaries all led to a significant change. They contributed to the issuing of the "Hamayouni Decrees" in the mid 1800s regarding these Roman-allied Churches, acknowledging them as valid entities with distinct rights, thus ending the era of formal persecution. These Churches could now openly tithe, elect patriarchs, appoint bishops, and draw the boundaries of their dioceses, among other rights. This allowed for a growth and development that was largely supported by the ability to function openly and freely.
Bringing the East to the West:
Around a century after the Hamayouni Decrees, the Melkite Church came to the spotlight yet again during the Council of Vatican II. While the topic will not be addressed in this article, it is imperative to outline one specific point. The Orthodox often raise the concern that a reunion with Rome will subjugate them and their traditions to the Papacy. The Melkite Church does not contest this claim. However, it does stand as a witness to how such a “subjugation” can occur while preserving its traditions and diversity. In the 300 years of unity, the Melkite Church, like other reunited Eastern Churches, was heavily Latinised. However, the efforts of both Melkite and Roman ecclesial authorities throughout the centuries have allowed for a change in the right direction, encouraging both Churches to move forward on the path of communion and compromise.
In response to general complaints about the Roman centralisation of the Catholic Church, Vatican II, under the leadership of Pope Paul VI, orchestrated a transformative shift towards a Synodal Structure, one that is centred around the Roman See and the Papacy. This change is evident in the now regular convening of Synods, bringing together bishops from all over the world, to deliberate even on local issues, and with a notable inclusion of the laity in the discussions. The influence of Eastern Churches is discernible in this fine-tuning, contributing to the development of a synodality that builds on the traditions of Ecumenical Councils before the schism of 1054 AD. Unlike the infrequency of those Councils, occurring every 50-100 years, the synodal model ensures a more dynamic and regular engagement, with a new Synod taking place yearly. Pope Paul VI's acknowledgement of the debt owed to the Eastern Churches for the gift of synodality was recently echoed by Pope Francis. This underscores the significance of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the shaping of the modern Catholic Church. Contrary to the concerns of the Orthodox, their presence within the Catholic fold does not result in erasure. Instead, they are a role model and guide on the path to a balanced and fully integrated communion.
“At one point in time, Rome did latinise us and dictate to us. However, it now asks us to preserve our Eastern identity. Now, Rome understands that this diversity is a richness.”
Melkites, a Bridge Between Churches?
The Melkite Church's ecumenical journey has not been without its share of challenges. Efforts to establish ecclesial and sacramental communion with Orthodoxy have faced obstacles, and the present-day relationship is marked by both dialogue and antagonistic silence. Three particular points should be outlined in any study on Catholic ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Churches:
1-Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity:
The Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity has made significant strides in addressing issues between Constantinople and Rome, successfully eliminating several obstacles. Notable achievements include the removal of excommunications between the Patriarch and the Papal Envoy, thus fostering a more harmonious relationship. Additionally, the Dicastery played a pivotal role in unifying the date of Pascha/Easter across certain churches in Jordan, the Holy Land, and parts of Syria, eliminating the existence of two separate dates (Julian and Gregorian). The resolution of the Christological disagreement concerning the nature of Christ as both God and Man contributed to an easing of tensions with the Assyrian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, the Filioque controversy was aptly resolved as a linguistic rather than theological distinction. A fundamental shift in communication language is evident, transitioning from labelling the Orthodox as "separated" and "heretical", to referring to them as "Churches in an incomplete state of unity," signifying a move away from the notion of excommunication towards acknowledging an incomplete yet evolving unity.
2-Balamand Declaration:
The "Balamand Declaration" is a pivotal point in the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It is the result of joint ecumenical work between both Churches, resulting in more openness towards the other. However, Balamand also refused any dialogue on the matter of the “uniate” Churches, those Eastern Churches that had reestablished communion with Rome. Bishop Elias goes as far as calling Balamand a "catastrophe" to the Church. Its absolute rejection of the Eastern Catholic Churches has caused relations to become lukewarm with the Orthodox. In his view, it rejects and disregards the 300 years of history, sanctity and experience of the Melkite Church. It is an experience whose richness surpasses that of the Orthodox Churches, since it is marked by an openness to Rome. Such an experience cannot and should not be rejected and erased.
3-Zoghby Initiative:
The suggestion by Bishop Elias Zoghby of a Melkite dual-communion with both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches outlines the role of the Melkite Church as a witness to a unity that safeguards the Eastern identity within Catholicism. However, though this initiative was accepted by 24 of the 26 bishops at the Melkite Synod, it was rejected by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch in a special synod convened on that specific matter. Additionally, Rome also declined the initiative at the time, with then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) cautioning against such initiatives without a solid understanding and assessment of their repercussions.
“Our ecumenical path is unique, not shared by others. If we are to look to the Orthodox, it is we who bring an added richness to them, with that experience. They might reject it, but it is a richness.”
Contemporary Landscape and Future Prospects:
In the contemporary landscape, the Melkite Church remains a crucial participant in the broader dialogue between Eastern and Western traditions. Its rich history and theological stance contribute to the ongoing conversations about unity within the Christian faith. It no longer seeks to “return” to dissolution within the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. Three centuries of unique experience make it a distinct Church rather than a simple offshoot of the latter. It maintains its openness and unity with Rome without becoming closed off to Orthodoxy. It remains a bridge between the two traditions and a witness to communion.
Because of the value of the Melkite Church’s vocation to bear such a testimony, and due to its unique experience, there is a need for it to be preserved and strengthened. The "Melkite Thought" needs to be developed through the formation of the laity, the promotion of education, and the encouragement of a renewal of identity. Additionally, the Byzantine Liturgy must not be abandoned, as it is central to that identity. Finally, the “Melkite Cause”, that of communion, should be fought for.
Closing Remarks:
In conclusion, the Melkite Church stands at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and communion with Rome. Its rich history, intricately woven with theological nuances, struggles, and a commitment to ecumenism, reflects a resilient identity. As it continues to navigate the complex landscape of inter-Church relations, it must protect and reinvigorate its position as a beacon of an ecumenism rooted in truth and charity.
“At one point in time, if there is reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, we will not be dissolved as Melkites, since we now have our own separate identity. This is the peak of my talk today: we should cease thinking about returning into the Orthodox Churches, as if we do not have our own identity. It is good to return, however, it must be a return that preserves our identity, our 300 years of history, our culture that we have built. A return that accepts our saints. However, not to be dissolved like that… into the reunited Church. There will be new Churches ready for an ecumenical path. The conclusion is that there will be no return with a strike to our identity. We return only with our identity, with our experience. We cannot get rid of our identity by throwing it into the sea, in its positive and negative aspects. We have martyrs in our Church that we cannot ignore. We have saints that we cannot ignore. We have institutions. We have acts of love. It is a path of repentance and reconciliation. Who are we, as Melkites? We are those who seek to reconcile with all, without there being a dissolution of our identity.” Melkite Bishop Elias Haddad of Sidon-Lebanon
Comments