Melkite Articles Khairallah Meyendorff

8/12/2019 Melkite Articles Khairallah Meyendorff

1/46


2/46

ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYContinuation of St Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly

Published byTHE FACULTY O ST VLADIMIR S ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

JOHNBRECK,EditorVOL. 3 0 1986 No. 3

C O N T E N T S

THE ECUMENICALOCATIONFTHE MELKITE HURCHPhilip A. Khairallah 189

THE MELKITE ATRIARCHATE:PARADOXESF A VOCATIONn initial response to Father KhairallahJohn Meyendorff 2 17THE DEATHOF HIEROMONKWENALYMichael Oleksa 23 1RULING IBERIA: HEIMPERIALOWER,THE ORTHODOXHURCHND THE NATIVE EOPL EOleg Kobtzeff 269

Editorial and Subscription O f fces575 Scarsdale Road, Crestwood, Tuckahoe, NY 10707Tel.: 914) 961-83 13Copyright 1986 by St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

Back issues are available on microfilm from University MicrofilmsYE RLYUBSCRIPTION 18.00 SINGLESSUES 5.00FOREIGNUBSCRIPTION 25.00 (US Funds only)


3/46

To the Orthodox Churches the most sensitive area of ecu-menical relations is not with Protestants or Roman Catholicsas such, but with the so-called Uniate Churches composedof Catholics of the Eastern Rite. Born of the divided-anddivisive-council held at Brest-Litovsk in 1596, and based uponthe decisions reached at the reunion council of Florence(1438-39), the Uniate movement from its beginnings hasbeen caught, as it were, between two very different ecclesiologies,Orthodox and Roman Catholic. While political and culturalfactors have played their part, the historical disagreement be-tween East and West over the Uniate Churches has alwaysbeen grounded in a theological question concerning the natureof the Church and the matter of authority.One of the most important Uniate communions is theMelkite Greek Catholic Church of the Near East, centered inAntioch with parishes in many countries including the UnitedStates. The Rev Dr Philip A. Khairallah is a Melkite priest in

charge of the St Cyril of Alexandria Mission in Cleveland,Ohio. Active in ecumenical relations for many years, he haswritten an illuminating and perceptive study of the missionthe Melkite Church is called to assume in the post-Vatican Iera. Lamenting the fact that his ecclesial tradition has be-come rite, and even within its own ranks is seldom acceptedas a truly autonomous body, he defines the ecumenical voca-tion of the Melkite Church to be that of witnessing to authen-tic Orthodoxy within the framework of the Catholic tradition.On the basis of a detailed review of statements made byhierarchs and other leaders of his own and the Roman com-munions, he suggests a number of concrete steps which hefeels could reestablish a proper relationship between the See


4/46

of Rome and the Melkite communities, while enabling MelkiteChristians to witness to the Latin West by living the fullnessof life in Orthodoxy.

We are very pleased to be able to publish Dr Khairallah'sstudy in this issue of the Quarterly and to accompany it witha response by F r Joh n M eyendorff, Dean of St Vladimir'sSeminary. These two articles represent an important contribu-tion to ecum enical dialogue between the O rthodox and CatholicChurches, and we hope they will serve to stimulate furtherdiscussion that might contribute, constructively and irenically,to the quest for authentic union between all those who professand live the Orthodox Catholic Faith.

Popular piety often tends to inflate various traditionssurrounding the lives of saints. Occasionally the reverse oc-curs: an authentic witness to holiness becomes the victim ofpopular indifference or even slander. Such, it seems, has beenthe case with Hieromonk Juvenaly, recently canonized forthe extraordinary missionary work he accomplished in Alaskaa t the end of the eighteenth century. Controversy over thelife and activity of Fa ther Juvenaly has focused on the reasonsfor his murder by a group of Yup'ik Eskimos. Fr MichaelOleksa has done extensive research on the question ofJuvenaly's mission and martyrdom. In his article publishedhere, he offers new and convincing evidence from the oraltradition of Alaskan Native peoples to confirm the fact thatthe Diary of Fr Juvenaly, upon which the widespread ac-count of the reasons for his death are based, is indeed aforgery, and that the often disparaged Hieromonk was in factmurdered in the course of evangelizing inhabitants ofQuinhagak on the Kuskokwim River.

Fr Oleksa renders an important service, both to thememory of Hieromonk Juvenaly and to the Orthodox Churchas a whole, by demonstrating on the basis of solid historicalevidence both the effectiveness of Juvenaly's ministry and theholiness of his life. Orthodox Christians, spiritual children ofSt Herman and St Innocent, can also rejoice and give thanksfor the protection and intercession of the Holy Martyr Juvenalyof Alaska.


5/46

Philip A. hairallah

On the 25th of January 1959, the newly elected andenthroned John XXIII, bishop of Old Rome, Patriarch of theWest, and Universal Pontiff, made the unexpected announce-ment of his plan to convoke a Council, now known as Vatican11 Am ong other things, the Council was to open a windowupon the Church, to lead to its renewal, a bringing up todate, o r aggiornamento, and to speak to the problem ofChristian Unity. The entire Christian family has not yet fullyattained the visible unity in truth desired by Christ, and theCatholic Church therefore considers it her duty to work activelyso that there may be fulfilled the great mystery of tha t unity.These words were spoken by Pope John in a homily given atthe Liturgy opening the Council.

Soon after the Council was convoked, a Preparatory Com-mission was created under the presidency of Cardinal Tardin i,who a few weeks later wrote to all the Bishops asking themfor advice, suggestions and wishes n all frankness an dfre ed om . elating to questions that should be considered bythe future Council. Instead of replying individually, the Melkitehierarchy preferred to send a collective response. A specialSynod was called from the 24th to the 29th of August 1959,and a response was sent to Cardinal Tardini in the form oftwo letters, the first dealing with certain dogmatic, liturgicaland disciplinary questions, and the second dealing with rela-tions with the Orthodox Churches. This note stated, OurMelkite Greek Catholic Church believes that our most im


6/46

190 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYportant mission is to work for Christian Unity particularly indrawing together the Holy See of Rome with our Orthodoxbrothers. This theme was constantly repeated throughout thenext six years, which led the late Ecumenical PatriarchAthenagoras of Constantinople (New Rome) to tell the lateMelkite Patriarch Maximos IV that he not only spoke in theCouncil in the name of his own Melkite community, but thathe also spoke in the name of all the East.

Thus, for at least the past twenty-five years, the MelkiteGreek Catholic Church has placed at the center of its existenceits ecumenical vocation, the unity of the Churches of theEast and of the West, the making known of Orthodoxy to theRoman Catholic Church, and the task of ensuring that Cathol-icism and Latinism are distinct and separate. However, beforelooking into details of the above, we will have to understandhow the Melkite see themselves; what role they can play inthe ecumenical activities between the Roman Catholic Churchand the Orthodox Churches, now considered to be sisterChurches; what relations to espouse with the Roman Catholicas well as with the Orthodox Churches; and finally, what theultimate goal of the Melkites should be once the unity of theHoly Churches of God has been reestablished.

I How do Melkites see themselves andhow do others see them?Over the past twenty years since the end of Vatican 11there has been a profound change in the self-awareness of theMelkites. Before Vatican 11, the Christians living in the NearEast, as well as their brothers living in the Western world,were known as Catheolics of the Melkite Rite, or even RomanCatholics of the Melkite Rite, or even as Catholics who make

the sign of the cross backwards. Our Churches in this countryespecially, were known as St (so and so) Roman CatholicChurch, Melkite or Byzantine Rite. Although the formal defini-tion of the word Rite includes the manner of organization,proper canon law, customs, etc., pertaining to each particularbody of Christians, yet the average person on the street under-


7/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o f the Melkite Church 191stood it to mean quaint ways of doing things, just a little dif-ferent from the rest of us. The Melkite Rite became a museumpiece, something you took second grade students to, and thenasked them to write a one page report on their field trip. AsDonald Attwater says in his introduction to The Christian2furc hes o f the East. I Churches in Communion with RomeAll these differences, striking as they are, are less importantthan the likenesses which underlie them. In its faith, its religiousdogma and canons of conduct, there is complete oneness in allparts of the Catholic Church; there is no room for eitherlikeness or dissimilarity; there is simply identity. But even inaccidental matters, of worship, discipline, usage and mentalhabits they are still Catholic. Thus, from this framework ofunderstanding, the ethos and the raison d'etre of the Melkitesis accidental. Compare this to a definition given by PatriarchMaximos IV of blessed memory, when asked by a reporterwhat the Melkites are. The Melkite Greek Catholic Churchis the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Alexandria andJerusalem, in communion with Rome. Or as ArchbishopJoseph Tawil, the Melkite Bishop of the United States, stated:I prefer to comment about the Eastern Churches and not theEastern Rite Churches. To speak otherwise would make theEastern Churches mere appendices of the Latin Church, a kindof concession of no importance. Furthermore, it would be adistortion of the equality between the Roman Church and theEastern Churches, as proclaimed by the Second Vatican Coun-cil. Somehow, the first definition conflicts with the other two,and yet their implications are very broad.

