Chapter Fourteen
Eastern Catholic Churches
The movements of split and division continued within the one Church throughout the ages. Meanwhile, there were attempts at reunion seeking, to heal the rift which afflicted the Church. Some of these movements were destined to continue while others did not succeed, although they were somewhat fruitful but only to a certain point in time. The most important encounters held between Catholicism and other Churches were the following: the Lyons Council between Rome and Byzantium held in 1274, the Council of Florence between Rome and Byzantium in 1438. The encounters between Rome and the Armenians held in 1438, between Rome and the Copts in 1442, between Rome and the Jacobites in 1443, and between Rome and the Nestorians held in 1445. These years did not represent the reunion of these Churches with the Catholic Church, but they represented events during which meetings were held among the Churches as part of the attempts to restore the unity of the Church. They in fact, represented stations on the long thorny road.
In the seventeenth century, the reunion movements between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches gained a new momentum. The Catholic Church encouraged the Eastern Churches to unite with it while keeping their eastern rites and the powers of their bishops. Others chose a short cut for unity through latinization, or the adoption by the eastern groups of the western Latin liturgy. Thus these groups followed the Latin Churches in the East, which were missions and apostolic vicariates, not dioceses, run by the European monks. In the Ottoman era, the motives of these reunion movements were not purely religious, but political, social and economic. The millet and capitulation systems were enforced by the consuls of the Catholic states and the religious congregations. The reunion movements were growing in two aspects, namely, the retaining of the eastern rites and the powers of the eastern bishops on the one hand, and latinization on the other. Reunion was forged on a gradual and partial basis, not on an immediate and comprehensive bases.
On 6 January 1622, Pope Gregory XV created Propaganda Fide to coordinate the religious orders operating in the field of missionary work and promotion of the Christian faith. Propaganda Fide was directly attached to the Pope. French Capuchin, Ingoli (1622-1649), held the post of secretary of Propaganda Fide. “He placed his Capuchin brothers working under him in the service of his nation. King Louis XIII was then interested in French missionary activity, particularly in Turkey”[1] Propaganda Fide designated Aleppo as the center of its Capuchin activity. “Thus Aleppo became the bastion of Catholicism in Syria.”[2] Louis XIII donated the expenses for the residence of the Capuchins in Syria and for providing their churches and homes with furniture.[3] The Franciscans opposed the Capuchin presence in Syria and viewed it as an infringement on old rights and privileges of the Custody of the Holy Land. Propaganda Fide intervened several times to resolve the differences between the two parties. However, French diplomacy supported the Capuchins and secured for them on 15 April 1627 the support of the Ottoman authorities, which allowed them to function within the borders of the Sultanate.[4]
Carmelites in 1625 and Jesuits in 1627 followed the footsteps of the Franciscans and the Capuchins by opening convents in Aleppo and the Syrian and Lebanese cities. The Catholic activity in Syria reached its climax when François Picquet was appointed French Consul in Aleppo (1653-1661). The consul was known for his courage and enthusiasm for missionary work and loyalty to his country. This was evident from his maximum utilization of the treaties of the capitulation between his country and the Ottoman Sultanate. The consul placed Catholic activity under the French umbrella.[5] The monks sent reports to France on the conditions of the Christians in Syria. The Greek Orthodox, Syrian and Armenian Patriarchs appealed for the help of Louis XIV in 1663 and placed themselves and their Churches under his protection.[6] The religious authorities in France interpreted a letter sent by the three patriarchs to the King of France as the sign of a collective return of the Eastern Churches to Catholicism. Thus the archbishop of Paris issued a statement on 31 July 1665 calling for strengthening the movements of return to the Catholic Church and viewed this return as the fruit of the efforts of the monks.[7]
There was a prevailing impression in France that those desiring unity with Rome “will be loyal allies of France.”[8] The interest of France then was to encourage the Eastern Churches to return to the Catholicism. Propaganda Fide has also encouraged the study of Arabic in the colleges and schools of the monks in Europe. During this decade also, the Custos of the Holy Land,[9] Quaresemus, called for the re-establishment of the Latin Patriarchate. Under these circumstances, the Eastern Churches united with Rome were born from the “marriage of the political and ecclesiastical interests.”[10]
Among the factors, which helped the rise of the movements for the reunion of the Eastern Churches with Rome, were the scholarships, which the Catholic missionaries in Syria offered to the relatives of the patriarchs and bishops to study in the Pontifical colleges of Rome, particularly in Propaganda Fide College. No condition was made that the students sent on scholarships should declare unity with Rome when they go back home. However, these eastern bishops and priests who graduated from Rome had a longing for some kind of an anticipated unity with the Catholic Church.[11]
In Palestine, the movement toward union with Rome found no encouraging conditions, contrary to the situation in Syria, because the Orthodox Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher and the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land controlled the Holy Places and the missionary work in Palestine. This has created an inappropriate atmosphere for the rise of movements of reunion. Syrian-based Churches, united with Rome, could not consolidate their foothold in Palestine except after the re-establishment of the Latin Patriarchate. Thus the Latin Patriarchate was the pioneer of breaking the circle of the Greek-Franciscan monopoly of missionary work, by opening the door widely to any Catholic society or Church in the Holy Land to function[12].