If the Melkites are the Greek Orthodox Church ncommunion with Rome, then they must, as a Church, havetheir own ecclesiology, spirituality, traditions, history, canonlaw, theology and self-awareness. The Melkites are in com-munion with the Church of Rome, therefore the basic tenets oftheir faith must be the same, because i the faith were not thesame, there would be no communion. However, as a Church,the way they express their faith in its totality must be specificallytheirs, and but for exceptional circumstances, there should beno intereference by another Church in what they do. TheMelkites are the local Church of Antioch, united around their


8/46

92 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYBishop, celebrating the Eucharist. They are the CatholicChurch, as one of their early Bishops, St Ignatios of Antiochtold us.

This developing self-awareness of the Melkite Church isevolving slowly. They have had to overcome a Latinizing trendfor over 250 years, and this is due to some of their hierarchs,together with their Patriarch, and some of the clergy andfaithful, who have been in the forefront of a search for theirbbroots. The path is long and tortuous, but when listening tothe prophetic words of the late Patriarch Maximos IV spokena t Vatican 11, more and more a re convinced that the wayhe outlined is the only way to ensure Melchite survival into thetwenty-first century.

11 Is the Melkite Church a bridge betweenCatholicism and OrthodoxyThe split in the Church of Antioch in 1724 has oftenbeen recounted. The causes of the split were numerous, none ofwhich, however, related to theological problems or theologicalissues. In brief, social and political issues played the pre-dominant role. There was the issue of Antioch versus Con-stantinople, Greek versus Arabic speaking, protection of theChristians in the Near East by various Western powers, the

role of the king of France in economic and trade relationsbetween Syria and the other Mediterranean countries. Therewas the problem of schools, mainly erected and staffed byFrench missionaries, and the problem of printing liturgicalbooks and the Bible in Arabic. The only two presses thatcould print Arab ic were in Rom e and Holland. Some of theproblems were not new, and could be traced to the Crusaders:the capture of Antioch, the exile of the Melkite Patriarch andthe appointment of a La tin Patriarch. T here were internal prob-lems, such as the rivalry between Damascus and Aleppo, andthe role of the French Consul in Sidon. Finally there was theproblem of educating the clergy. With the opening of theGreek College in Rom e, many of the future influential laymenand future hierarchs studied in Rome and were influenced by


9/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o f the Melkite Church 93western theological patterns of thinking. Many of these issuesbecame acute in the one hundred years preceding the separation.At the death of Patriarch Athanasios 1V Dabbas in Aleppo in1724, some of the bishops elected Cyril IV Tanas, while therest elected Sylvester. From that time on there has been aseparate line of Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Patriarchsof Antioch. After a stormy beginning, Patriarch Cyril wasconfirmed by Rome, and Patriarch Sylvester by Constantinople.The confirmation from Rome did not come until 1729, andonly after Pope Urban VIII insisted that Patriarch Cyril takean oath to change nothing of the usages of the Greek rite.However, alas, Latinization had progressed very rapidly, some-times enforced from the outside, but more often brought onby the Latinized hierarchs, usually acting mistakenly but ingood conscience. As E. Lanne stated: Whenever a part ofthe Church unites itself to Rome, the other part of this sameChurch, usually the majority, stays away from this Romancommunion. Thus, the Orthodox part reaffirms its characteras a Church in opposition to Roman communion, while, be-cause of its union to Rome, the Uniate body looses thisecclesial consciousness and becomes a 'rite.' E. Lanne, Thepost-tridentine conception of primacy and the origin of theUniate Churches. Irenikon vol. 52, No 1, 1979, pp. 5-33.)

The further growth of the Melkite Greek Catholic Churchagain depended upon social, economic and political measures.An added factor, however, was proselytism. With needed sup-port coming in from the West, the Catholic portion of theChurch of Antioch grew and flourished, and in many instancesthe less educated Orthodox, wanting the same benefits as theirCatholic brothers, saw no harm in joining. In other instances,a parish not liking its priest would approach the other Bishopand be accepted into communion. So over the years, from atleast 1724 through the mid twentieth century, the Melkite GreekCatholic Church grew at the expense of the Orthodox Church.As the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch said ina conference given at the Pro Oriente Foundation in Viennain 1978: The Catholic Church has not recognized how theselast three centuries have deeply wounded the soul of theOrthodox Churches. We were and still are culturally and eco-


10/46

194 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYnomically weakened Churches. Our sister Church in Rome sentus legions of missionaries, often the most qualified. However,the confidence with which we received them was betrayed.Instead of helping us renew ourselves, the powerful Churchesof the West attempted to 'converty us, and have founded atour expense, Uniate, Latin and Protestant Churches. Is it bydivision that one helps a Church, a sister Church as we arecalled today, to renew itself? Thank God, this latter activityhas ceased. Both Patriarchs, Maximos IV and Maximos V,have specifically stated that there will be no proselytism, andthat if an Orthodox faithful approaches a Melkite priest orBishop, he will first be referred back to his hierarch. Only inextreme cases, will change be approved, and this will-beafter consultation, and at least the tacit agreement of theother side. This agreement, in general, has been abided by onboth sides, although a few years ago its fragility was demon-strated when one of the Orthodox priests was accepted intothe Basilian Salvatorian Order, without consulting the Bishop.

In view of this stormy history, it is difficult to see howthe Melkite Greek Catholic Church could ever have beendesignated as a bridge between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.It is difficult to see how any rational Orthodox could believethat they could join the Catholic Church and retain all oftheir traditions. It is difficult to see how the Melkite Churchcould be set up as an example of what the Orthodox Churchwould be after they returned to the Church of Rome. As everyarchitect knows, bridge needs two pedestals to support thearch. There may be one ecumenical pedestal in Rome, but theother one is missing. Thus, the image of bridge is seriouslydefective and has been deficient since it was first proposedafter Vatican I. Another newer problem with the bridge imageis that one should ask why bridge Churches are necessary, ifthe Orthodox Churches are called sister Churches. Bridgesare not necessary within a family. This terminology of sisterChurch was first used at Vatican 11, and was in sharp contrastto the label of schismatic or dissident Churches given to theOrthodox before Vatican II If sister Churches, why bridge?

Thus it has become necessary to rethink the ecumenicalrole of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.


11/46

The Ecumenical Vocation of the Melkite Church

111 What then is the ecumenical role othe Melkite Church?If the Melkite Church cannot be the bridge Church be-tween Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, what role can it

play to specifically answer Our Lord, That they may be oneeven as we are one (John 17:11 Directly, probably noth-ing-or only very little. In the few areas of ecumenical involve-ment, such as occasionally in the Bilateral Catholic-Orthodoxdialogue in the United States and the International OrthodoxRoman Catholic Theological Dialogue, the Melkite participantshave sat with the Roman Catholics, and on the rare occasionsthat they spoke, they essentially presented a Roman Catholicposition. The Orthodox, in general, do not recognize the UniateEastern Catholic Churches as independent Churches. It is onlyvery recently that the Melkites have appeared as Melkites,and this was at the meeting of the Near East Council ofChurches that met on Cyprus in February, 1985 At othertimes, when the Mekites have wanted to participate at Nationalor World Council of Churches meetings, they have been toldnot to. Instead, they were instructed to wait and follow whatRome wanted them to do. Thus the question again: what ecu-menical role can the Melkite Church play, and more specifically,what role can it play in the United States, far from the socialand political environment of the Middle East?

There is one, and only one major role the MelkiteChurch can play, and that is to witness to Orthodoxy withinRoman Catholicism. In other words, the Melkites have to livethe fullness of Orthodoxy, to be true to its roots, and to liveit in communion with Rome. The true Orthodox Christian isnot only he who thinks in an Orthodox manner, but he whoalso feels according to Orthodoxy and lives Orthodoxy, whostrives to embody the true Orthodox teachings of Christ in hislife. First of all, the Melkites have to live as a Church, thelocal Church of Antioch and its daughter Church in the UnitedStates, in communion with the local Church of Rome, and thelocal Churches of the Roman communion in the United States.The Melkites have to demonstrate by their whole existence the


12/46

196 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICALQUARTERLYreality of Eastern Christianity. Since they already are in com-munion with Rome, some of the Roman Catholics will listen tothem, possibly a little more attentively than they will listen tothe Orthodox Churches, who in the mind of the average Catholicare still an unknown. There is a greater awareness among theRoman Catholics in this country that Eastern Catholic Churchesexist, and that somehow they are legitimate. On the other hand,the Orthodox Churches are not quite acceptable, and for somepeople they may even have something to do with Protestants.Thus the ecumenical mission of the Melkite Church is tomake the Roman Catholics know, understand and love theEast, and this can only be done when they live the fullness ofOrthodoxy, not only as a quaint Rite but as a Church. TheMelkites have to constantly correct their Catholic brothers, ininsisting that they are a Church, that they are not under Rome,but are in communion with Rome. The Melkites must insistthat their bishops act like bishops, and that servility to Romein the guise of obedience cannot be considered a virtue, but isa sign of weakness, leading to a creeping Latinization of theChurch. Finally, the Melkites must show maturity in all oftheir actions, so that they do not always go to the RomanCatholics for help. Although there are many areas which needto be developed in demonstrating their Orthodox way of life,this review will focus on only a few examples.

IV Concrete ecumenical examplesThree examples among many will be discussed in demon-strating how the Melkites can act as an Orthodox Church incommunion with Rome. These are 1) the role of the Patri-arch and his Synod in relation to the Bishops, and the role ofthe Congregation for the Oriental Churches; 2) the ordina-tion of married men to the priesthood; and 3 ) the MelkiteChurch's identity as a Church which can preach the Word ofGod to all, irrespective of ethnic background or liturgicalusage; in other words, the question of rite and the changeof rite.1) Since their establishment in this country, and espe-


13/46

The Ecumenical Vocation of the Melkite hurch 97cially since 1958, when the Melkites gathered together fortheir first annual convention in Cleveland, their desire hasbeen the establishment of a diocese, ruled by their own Bishop.This yearning was an heir to a long tradition, since just underone thousand nine hundred years ago, one of the early Bishopsof Antioch, Ignatios the God-bearer, wrote to the Smyrnaeanson his way to martyrdom in Rome: Only that Eucharist maybe regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the Bishopor his delegate presiding. Where the Bishop is, there let thecommunity be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is theCatholic Church. Without the Bishop you are allowed neitherto baptize nor to hold an agape celebration. Whatever heapproves is fine in God's sight so that all that is done maybe legitimized and certain.

When the first missionaries arrived in this country, theywere received by the Roman Catholic Bishops and aided inestablishing Churches of their own rite, while remainingunder the authority of the local hierarch, and attached to thelocal Roman Rite diocese. This led to fragmentation, sincethe different parishes scattered from New Hampshire to Cali-fornia had nothing in common. This yearning for a Bishop wasgreatly reinforced with the Decree on the Catholic Churches ofthe Eastern Rite in 1964, which stated that, The Sacred Coun-cil solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as muchas those of the West, have a full right and are duty bound torule themselves, each in accordance with its own establisheddisciplines. . .

By 1965, after a letter sent to His Beatitude PatriarchMaximos V on behalf of some of the Melkite clergy andprominent laymen, the Holy Synod together with the Patriarchresponded immediately by proceeding to elect a Bishop forthe United States according to its time-honored rules and tradi-tions. The candidate originally selected by the Synod was notaccepted by the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches.Therefore it intervened against the wishes of the Patriarch andthe Holy Synod, and through the Apostolic Delegate in Wash-ington, it appointed the late Father Justin Najmy as ApostolicExarch, responsible only to Rome. The Synod together withthe Patriarch protested this appointment, primarily because


14/46

198 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGIC LQU RTERLYthis action further separated the American Melkite Churchfrom the Patriarchate. This was against the apparent wishesof the Fathers at Vatican 11, who stated in the same Decreeon the Eastern Churches that The patriarchs with their synodsare the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate,including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nom-inating Bishops of their own rite within the territorial boundsof the Patriarchate. . . . The Sacred Congregation for theEastern Churches stated that the new Bishop was to have onlyliturgical ties with his Mother Church, and that his jurisdictionwas to be shared with Roman Catholic Bishops. The exarchatewas to be governed by Roman Rite practices and policies.Somehow, the appointment of Bishop Najmy was not a shiningexample of ecumenism in relation to the day when Orthodoxand Catholics would share the same chalice.

The term of the first Exarch was tragically brief. Heserved the Melkite Church for two years before succumbingto a heart attack. While presiding over the funeral services,Patriarch Maximos V notified Rome that he had appointedan administrator for the Diocese. He based his decision onthe belief that the appointment was a matter fully within thejurisdiction of the Patriarch according to the most ancientpractice and customs of the Melkite Church, as stated in theDecree on the Eastern Churches quoted above. The Patriarchstated that the documents of Vatican I1 abrogated and super-seded the 1958 Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches.He added that he felt an obligation in conscience to interveneimmediately in the appointment of an administrator, since afailure to act would give scandal to the faithful of the MelkiteChurch in the United States, and would confirm the decisionsof leri Sanctitati (the code of canon law for the EasternChurches) over the decisions of Vatican 11 For him to haveceded his authority to a Roman Congregation in this importantmatter would have had severe ecumenical repercussions, for itwould have called into question the sincerity with which theChurch intended to implement the decisions of the Council.

Within twenty-four hours, Cardinal de Furstenburg, pre-fect for the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches,told the Patriarch to suspend any activity contrary to leri


15/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o f the Melkite Church 99Sanctitati under the sanction of nullity. He informed the Patri-arch that further instructions would be forthcoming throughthe Apostolic Delegate in Washington. Nevertheless, the Patri-arch went ahead and appointed Father John Jadaa to be ad-ministrator until a new Bishop could be elected.

The fundamental question in this case was whether thedecisions of Vatican I were to prevail, or whether the RomanCongregation and Canon Law took priority. Was the Patriarchand his Synod to be the highest authority for the business ofthe patriarchate, or was a Roman Congregation to serve as asuper patriarchate, reducing the Patriarch to a functionarydependent upon a group in Rome, somewhat corresponding tothe civil service in government? Although the Pope was presi-dent of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches, theworking members were priests and bishops. Unless immediateactions were taken, the ecumenical consequences would bedrastic, and the example shown to the Orthodox Churcheswould clearly indicate that plus Fa change, plus c'est la memechose, and that although the decrees of Vatican I were fullof good words, nothing had changed in Rome.

few months later, the matter remained unresolved. Theadvice of eminent canonists, theologians and ecumenists wassought, and their recommendations were studied. What wasat issue was ecumenism, first in relations of the Roman CatholicChurch to Orthodoxy, but also with the Churches issued fromthe Reformation. The way the Sacred Congregation for theEastern Churches dealt with the Eastern Catholic Churchescould be considered a gauge of future relations between Romeand Orthodoxy. Only a year before, Patriarch Athenagoras ofNew Rome (Constantinople) had told Patriarch Maxirnos IV:By your interventions, you represented us at the SecondVatican Council. Would Rome accept to deal with otherChurches as equals, both Churches being of Apostolic originand both possessing the fullness of catholicity and holiness?Finally, would statements made by a gathering of Bishops fromall over the ecumene approved by an overwhelming majority,and promulgated for the glory of God by Pope Paul VI takeprecedence over a set of rules of law, put together mainly bytheologians of the Latin rite, during a time when the Church


16/46

200 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYof Rome was against ecumenism , and was still insisting that thedissident Eastern Churches return to Roman communion underthe authority of the Vicar of Christ?

In October 1968, Patriarch Maximos V said the follow-ing at a press conference: In 19 66 the Holy See appointedBishop Najmy as an Apostolic Exarch to head the MelkiteChurch in the United States. The title 'apostolic exarch' meantthat, as temporary measure, the guidance of the Melkitecom munity would be in the hands of a representative of thePope. In fact, the expression used among Latin Catholics is'Vicar Apostolic' to indicate that the Bishop does not governa true diocese, but is only a vicar to the Pope. My predecessorof blessed memory [Patriarch Maximos IV], in a detailedstatement addressed to the Holy Father, made it clear that itwas most unfortunate that this arrangement, which is entirelyforeign to Melkite canon law, was introduced especially twoyears after the Second Vatican Council, and solemnly re-asserted that our traditions were to be respected. Our recentSynod meeting studied this whole question carefully and agreedthat the establishment of the American exarchate directly de-pendent upon Rome, rather than an eparchy united to theMelkite hierarchy, was contrary to the very eastern laws recog-nized and affirmed by the Council. The Melkite tradition, thementality of o ur Christian heritage, the needs of developing astrong Melkite Church in the United States, the example wegive to the Orthodox of our fidelity to the Eastern traditions,all reject the continuance of such an arrangement. t is notour desire to embarrass the Holy See of Rome, and thus wehave accepted temporary arrangements, and are confident thatHis Holiness will agree that the problem should be resolvedin accord with the explicit decrees of Vatican 11 The RomanPontiff is Patriarch of the West and as such plays a direct partin the choice of Bishops in the Latin Church. In the EasternChurches, the same right is exercised by the respective Patri-archs and their Synods. We are confident that Pope Paul willacknowledge this, and that it will be possible to provide theAm erican Melkites with Bishop of their own, who will be afull member of the Melkite hierarchy.year later, the issue was still not resolved. The Holy


17/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o f the Melkite hurch 2 1Synod met in an extraordinary session in M ay 1969 , to respondto the unacceptable terms of the directives received from theOriental Congregation. A summary of decisions taken by theSynod included the following:At the request of the Sacred Congregation for the EasternChurches (March 27 1969), His Beatitude, Maximos V con-voked the Melkite Bishops in order to consider candidates tobe submitted to His Holiness Pope Paul VI, to fill the vacantexarchate of the United States.The Fathers became fully aware of the historic and ec-clesial importance of the position to be taken, of the prob lemat stake n their deliberations and its repercussions, not onlyfor the future of the Melkite Church in the Near E ast andin the lands where it has migrated, but also for the ecumenicalmovement in general and the reunion of the Orthodox Churcheswith the Roman Church in particular. In addition, the Fathersbecame conscious of the gravity of the decisions adopted bythe Synod and its far reaching consequences for our relationswith the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches andwith the clergy who have the care of ou r faithful in the diaspora.