1- The Maronites:
The Maronites[13] are called after St. Maron, who was born in 410 and lived in the Apamea (Afamia) area in Syria. His monks built a convent in his memory on the banks of the Orontes River in Syria. The convent was the nucleus of the Maronite Church, which consisted of the Syrians who sponsored the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon. In the sixth century, the convent became a strong bastion of Chalcedonian teachings. The Monophysites killed 350 monks who were martyred in defense of the Chalcedonian faith. The monks became the leaders of the people who followed the Chalcedon faith. The heads of the convents were given the rank of bishops. Their powers extended to the believers residing around the convents. Therefore, the Maronite pastoral and parochial activity was characterized by conventual customs. Maronite patriarchs who came later derived their power and religious and social role from this heritage of the firm bishopric-run convent, a heritage that was built by the monks.
The Chalcedonian Patriarch, Athanasios II, was killed in 609. Therefore, titular patriarchs were appointed for the Antioch See in Constantinople until 702. During this period of vacancy a Maronite patriarch or a patriarch of the Maronite monks, John Maron, was appointed in 685. It seemed that the elected John Maron carried the title of Patriarch of Antioch and that his election was lawful and legal because Rome did not voice any objections to his consecration. Some historians cast doubt on the compliance of the Maronites with the Chalcedonian teaching or their unity with Rome. These historians accused the Maronites of adopting Monothelitism,[14] which is a middle-of-the-way principle between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite beliefs. The emperors of Constantinople encouraged the spread of the Monothelitism so as to reach a national unity among the disputing Church groups in order to counter the external dangers posed to the Byzantine Empire.
The Maronites continued to honor their Chalcedonian beliefs although they lived in isolation from the Byzantine Constantinople See, particularly after their collective waves of immigration in the early eighth century to the impregnable mountains of Lebanon to escape persecution. In Lebanon ties were severed between the Maronites and the old and new Rome, namely, Constantinople.
The Maronites came out of their isolation during the Crusades, but this did not mean a return to Catholicism, as they never cut off with Rome. The Maronites did not support the Great Schism in the East in 1054, which terminated the communion of the Eastern Patriarchates with St. Peter’s See. The Maronites renewed their contacts with Rome via the Crusaders in Tripoli. The Maronite Church had no sister Church that was not united with Rome similar to the other Eastern Churches, such as the Syriac Orthodox and the Syriac Catholics. It seemed that the Maronites were one group, which kept their unity with the Apostolic See throughout the ages.
Maronite Patriarch Jeremiah of Amshit (1199-1230) attended the Council of Lateran in 1215 and Pope Innocent III granted him the patriarchal pallium. Since then, the latinization process was initiated in the Maronite Church, i.e. the insertion of the Western Latin liturgy and customs into the Maronite liturgy. This was what made it different from the Syrian liturgy. The Maronites distinguished themselves from the Syrian Jacobites by introducing Latin elements into their liturgy while keeping their Chalcedonian beliefs and unity with Rome. The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch resided in Bkerke, Lebanon and his powers embraced the Maronites in Lebanon and the various parts of the world as the migration of the Lebanese to the New World began in 1854 and reached its climax in 1894. Maronite parishes were established to serve the Maronites in the diaspora.
The Maronites did not constitute a significant denominational weight in Palestine because their original home was Lebanon. Conil mentioned them in Jerusalem in the nineteenth century by saying: “There are in Jerusalem a few Catholics who follow the Maronite liturgy and pray in the Latin churches.”[15] Significant groups of Palestinian Maronites lived in northern Palestine. The Maronite ecclesiastical leadership in Palestine consisted of a Patriarchal Vicar in Jerusalem since 1895 and the Archbishop of Tyre and the Holy Land who resides in Tyre. At the end of the 20th century, there are 44 Maronite families in Jerusalem and 120 in Jordan. The total Maronites in northern Palestine, i.e. Akre, Haifa, Jaffa, and al-Jesh, are 565 people who are attached to the Archbishop of Tyre.[16], [17]
2-The Chaldeans:
The Chaldeans[18] are the inheritors of the Nestorian Church, which united with Rome under the name of the Catholic Chaldean Church. Signs that the Nestorians were returning to Catholicism were looming on the horizon during the age of the Crusades. The first Nestorian Patriarch to contact the Apostolic See was Sabrisho Bar Almassihi (1226-1257). Latin missionaries recommended Patriarch Sabrisho Bar Almassihi to Pope Innocent IV, who sent him a letter of greeting and encouragement. “In 1247 Rabban Ara, the Patriarchal Vicar acknowledged receipt of the Pope’s letter and thanked him in terms indicative of respect for the papal authority. Rabban Ara’s letter was accompanied by two others, one brought from China by Rabban Ara himself, and the other containing the profession of faith of Iso’yab Bar Maldon, Metropolitan of Nisibis, two other metropolitans, and three bishops. It seems that a collective union was being sought.”[19] Later on, during the Crusader age the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem played a role in rapprochement between the See of St. Peter and the Nestorians; a brief union was effected in 1340 by Elias, Nestorian Bishop of Cyprus.