They first insisted on a vigorous assertion of -their deeplyrooted Catholic sentiments, their filial devotion towards theaugust person of His Holiness Pope Pau l V I, their joyful at-tachment to his primacy, and their total submission to hisauthority.After this sincere declaration of their Catholic belief, whichapplies to the whole as well as to each part of the following,they deemed it necessary to bring to the attention of His Holi-ness the following points: the facts of the matter in question;the basic principles, juridical, psychological and ecclesial, inopposing the Sacred Congregation; and the unacceptable solu-tion proposed by the Congregation and the resulting problemscreated.After reviewing the situation, all the documentation col-lected so far was submitted to His Holiness. In a letter datedNovember 12 , 19 68 , the Congregation for the Eastern Churchesassured the Patriarch that His Holiness had charged the Pon-tifical Com mission for the Codification of the Canon Law inmatters concerning the relations of the Patriarchate with the


18/46

202 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYfaithful and bishops located outside the patriarchal territory. .In this letter, however, the Sacred Congregation indicated thatit will maintain, until the above mentioned commission givesits decision, the right, based upon Cleri Sanctitate to proceeddirectly to the nomination of the exarch. Because of this posi-tion taken by the Congregation, the Synod was forced to lookfor a temporary solution which would respect both views. Itsuggested that, until the Commission for the Redaction of theCanon Law gives its decision, the Apostolic See of Antiochsend to the United States one of its bishops as apostolicadministrator.Since then, however, the winds have changed decisivelyagainst the Holy Synod. letter from the Congregation onDecember 16, 1968, froze the debate on the essential pointsuntil the ruling of the Canonical Commission, dismissed thesuggestion of an apostolic administrator, and attempted tooblige the Synod to accept the limitation of the issue for thechoice of qualified candidates for the vacant position. Theproblem was to be decided by a plenary congregation whichthe Patriarch could attend as a member de jure The Patriarchwent to Rome to participate. The meeting was held on Feb-ruary 20, 1969. Having realized that a question of such importance to us had been treated in a routine manner, and thatthe Cardinal members of the Congregation did not seem toappreciate the gravity of the issue, the Patriarch was forcedto make recourse to His Holiness, as arbiter between us andthe Congregation. The meeting was held on February 22, atwhich time Patriarch Maximos made two suggestions:

1. That the Synod be charged by His Holiness to submitto him three names of candidates, from which His Holinesswould select the Exarch, and2 That he designate Archbishop Neophytos Edelby toexamine the entire situation; he would be in charge of studying

once more the candidates to be submitted and the wholecourse of action to be taken until the Commission for theRevision of the Canon Law gave its decision.An answer to these suggestions reached the Patriarch on the20th of March. The disproportion and inconsistency betweenthe promise and the fact was that, even though the Synod


19/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o f the Melkite hurch 203would choose three candidates and submit their names, the HolySee would not be bound by the selection of the Patriarch an dthe Synod. It was simply not anticipated that the EasternChurches would be abused in such a manner during thepontificate of Pope Paul VI especially as everyone was thank-ful to His Holiness for having officially reconciled the WesternChurch with her sister Orthodox Church, and for having im-plicitly denounced through his visit to Constantinople and tothe Hagia Sophia, the haughty and inconsiderate attitude of theRoman legates towards the Oriental Churches.

It was not anyone's wish to cast doubt on the intentions ofthe officials of the C ongregation, but we realized once m orethe chasm which separates us: two different mentalities, twodifferent ways of looking at the same problem, and in particular,two divergent initial positions concerning the canonical legisla-tion to be followed.After citing the pertinent sections of the Decree on theEastern Catholic Churches, the Synod statement continued:It is in the light of these texts that we have claim ed anddefended our rights.

1. The Patriarch with his Synod is supreme in hisChurch. Why then should he not enjoy this same authoritywith respect to his subjects transplanted outside the East, espe-cially when they themselves wish to remain faithful to theirRite and to their Patriarchate? The Orthodox Patriarchs exer-cise the same jurisdiction over their subjects who have migratedto other lands. In its past history, even before the time of theseparation, the Patriarchate of Antioch has known cases ofMelkite Exarchates and Catholicates established far beyond itsterritory. The Latin jurisdiction is exercised in the heart ofthe Eastern territories, for example, the Latin Patriarchate ofJerusalem. Why should this right be denied to our Patriarch?Why separate these Churches of the diaspora from their Fatherand Patriarch in order to subject them to the Congregationfor the Eastern Churches?

2. The least we can say after Vatican I1 is that leriSanctitate has been superseded by the concilar decrees, at least


20/46

204 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QU RTERLYon the sensitive and constitutional points which restore theauthentic physiognomy of the Patriarchate. What would re-main of this physiognomy if the Patriarchate were dismem-bered and its historical and natural rights over more than halfof its people denied?

3. The extension of the Patriarchal jurisdiction to theMelkites of the diaspora implies at most a personal jurisdictionthat is subject to precise regulation by law, approved by HisHoliness. Such legislation will take into account all the aspectsof the problem. This patriarchal power would not encroachon the universal, territorial and personal jurisdiction of theRoman Pontiff. On the contrary, the Roman primacy will bemore evident when it defends the traditional prerogatives ofthe Patriarchs.

4. The term aggregatus which defines the relations ofthe hierarchy of the diaspora with the Patriarchate of originand which, for this reason, constitutes the core of this canonicaldebate, should be construed according to the innovative andreformative sense of the whole decree on the Eastern CatholicChurches. Any other interpretation, which would take ad-vantage of the fact that this term is a new one in canonicallanguage, in order to restrict its meaning and its application,or to reduce it to a mere repetition of the prescriptions of canon380 of Cleri Sanctitate would betray the spirit and the scopeof the conciliar decree and would obstruct the salutary workinitiated by Vatican 115. We are in a better position to evaluate the disastrousconsequences of this obstruction. It means, in the case of theseparation of the Church of the diaspora from its MotherChurch, that the consequences would be disastrous for thefuture of Christianity in the Near East, in the Church of thediaspora itself, and for the future of ecumenism and the unionof the Churches as well. These same considerations were citedin detail in repeated letters sent to His Holiness. These sameconsiderations were in the mind of the Fathers of the Councilwhen they adopted the decrees mentioned above.

In spite of everything, still nothing had been accomplishedby the summer of 1970 t that time, the Patriarch wrote aletter that was published in the Annual Convention book of


21/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o the Melkite hurch 2 5the Melkites in the United States. Among other things, he saidthe following:This has been a period of controversy and confusion, andthe future of the Melkite community in the U nited States re-mains in doubt. It has a great and blessed future if it maintainsand develops its distinctive traditions of faith and doctrine, ofdiscipline and piety. It may seem small in numbers, but it hasa potential impact of ideas and exam ple upon the Latin C hurchin this country. If, however, the Melkite Church in the UnitedStates or elsewhere is assimilated to, o r imitative of the L at inChurch, it has no further reason for continued existence.

During the controversy over a successor to Bishop Najmy,it may have seemed that silencing of the debate was a part ofpeace and charity. Now it is clear that the discussion shouldhave been even more widespread and open; we must neverfear the truth. Silence, evasion, concealm ent of genuine dif-ferences do not serve either love or truth; in this case theyhave multiplied confusion.Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Eastern CatholicChurches had been obliged, as a condition for communionwith the Holy Roman See and contrary to their rights andtraditions, to seek Roman confirmation for the election ofBishops. The Council corrected this The law and traditionof the Latin Church, at least in modern times, is that thePope should name the bishops. The right of others to electbishops, although nominally recognized in the Latin Code ofCanon Law, has gradually disappeared. This has been a sourceof confusion for Eastern Catholics living among the Latins,but it cannot be too strongly insisted that Eastern bishopsshould not be named by the Pope, even though he retains theright to intervene in particular cases by way of exception.Since the Council so often tells us Eastern Catholics toobserve our traditional disciplines, many have validly insistedthat the Patriarch and the Synod should move unilaterally,establish an Eparchy for the United States, and designate itsbishop in accord with canon law. This is, in all cases, to bepreferred to the Latin canon law, which, as the Council re-minds us, should not be followed to the disadvantage of ou rown usages. This is a strong argument, especially because we