Unity was finally forged in the sixteenth century when Patriarch Mar Shimoun IV Bassidi (1480-1493) introduced the tradition of the inheritance of the patriarchal post by the members of the Bassidi family, which was known as the Abuna family. Patriarchs and metropolitans were elected from that family. The nepotism practiced in bishops’ elections “brought ignorant and unworthy minors to patriarchal rank, for which they were unprepared, and imposed celibacy on them. The conscience of the hierarchy was aroused; they sought a radical remedy in union with Rome.”[20] The bishops of Irbil, Salamas and Azerbaijan led the unity movement. The three bishops held a meeting in Mosul attended by clerics, monks and lay delegates. The conferees chose a religious priest Sulaqa, superior of the Rabban Hermizd monastery near Alqosh, to represent the groups willing to enter into unity with Rome. “Armed with the proper documents and accompanied by three notables, Adam, Thomas, and Khalaph, Sulaqa left Mosul for Rome, with an escort as far as Jerusalem. On Nov. 15, 1552, he arrived to Rome, accompanied only by Khalaph. One companion had died on the way, and another had been detained by illness. On the basis of a report by Cardinal Maffei, Pope Julius III promulgated his bull of Feb. 20, 1553, proclaiming Sulaqa Patriarch of Mosul. This was the official birthday of the Chaldean Catholic Church”[21] The pope consecrated Sulaqa bishop on 9 April 1553 at St. Peter’s Basilica and granted him the pallium on 28 April 1553.
Sulaqa asked the Pope to support his new mission. So he sent with him the Dominican, Ambrose Buttigeg, as representative of Holy See to the Chaldeans of Mosul, and Dominican Maltese Antoninus Zahara. Sulaqa arrived in Diyarbakir his patriarchal residence on 12 November 1553, where clergy and people received him triumphally. The new patriarch consecrated eight bishops. In December 1553 in Aleppo, he obtained from the Ottoman Sultan the documents that acknowledged him head of the Chaldean nation. Thus Sulaqa became the leader and representative of the Chaldean millet just like the other patriarchs. Therefore, he strengthened his influence and consolidated unity with Rome. He was assisted in doing so by the eight bishops and the Dominicans who came with him from Rome.
Nevertheless, the Nestorian Patriarch was not happy with the success achieved by Sulaqa and the reunion with Rome. So he instigated the Ottomans against him. “In fact, the Nestorian Patriarch Simeon Denha, now Sulaqa’s rival and bitter enemy, prevailed upon the Pasha of Amadya to invite Sulaqa there under the pretext that his presence in that region could contribute to the union of the Nestorians. Once in Amadya, Sulaqa was imprisoned and subjected to every sort of torture for 4 months. Finally, by order of the Pasha, he was put into a sack and thrown into a lake to drown, about Jan. 12, 1555.”[22]
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, several Nestorian groups joined the Chaldean Church. This made its followers the sweeping majority of Iraq’s present-day Christians.[23]
A Chaldean Vicariate was inaugurated in Jerusalem in 1908.[24] There were no parishes for the Vicariate, because the Chaldean families, which settled in Jordan and Palestine at the end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, joined the Jerusalem Latin Patriarchate.