22/46

2 6 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGIC L QU RTERLYmust honestly and candidly state that the Roman Curia hastaken no steps at all and has not encouraged us to take anysteps, to implement the 1964 Decree on the Eastern CatholicChurches. It is nothing less than scandalous that this decree,alone among the decisions of the Council, has remained withoutimplementation over these several years. How can we expectour Orthodox brethren to look upon us with respect i the clearintention of the Second Vatican Council is ignored, as so manyother papal promises to Eastern Churches have been in thepast. Thus the Patriarch and his Synod have entered intonegotiations with representatives of the Pope over many months.A compromise was reached, to the effect that for t is timeonly the choice of the Bishop would be made by the RomanSee from among three names designated after consultation withthe clergy and the people. In the future, it was agreed that thecanonical norms affecting the Eastern Churches would beacknowledged and respected.The choice of the Holy See and the Patriarch was Arch-bishop Joseph Tawil, Eparch of the Diocese of Newton forthe Melkites in the United States. Archbishop Joseph has beenruling his Church for the past fifteen years, according to theprecepts of St Ignatios the God-bearer of Antioch, and hasproven to be a worthy Eparch for the diocese. A few yearsago, it was felt both by the growing size of the diocese, as wellas the vast geographical areas of the diocese (the territorialextent of ths United States), that an auxiliary Bishop beelected, to assist Archbishop Joseph in the multitudinous de-tails of watching over his dispersed flock. A very similar scenariohas occurred, with different understandings of the canon laws,the jurisdiction of the Patriarch, patriarchal territories, and therelationship of the Melkite Bishops in this countrty with theLatin Bishops as well as with the Synod and Patriarch. At ameeting with the Melkite clergy in July 1984, Patriarch Maximostold them that once again Rome is insisting on appointing theauxiliary Bishop, while the Synod is insisting on electing one.The Patriarch wrote and presented his case in person to theRoman officials of the Sacred Congregation for the EasternChurches. He was told that the temporary settlement reached


23/46

The Ecumenical Vocationof the Melkite Church 207in 1970, with the Synod submitting three names to Rome, withRome picking one of the three, or anyone else they so desired,was the only acceptable way. When the Patriarch told themthat the settlement reached was to be only a temporary one,he was told that this temporary solution was now to becomethe rule and that until the revision of the Oriental Canon lawswere complete, and promulgated by the Pope, no other actionscould be considered.

On April 3, 1986, the following news release was issuedby the Office of Communications of the Melkite Diocese ofNewton: Pope John Paul has named Father John A Elyaas auxiliary bishop to Archbishop Joseph E. Tawil of theMelkite Eparchy of Newton. The announcement was made inWashington by Archbishop Pio Laghi, apostolic pro-nuncio tothe United States. There was no mention of the Patriarch orthe Holy Synod, no mention of the solemn declarations ofVatican 11, such as: The Churches of the East, as much asthose of the West, have a full right and are duty bound to rulethemselves . (Paragraph of the Decree on the CatholicChurches o f the Eastern R it e . The patriarchs with theirsynods are the highest authority for all business of the patri-archate . . (Paragraph 9). By the name Eastern patriarch,is meant the bishop to whom belongs jurisdiction over allbishops, not excepting metropolitans, clergy and people of hisown territory or rite, in accordance with canon law . .(Paragraph 7 . The ecumenical implications of this announce-ment have not yet been analyzed, but it would appear thatfifteen years of dialogue between the Melkites and Rome havebeen wasted.

The discussion of the election of a Bishop for the Melkitesin the United States has been described in some detail. Unlessthe traditional rights of the Patriarch and his Synod are fullyrecognized and implemented, the ecumenical role of the MelkiteChurch in the reunion of Christendom will be totally useless.Either the Melkite Church will have to buckle down to Romeand take a Roman position in all instances of ecumenicaldialogue, or else it will have to prove that it is a Church incommunion with the Roman Church, but not under it. To doso the Melkite Church must show its independence from Rome


24/46

208 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYin all actions not related to the essential faith and morals theyall share. Ecclesial independence, without outside interference,is the only way the Melkite Church can survive, if it wants tobe true to its ethos and its roots.

2) Another example of living the life of Orthodoxy incommunion with Rome concerns a married priesthood. It hasbeen the continuous tradition of all the Eastern Churches toordain married men to the priesthood, and to keep a sharpdistinction between monks, who are always celibate, and thediocesan priests, who are usually married. This hallowed tradi-tion was abrogated only at the end of the last century, and onlyfor those Eastern Catholics who came to this country to seeka better way of life. letter from the then Secretary of theSacred Oriental Congregation in 1934, Cardinal Sincero, typifiesthe thinking of that era: This regulation (an enforced celibateclergy) arose, not new, but anew, from the peculiar conditionsof the Ruthenian population in the U.S. There it represents animmigrant element and a minority, and it could not, therefore,pretend to maintain there its own customs and traditions whichare in contrast with those which are the legitimate customs andtraditions of Catholicism n the United States, and much lessto have there a clergy which could be the source of painfulperplexity or scandal to the majority of American Catholics.That the situation has not change can be seen in a letter writtenby Pope Paul VI to His Beatitude Patriarch Maximos V, datedOctober 31 1977, We wish to assure the Melkite Pastorsthat questions concerning the life and progress of their Churchare felt by the common Father as his own. There is no doubtthat among these questions there is that of the preservation ofthe spiritual, liturgical and canonical traditions of the Melkitesin the communities which are outside the patriarchal territoryitself. Specifically in the matter of the married clergy, weknow that it touches on an extremely delicate point, one ofthe current practices of the Latin Church. It appeared to us-to Ourself and to the Holy See in general-that the disciplineof the celibate priesthood must remain unchanged in the LatinChurch. This is because we are convinced of its deep meaning


25/46

The Ecumenical Vocation of the Melkite hurch 2 9and its usefulness for the Church-without, on the other hand,prejudicing the different tradition of the Eastern Church. Inthose areas where the Latin Church has been established forcenturies, it is understandable that the presence of marriedEastern priests, constituting a rather unusual and new fact,poses some delicate problems for the Latin Rite communities.This is why the Holy See, as Your Beatitude has been informedfrom time to time, has decided on this particular point to sus-pend the application of the general principle of the preservationof the traditions proper to the Eastern communities outsidetheir patriarchal territories. This has been decided not for theMelkite Church only, but also for other communities whichwould have liked to apply it in all its extent even in territoriesnot comprised within their patriarchate. Thus the Melkitehierarchy might as well make its own these concerns which,for the good of all the Church, have been those of theHoly See.

Although the Melkite Church had three married priestsserving in the United States, the matter was brought to ahead when a married man was ordained to the priesthood byHis Beatitude, Patriarch Maximos V in May, 1977 An un-named Vatican spokesman charged: Having been ordainedin the Middle East, as a few others have who continue to resideand operate in the Middle East, it was thought that these rev-erend gentlemen would not be assigned to serve in the Eparchyof Newton. In so far as they were to be assigned to service inthis Eparchy, their ordination was illicit. The Patriarch wasmoved to respond. Ordinarily, it would have been preferableto ignore such abusive, erroneous, and confused comments,said a spokesman for the Patriarch. He continued, They sug-gest, however, that His Beatitude has celebrated the sacramentof Holy Orders illicitly on three occzsions. Thus they are of thegravest affront to the person of the Patriarch of Antioch, toArchbishop Tawil, in whose Eparchy the priests exercise theirsacred ministry, and worst of all, to the priests themselves andtheir families. Patrtiarch Maximos V further added, ThePatriarch wishes to make the following points clear, as he re-affirms that the Melkite Church of Antioch acts and has actedin full communion with the Church of Rome. First, no agree-


26/46

210 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QU RTERLYment, undertaking, or condition was accepted by the Patriarchand his Synod, or by the Eparch of Newton, as a requirementfor the recent establishment of the Eparchy by which theordination of married men to the order of presbyters in or forthe United States could be considered unlawful or illicit in anyway. Such a condition would have been a grave violation ofthe traditions of the Church and of the solemn affirmations ofthe Second Vatican Council. . Second, the repetitious asser-tion that the ministry of Eastern married priests is somehowpastorally undesirable in the United States or in North Americais completely unfounded. There are hundreds upon hundredsof married Orthodox and other Eastern priests in North Amer-ica. They are rightly held in the highest esteem for theirministry and for their family life, not only by their own faithfulbut also by the Latin Catholics who know them. t is un-believable that nameless minor officials of the Roman Curiashould publicly harass this ancient Church of Antioch, whichvenerates St Peter as its first bishop and where the ApostlePaul installed presbyters (Acts 14: 21-23 . But our principleconcern, and one which weighs heavily on our conscience, isthat the subversion of the Eastern discipline of a marriedpresbyterate will deprive us of priests and lead to a lesseningof the proclamation of the Gospel and the celebration of theHoly Mysteries.

This question has still not been resolved. The five mar-ried priests now serving in the Eparchy are held in limbo.They have not officially been given pastoral assignments.Whenever the question has been raised, the answer has beenthat (1) the Patriarch and his Synod are still dialoguing withRome, and are waiting a resolution to the problem, or (2) theyhave to wait until the new Canon Law for the Oriental Churchesis promulgated. In ecumenical meetings with the Orthodox, onequestion is always asked: Why has Rome forbidden the Melkitesto live according to their traditions, and if this is what is meantby being in communion with the Church of Rome, then willall the other Orthodox traditions go the same way? Can theEastern Churches' tradition of married clergy have any in-fluence on the Latin Church's handling of their marrieddeacons? deacon is a cleric, having received the sacred order


27/46


28/46

2 2 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICALQUARTERLYIn general, since Vatican 11, converts can be received

by the Melkite Churches, and a number have already joinedthe faith community. However, this does not fully apply toRom an Catholics who feel a t home in the spirituality of theMelkite Church , since they require a transfer of rite. Th is isa process whereby an individual changes his status as a mem-ber of one of the particular Churches which constitute theCatholic Church, to join another of the particular Churches.The major problem with this results when Roman Catholicswant to serve as presbyters in the Melkite Church. The HolySee has in the past been accustomed to grant an indult ofchange of rite to those who desired it for reasonable causes.However, in 977 a ruling was issued from Rome entitledGuidelines for the Transfer of Rite Cases. I t states that theHoly See is not accustom ed to grant a change of rite, but onlyan indult which allows a candidate to receive sacred ordina-tion and to exercise his ministry as though he belonged to theLatin rite.This ruling can only be considered as against ecumenism.For the past twelve years, fourteen candidates have been or-dained to the sacred priesthood by Archbishop Joseph, all ofwhom were originally Roman Catholic. The above ruling in-dicates none of these priests are authentically Melkite priests,but are Latin Rite priests, serving in the Melkite Eparchy atthe continued will of the local Latin Rite hierarch, and thatthey could be pulled away at any time if the local Latin Ritehierarch so desires. This seems to be an extreme example ofRoman paternalism. Just as the Roman Church sends mis-sionaries to Latin American countries for a few years to helpout the local hierarchs and diocese, so they also graciouslylend us their priests. This simply means that priests in thissituation are not really full members of the Eparchy, and ifthe Holy Spirit moves the Melkite Synod one day to electone of these dedicated priests to be a Bishop, such an electionwould be unacceptable, since the priest is not a Melkite. Thesemen have made a total commitment to serve the Church asMelkites, and they have no desire to serve as Roman Catholicclergy. If they were forced to return to the Roman Catholicdiocese, it would be to the detriment of the spiritual life of the


29/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o f the Melkite Church 2 3priest, to his prayer life and to his conscience. In a study en-titled Transfer of Rite: Some Theological Reflections, pub-lished by the Damascene Society n 1984, the Rev Aidan J.Kavanagh, O.S.B., traces the origin of transfer of rite to thedeveloping concept in Latin canonical legislation concerningthe Eastern Catholic Churches of a confusion between Churchand 'rite' and between 'rite' and Church. He states that thisconfusion amounts to a fatal equivocation on what the Churchis-an equivocation which affects everything such a Church isobliged by the Gospel to do. The question is whether theChurch Catholic is a single Church containing a variety of'rites,' or whether the Church Catholic is a Communion ofChurches. Roman polity, at least since the Middle Ages, hassupported the first formulation of the question, Eastern politythe second. Fr Kavanagh continues by stating that if thoseEastern Churches in communion with Rome connive in thispolity by submitting to the requirements of obtaining transferof rite dispensations from an office of the Roman synodalgovernment, those same Churches must necessarily fail in theirecumenical ministry both to the Roman Church and the Ortho-dox Churches. He goes on to state that St Ignatios of Antioch'sclassical doctrine, .. .where the Bishop is, there is the ChurchCatholic, is thereby fatally qualified. How can the Churchthrough its bishop call presbyters and deacons to its serviceunder doubt that such persons will be permitted by some officeof another Church, of another Rite, to accept the Orders theyare called to? Fr Kavanagh concludes that such a situationcannot be allowed to continue. Every recourse open in Latincanon law seems to have been taken, but to no effect. Extraor-dinary means therefore seem to be necessary in order (1) topreserve the Church of Antioch in its Eparchy of Newton fromslipping into a mere ethnic curiosity, and 2 ) to foster thatChurch's healthy communion with the Roman See. What isproposed is that relations between the two Apostolic Sees benormalized as follows:

1 The See of Antioch must in the future conceive andrefer to itself as a Church rather than a rite.2. The Patriarch and his Synod, together with the

Eparchy of Newton, should declare its policy on the way by


30/46

214 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGIC L QU RTERLYwhich the Church of Antioch will proceed in accepting intoitself persons from other Churches within its ecumene Thispolicy should be worked out and then presented with ecu-menical firmness and courtesy to the Roman pontiff and hisHoly Synod at the highest level, i.e., patriarch to patriarch, forthe preservation of the tranquility of the Churches of God.

3 On the basis of this policy, the Church of Antiochshould then proceed to ordain its clergy according to its owncanons and traditions, and to place those clergy throughout itseparchies and exarchates, as the Church itself sees fit.4. Transfer of rite cases should be handled not aslegal processes but as matters of ecumenical courtesy betweenChurches. The phrase itself should never be used.

5 No one should be ordained for the Church of Antiochwithout being in communion with it and under its jurisdiction.Finally, it cannot be stressed sufficiently that the ecclesi-

ological principles upon which the above recommendations rest,lie in the common tradition shared equally among thoseChurches which rejoice in catholic orthodoxy, both east andwest. It is in the face of this tradition that current Romanlegislation and practice concerning transfer of rite are dis-covered to be untraditional, abnormal, and productive ofsevere irregularities in the ecumene obtaining between theRoman Church and its sister Churches of the East. In such asituation, tactical adjustments cannot succeed unless a strategicrestoration of normalcy in the relations between the Churchesis first accomplished.

One final ecumenical point should be mentioned. Thereare a number of Roman Catholics who have asked for andreceived ordination to the presbyterate from Eastern OrthodoxBishops. In the God appointed time, when the two Churchesare back together in full communion, will these individualsstill have to ask for transfer of rite before they can servethe Orthodox Church?


31/46

The Ecumenical Vocation o f the Melkite Church

V What then s the ultimate goal the finalvision o f Melkite ecumenism?In a book written by the Melkite Archbishop of Raalbeck,Elias Zoghby (which is little known in this country since ithas not yet been translated into English), the author makesthe point that the Eastern Catholic or Uniate Churchessuffer from being the result of a double schism. They wereinvolved in the Great Schism of the eleventh century that led

to the separation of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches,and then again they were the result of a schism that separatedthem from their mother Church, the Orthodox. This latterschism has condemned them to live and to die outside theChurch that has given them their faith in Jesus Christ, andthat has suffered martyrdom for many centuries, in order totransmit this faith intact from generation to generation. ThisOrthodox Church, our Mother Church, has given us EasternCatholics our theological, liturgical, ascetical and monasticpatrimony, a patrimony lived and developed by it throughoutthe centuries, and whose treasures are still being called uponby the East as well as by the West. This Orthodox Church, ourMother Church, is poor according to world standards andcarries its treasure in clay vessel, just as its founder JesusChrist carried His divinity in fragile human flesh. This sameOrthodox Church, our Mother Church, has taught us to beindulgent and human, just as Jesus Christ was. It has taughtus to be less juridical and more attuned to the weaknesses ofthe human flesh, how always to seek a human solution to theirweaknesses, by the principle of Economia.

This is the cornerstone of Melkite ecumenism: to relivethe fullness of our faith; to act as Orthodox as the Orthodox,i not more so; to do this in its totality, while remaining incommunion with the Roman Church. The only way we canjustify our existence is to live the full authenticity of Orthodoxtraditions so as to be able to set an example for the reunion ofthe Churches, East and West. Looking at our existential situa-


32/46

216 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGIC L QUARTERLYtion today, however, as briefly reviewed above, we seem tohave lost the only reason we had to justify our continuedexistence since we seem to have been forced gradually, and stepby step, to give up what has identified us as a Church. Whetherwe like it or not, we have become a rite. Th e UkrainianMajor Archbishop, Patriarch Slypyj, had reason to state atthe end of one of the sessions of Vatican : Have pity onus, my brothers, we who are easterners in the CatholicChurch. One of our major difficulties is that some of ourChurch leaders do not feel the pain of our separation, and seeno reason to change the st tus quo. They are not bothered bybeing subject to the Oriental Congregation. Their sacerdotalformation was primarily Latin, many of them continued theireducation in Rome, and gradually they have become spirituallyand intellectually Latinized, integrated into the Roman men-tality and follow Roman Canon Law. Most importantly, theyno longer feel the pain of being separated from the OrthodoxChurch. Until this situation can be reversed, there can be nofuture for the Uniate Churches. Only when we totally acceptthat we are Orthodox, and spiritually and intellectually livethe life of Orthodoxy, only then can we witness to Rom anCatholicism what living with Orthodoxy means. Only then canwe prepare the way for the day when all may be one. A tpresent, we are like John the Baptist, the voice of one cryingin the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord. If, by the graceof the Holy Spirit, we can accomplish our own renewal and areturn to our roots, to live the fulness of life in O rthodoxy andthus to prepare the way for reunion, then and only then canwe pray like Simeon: Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servantdepart in peace according to Thy word.. . . Then we mustdisappear, returning to our M other C hurch, asking their pardonfor having offended them and left them when their needs weregreat. We ask this in Jesus Christ, Our Lord, to whom belongsall glory, honor and worship, together with the Father who iswithout beginning, and His all Holy, Good and Life-givingSpirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.


33/46

THEMELKITE ATRIARCHATEPARADOXES A VOCATIONn initial response to Father Khairallah

John Meyendorff

The North American continent today serves as home forthe largest num ber of '%astern Catholics anywhere. The largestbody is the Ukrainian Catholic Church, but there are also severalRuthenian (o r Carpa tho-Russian) dioceses, as well asMaronites and Melkites. The latter two groups have theirroots in the Middle East, and, due to immigration from thesewar-torn regions, are increasing in numbers. It is important forthe Orthodox Church to take their presence seriously and toreflect upon the exact role they play-or might play-in ourdialogue with Rome and, indeed, in the overall issue of Chris-tian unity in the contemporary world, particularly in America,where theological and ecclesiological questions are often com-pounded with peculiar sociological, ethnic and political factors,unknown, or irrelevant in the Old World.

For understandable historical reasons-which are ratherclearly spelled-out in the article by Fr Khairallah, published inthis issue of the St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly-fear anddefensiveness are present, more often than not, in relations be-tween the Orthodox and those whom they call the Uniates.There were objections voiced, particularly by Greek church-men, against the very presence of any Uniate in Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogues. Whether Uniates belong or not insuch dialogues (F r Khairallah himself seems to doubt it, p 195 ,it is quite unfortunate that in this free country, where neither


34/46

218 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYthe king of Poland, nor the Austrian emperor, nor the FrenchJesuits, nor the Tsar, nor the Soviet Government, nor anyoneelse is attempting to force their hand in one way or another, asthey did do in the Old World, the Orthodox and the EasternCatholics remain so much estranged from each other.

Am ong the Eastern Catholics, the Melkitesl occupy aparticular position, primarily for historical reasons. Their exist-ence as a group united with Rome is relatively recent and isthe result of a series of conflicts within the patriarchate ofAntioch following the death of the Arab-speaking PatriarchMacarius I11 Zaim (1647-72). In addition to personal andpolitical enmities and several double, competing elections, theissue of whether the patriarch should be Greek-speaking orArab-speaking began to play a major role. In 1724, Constan-tinople recognized the election of the Greek Patriarch Silvester I,while his Arab competitor Athanasius IV-with support fromFrench G overnment agents and the Latin clergy (also Fre nch )-accepted union with Rome.' Th is recent and primarily, polit-ical schism, involving little theological or doctrinal convictions,did not prevent the Melkite patriarchate from preserving theOrthodox liturgy and ethos practically intact, although its clergywas generally receiving a thoroughly Latin education. Atpresent-and particularly since Vatican 11-many circles withinthe Melkite Church are eager to reestablish their Easternidentity, and, as Fr Khairallah writes, to witness to Orthodoxywithin Rom an Catholicism o live the fullness of Ortho-doxy in comm union with Rome (p. 195). Such is the es-sential background.

It is, indeed, wonderful that Fr Khairallah sends hiscomments for publication in an Orthodox periodical. The point'One can guess that the term Melkites, o r the emperor's people, needsan explanation for the benefit of some of our readers. It comes from Melek whichin Semitic languages stands fo r king or emperor. It began to be used in a

derogatory fashion by the opponents of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chal-cedon (451 A.D.), to designate the Orthodox supporters of the Council becausethey were associated wi th the unp opu lar imperial government of Constantinople.t is adopted today as a convenient way of distinguishing Arab-speaking Christiansin union with Rome and using the Byzantine ( imperial ) liturgy, from otherUniate groups: Maronites, Chaldeans, etc.

2The Orthodox patriarchate of Antioch was henceforth occupied by Greeksuntil the election of an Arab, Meletios IV Dumani in 1898.


35/46

The Melkite Patriarchate: Paradoxes f Vocation 2 9of view which he expresses has repeatedly appeared in Melkitepublications, and was endorsed by some Melkite prelates, in-cluding the late Patriarch Maximus IV and Archbishop Tawil.It obviously provokes reservations both within the Melkitepatriarchate and in Rome. But the Orthodox have hardly heardof the debate. They must become aware of it, because it in-volves brothers and sisters in Christ, whose aspirations, con-victions and spiritual life are so close to their own, and alsobecause the issues under discussion-particularly ecclesiology-focus on the main points of the Orthodox-Roman Catholicdialogue in general, and o n some internal problems of Orthodoxecclesiastical structure as well.But the publication of the article in the St Vladimir sTheological Quarterly also implies the author's desire to obtaindirect comments from the Orthodox side. The article itself andthe comments which follow must, therefore, serve as an in-troduction to further exchanges on the major issues involved-issues which are not of local or Antiochian interest only: bu tconcern the faith and the polity of the universal Church. Thedialogue must continue further not only o n the theological level,or the level of ecclesiastical and ecumenical diplomacy, butalso, and primarily, on the level of the faith itself, its pastoraland practical applications.Of course, from the very start, the dialogue must be frankand candid. In any case, this is the spirit in which the presentauthor has written the comments below. He might have mis-understood Fr Khairallah on certain points, and would welcomeresponse and correction. All the questions raised, are funda-mental to a true understanding between the Orthodox and theMelkites. f satisfactory answers can be found, real ecumenicalprogress would be made.

T he first question arises from F r Khairallah's claim tha tthe one major role to be played by the Melkite Church is to8In the past few years a local dialogue involving the Melkites and theAntiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America has been held n Massachusettswith solid ground work being laid for further discussion.


36/46

witness to Orthodoxy within Roman Catholicism (p . 195 ,and the statement of Patriarch Maximus IV : The M elkiteGreek Catholic Church is the Greek Orthodox Church ofAntioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, in communion with Rome(p. 1 9 1 ) . F r Khairallah does not see any contradiction betweensuch statements by himself and Patriarch Maximus on the onehand, and the sincere declaration of Catholic belie f' by theMelkite synod, their joyful attachment to the primacy ofthe pope, and their total submission to his authority (p . 2 0 1 )on the other. It does appear that, in his understanding, the issueis really not one of faith, but concerns only the policiesof the Roman Congregation of the Eastern Churches, which,since Vatican (cf. p. 1 9 4 ) , infringes upon the legitimate rightsof the Melkite patriarchate.Is this position tenable?All Eastern Christians in union with Rome follow basically(a t least this is our understanding) the faith and the ecclesias-tical model accepted at the Council of Florence (1438-39).Although that council did not challenge the liturgical anddisciplinary traditions of the East (thus giving them tacit recog-nition), it required the Easterner's consent to four doctrinalpoints, anathematizing opponents. The four points, containedin the decree Laetentur Caeli (July 6, 14 39 ) a re the following:

1 The least controversial issue of all, concerning theeucharistic bread: both leavened and unleavened breadare suitable for sacramental use.2) A formal endorsement of the Latin theology of theProcession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonas from one principle (tanquam ab uno principio) ; there isno requirement for the Easterners to add Filioque to the creed,but the La tin addition is declared to have been made legit-imately and reasonably (licite a c rationabiliter),which impliesthat it was doctrinally and canonically justified.

( 3 ) A detailed definition of Purgatory, in strict accord-ance with the dominant medieval Latin legalistic conception ofsalvation, and w ith the addition that the souls of the unbaptizeddescend immediately to hell (mox in infernum descendere).( 4 ) A statement about the Rom an Primacy, draftedspecifically to placate not only the Greeks, but also contem porary


37/46

The M elkite Patriarchate: Paradoxes fA Vocation 22Western conciliarism (i.e., the idea that the pope shares hispower with the ecumenical council) he decree proclaims thatthe Rom an Pontiff is the head of the whole Church, the Fatherand Teacher of all Christians, and that to him was given fullpower plena potestas) to feed, to rule and to govern theuniversal Church.

It is true that in order to alleviate the reluctance shownby the Greek delegates at Florence, the decree also prescribesthat the papal power be exercised in accordance with the actsof the ecum enical councils and the holy canons. This reserva-tion is, indeed, a possible foundation for the relative autonomyenjoyed by the Uniate Eastern Churches. How ever, one won-ders whether it continues to have any real significance in thelight of the decrees of Vatican I on the infallibility of theRom an Pontiff and , particularly, on the immediate jurisdk-tion of the pope over all the members of th e Universal Church.These decrees were, of course, qualified by V atican 11 in itsaffirmations on conciliarity and episcopal collegiality; but theywere also formally reaffirmed (and signed) by the representa-tives of the Eastern Churches united with Rome.

In this context, one can also question the importance at-tributed by F r Khairallah to the title patriarch of the West,occasionally used by the Roman Pontiff (cf. p. 200 . This title-which would imply a certain geographic and cultural limitationof the papal jurisdiction-never corresponded to any historicalreality. There was indeed, from the fifth to the e leventh centuries,a Rom an patriarchate in the sense in which the term patri-archate was used in the East. This patriarchate comprised notthe entire West but a restricted area, where the pope consecratedregional metropolitans, following their election by their localchurches. Th is area included the so-called suburbicarian di-oceses of Central and Southern Italy, and the three islands ofSicily, Corsica and Sardinia. Never during that period did thepope act as a patriarch, confirming episcopal elections inNorthern Italy, Gaul, Spain, or Northern Africa. Regionalpatriarchates (Milan, Arles, Toledo, Carthage) w ere in themaking in those regions, although they later disappeared. Thegradual extension and strengthening of Roman authority andjurisdictional power, as it began to be promoted, for instance,


38/46

222 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLYby the see of Canterbury in England (seventh century), or themission of St Boniface in Germany (early eighth century), wasclearly based not on a regional, Latin or patriarchal con-ception of the papacy, but on the idea of universal primacy. Itis that conception which Pope Nicholas I (858-867) tried (andfailed) to impose upon Byzantium, and which was formallyput into effect by the German reformed papacy of GregoryVII. Some western resistance to it-under the form known asconciliarism, an d later Gallicanism -did not subside untilthe nineteenth century.

The above remarks are simply meant to explain the reac-tions of both the Roman authorities and the Orthodox to thetype of claims expressed by some Melkite churchmen today anddescribed by F r Khairallah:( 1 ) There exists a Roman ecclesiology, going back to

much earlier times than the Council of Trent.* It affirms thedivine establishment of a Petrine See with a universal mission,implies doctrinal and disciplinary centralization as a normwhereas the existing autonomies are only concessions to localneeds; today's reactions of the Curia are in full conformity withthat conception.2) The Orthodox find it hard to understand that theOrthodox faith can be maintained by patriarchs and bishops

accepting and signing the Councils of Florence and Vatican I1as well as Vatican I, since it was formally reaffirmed byVatican 11).

The major issue which Fr Khairallah sees in respect tothe Melkites in America, is that Rome refuses to allow theMelkite patriarch and his synod to administer American com-munities as a part of his patriarchate, but instead appoints anApostolic exarch, answering only to Rome and coordinating41t is true, however, that this ecclesiology was greatly strengthened by theCounterreformation, so that the Uniates were more and more seen only as arite. Cf. E Lanne, quote y Khairallah, p. 193


39/46

The Me1 kite Patriarchate: Paradoxes f Vocation 3his activities and disciplinary practices with the other RomanCatholic bishops in America (pp. 197-198). The author seesRome's insistence on this matter as an infringement on therights of an "Eastern" church, and he directly refers to the"Orthodox patriarchs" who "exercise jurisdiction over theirsubjects who have migrated to other lands" (p . 203 . He seesthe (Uniate) See of Antioch as a "Church," distinct fromRoman Catholicism, even claiming its particular ecumene withuniversal jurisdiction over all its members and accepting newmembers everywhere (p. 214). Relations with Rome would berelations of "communion," as "between two Apostolic Sees."

There is no doubt that this scheme is offered bona fideand that it presents the established Roman ecclesiology with achallenge, which directly involves the possibility of Union withOrthodoxy (provided the other doctrinal issues are solved). In-deed, what Fr Khairallah proposes is that Rome accept an in-terpretation of its primacy in terms of moral authority andrenounce the notion of "universal jurisdiction" sanctioned byVatican I. One cannot doub t that such a step, if ever it wastaken by Rome, would mean immediate progress towards unity.

But there is another aspect of F r Khairallah's scheme whichis hardly acceptable in terms of Orthodox ecclesiology. It istrue indeed that today most Orthodox autocephalous churchesde facto adm inister their respective "diasporas," acting a s ifthey were distinct churches "in communion" with each other,but otherwise totally independent. America is the best exampleof this. However, no one n Orthodoxy (to my knowledge) con-siders this situation to be normal. T he present state of affairsoriginated in 1921, when the then existing Orthodox canonicalunity in America under a single hierarchy was broken apart,largely as a result of the chaos following the R ussian Revolu-tion. Today , fortunately, the Orthodox Church-through thevoices and actions of its highest authorities (unfortunately notas effective as they should be )-struggles to restore canonicalnorms. Already in 1872, the Council of Constantinople labelledwith the term "phy1etisrn"-a new heresy -the system accord-ing to which ethnic groups constitute distinct church jurisdic-tions on the same territory. The Patriarchate of Moscow, inthe preamble to the Tomos granting autocephaly to the Ortho-


40/46

4 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

dox Church in America, specifically proclaimed its action tobe a step in the direction of normal canonical unity. More re-cently, the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV, in a letter toMetropolitan Theodosius of America, also proclaimed the com-mitment of the See of Antioch to work for united Orthodoxyin America, under o ne ep i s~ o p a te .~xamples could be easilymultiplied. The Orthodox churches are sometimes at odds con-cerning the means and procedures by which canonical unityshould be restored, after it was broken in the unprecedentedand unforeseen circumstances of American immigration historyand peculiar religious sociology, but they do not disagree onthe principle that there should be one church in each place.

What is particularly controversial is Fr Khairallah's useof quotations from St Ignatius of A ntioch, as if the above prin-ciple were not self-evident to St Ignatius himself and the Churchof his time: one church and one eucharistic assembly in eachplace, presided by the local bishop. This was also the point inSt Paul's concern with the situation of the Church in Corinth,where Jewish and Gentile converts intended to hold separatechurch assemblies, eager to preserve their own respectivetraditions (I Cor 1 10-17)

This does not mean, of course, that all pluralism shoulddisappear; that different liturgies, different languages and a vari-ety of equally legitimate traditions should not be preserved-and even institutionally guaranteed. But the local reality andlocal witness of One Church must have priority over these con-cerns for legitimate variety. There is real danger-and evenecclesiological heresy-when concerns for particularity createstructures of dis-unity. ' The present author must confess thathe understands the position of Rome, wanting to maintain inAmerica the image of a united Roman Catholic witness anddiscipline-including, of course, the Melkites-in the face of aconfused and relativistic society. Actually, the problem is notthis Roman concern for unity per se but also the content andthe truth of what is being maintained and witnessed to-forinstance, celibate priesthood.5Text in The Orthodox Church Febr. 1986.T f . John Meyendorff Catholicity and the Church Crestwood N Y : VPress 1984


41/46

The Melkite Patriarchate: Paradoxes Qj A Vocation 5111

Indeed, one cannot bu t welcome the Decree on the CatholicChurches of the Eastern Rite (Vatican 11, 1964 when it statesthat those churches have a full right and a re duty bound torule themselves, each in accordance with its own establisheddiscipline. However, the whole context of the Council stillimplies that a disciplines and customs of local or regionalchurches, are to be envisaged in the light of the O ne C atholicTradition, which alone can give them legitimacy. The RomanCatholics and the Orthodox do not disagree on this principle,although they do disagree as to the locus of that One CatholicTradition: as to its exact content, and as to the authority whichmaintains it.It is clear that the issue of priestly celibacy is seen by theRoman Church as related to that One Tradition, i.e., ontolog-ically, to Christian spirituality and faith. This was alreadyevident in the decretals of the popes of the fourth century I twas a belief which the popes, already then, held as true, andwhich, in the West, was greatly strengthened later on by thetheology of St Augustine, becom ing a motto of most reformistmovements (e.g., the Cluniacs of the tenth and eleventh cen-turies). Because the Roman See has maintained this positionfor so many centuries-not, simply, as a local discipline, bu tclaiming it to be a universal Christian norm, and using itsprim atial full power to impose it-it is unlikely that it willbe able to adopt the other, i.e., the Eastern tradition, asequally normative. The statements of the present pope, JohnPaul 11, are there to enlighten us on this matter. I may bewrong, but it seems to me that only a radical and fundamentalchange of attitude could allow for the coexistence, within asociety as important and influential as American society, ofboth married and unm arried Catholic priests in the same RomanCatholic communion, some exceptions (e.g., for converts fromProtestantism) notwithstanding.The problem once again is not one of local tradition,but of truth vs. error. The error I am speaking about is notof course celibate priesthood as such-which has always existedas a blessed personal option-but the legalistic disciplinary im


42/46

6 ST VLADIMIR S THEOLOGICAL QU RTERLYposition of celibacy as a norm. The acceptance of marriedMelkite priests in America would inevitably make celibacy defacto optional, with no long term possibility of closing thatoption to priests of the Latin rite. The age-long Rom an Catholicattitude involving not only Roman authority, but indeed thepsychological attitude of the laity as well, is involved here. Inthe light of all this, again I understand the Roman reluctanceto yield before the demands of a small group of Melkites; al-though, of course, I believe that the discipline of the OrthodoxChurch in this matter is the right one (i.e., ordination to thepriesthood of men married once, without possibility of re-marriage even for widowers). If Rome is ever to yield on thispoint, it will not be because the Melkite will defend "their own"Tradition, but because it will discover that the Orthodox dis-cipline is truly that of the Catholic Church.

Can the Melkite Church play the role of a "bridge" be-tween Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy? It certainly can-byraising the right questions and presenting clear challenges. Muchless feasible would be for an entire "church" or an individualto pretend to be really "Orthodox in communion with Rome."Recourse to mythology-e.g., the idea of Rome being a "WesternPatriarchate," which has never been a reality in the past andwould hardly be an acceptable and realistic concept for today-does not really help. Contemporary Orthodox "autocephalism"is hardly normality either. There is a clear difference betweenthe ancient systems of church polity (either the system of "pro-vincial" independence, sanctioned by the Council of Nicaea,or the greater centralization around a few major centers,frequently referred to as 'patriarchates," which developed later)and the system of self-sufficient "autocephalies," which unfor-tunately, and only e facto, prevails in contemporary O rthodoxy,with each au tocephalous church establishing "jurisdictions" any-where in the world. This latter model is precisely what theOrthodox today are attempting to overcome by returni

Melkite Articles Khairallah Meyendorff

Documents

Transcript of Melkite Articles Khairallah Meyendorff