3-The Syrian Catholics:
The movement of union with Rome appeared among the Syrians Orthodox in Aleppo in the seventeenth century. Andrew Akhidjan, who embraced Catholicism in 1662, led the movement. “Akhidjan received his education at the Maronite College in Rome and was ordained priest. He declared unity with Rome with the support and encouragement of the missionaries.”[25] After completing his studies in Rome, Akhidjan returned home in 1654 and started working among the Syrian Orthodox calling for unity with Rome. The French Consul in Aleppo François Picquet sponsored his zeal and asked the Jacobite Patriarch of Aleppo to confer on Akhidjan the episcopacy. The Jacobite Patriarch was evasive, and Picquet turned to the Maronite Patriarch who, after some hesitation, consecrated Akhidjan bishop on June 29, 1656. He was given the name of Denis. “On the death of the Jacobite Patriarch (1662), the leaders of the Syrian Catholic community of Aleppo thought the moment ideal and they came to have their bishop raised to the patriarchal dignity. With the support of M. de Bonté, the French consul, and the intervention of the French ambassador to the Sultan, Mar Denis Akhidjan obtained the order of investiture, recognizing him as the only patriarch of the Syrians. The Holy See again gave its official recognition.”[26]
During the mandate of Akhidjan, the Syrian Catholics suffered several shocks. Akhidjan died in 1677. “With his death the tragedy of his succession and Church emerged”[27] Orthodox and sometimes Catholic patriarchs alternated on the See of Antioch. They occasionally declared unity with Rome and then went back on their relation with Rome. A brutal war erupted between the Catholic and the Orthodox factions.
Patriarch Mar Ignatius Peter VI Shahbadine, a successor of Akhidjan, was brutally persecuted by the Jacobites. Philippe De Trazi reported some of the persecution and displacement, which Mar Ignatius Peter VI underwent. “While Mar Ignatius Peter VI was celebrating Mass on the morning of 26 April 1695, the Jacobites attacked the church, removed him by force from the altar, took off his liturgical garments, and beat him brutally. They then converged in front of the government building and started shouting loudly: Children of Mohammad! We are the subjects of the Great Sultan and we have no prince other than him. We do not want to become Westerners or followers of the Pope.”[28] The patriarch was dethroned from his post six times, banished and imprisoned. “The Sheikh of Islam Fayd Allah sent his public orders to the judge of Aleppo, Mustafa, to reexamine the case. But he instructed him secretly to punish the patriarch and his men. The judge fulfilled the hopes of the Jacobites, brought in Mar Ignatius Peter VI, on 24 August and removed him from his office for the fifth time and then imprisoned him in a prison…”[29] Thus ended the brief period during which the Syrian Church had a Catholic patriarch. “The Holy See tried to nominate even a patriarchal vicar to maintain the continuity of the patriarchate, but the court of Constantinople refused to give any nominee the investiture order. Without this official investiture, the Catholic prelates were entirely defenseless before the persecution of the Jacobites.”[30]
The Syrian Catholic Church was denied a shepherd to run its affairs for some 80 years, between 1702 and 1783 until Mar Michael Jarweh was elected patriarch as Mar Ignatius Michael III, of the Syrian Orthodox in 1782. He was inclined to unity with Rome. Therefore, he declared that unity in 1783. This has generated animosity between the Orthodox and Catholic factions of the Syrian Church. “His reign was one of flights, exiles, imprisonment, and attacks. Twice the Sultan gave a document of investiture to one of Ignatius Michael’s opponents, and the opponent hastened to dispossess Mar Michael of his churches, monasteries, and personal goods and chattels. Finally, Mar Ignatius Michael took refuge in Lebanon among a predominantly Catholic population. He bought a two-room house that became the Patriarchal Seminary of Sharfet, which was to give to the Syrian Church many priests and prelates. Mar Ignatius Michael died in Sept. 4, 1800, leaving behind him a young and vital Syrian Church.”[31]
The Syrian Catholic Church obtained its civil independence from the Syrian Orthodox Church in the mid nineteenth century, and the Ottoman Sultanate recognized its religious and temporal powers. Sharfet, north of Beirut, in Lebanon is the official residence of the Catholic Syrian Patriarch of Antioch.
De Trazi mentions the names of ten Catholic Syrian bishops who carried the title of Bishop of Jerusalem between 1662 until the mid-nineteenth century.[32] Some of these, became patriarchs, such as Ignatius Peter VI, and Ignatius Peter VII. De Trazi says that these bishops “held the See of Jerusalem”[33] He means that they were titular bishops of the Jerusalem See, not necessarily that they settled there.
The Syrian Patriarchal Vicariate in Jerusalem was established in 1890[34] and prospered in the early twentieth century. “The Syrians Catholics in Jerusalem had, since 1990, a church, a presbytery and a hostel for the pilgrims. In 1904 in the time of Pope Leo XIII, a seminary was established under the management of the Benedictines. Since the number of the Syrian Catholics was growing substantially in Bethlehem and the adjoining villages, a parish was created and a small church was allocated to the parish. A large group of Syrian Catholics settled in Akre, Haifa and Jaffa. However, they joined the other Catholic churches in the area for the liturgical services.”[35], [36]
4-The Armenian Catholics:
The birth of the Armenian Catholic Church[37] did not take place until late 1742. It was recognized as such by Pope Benedict XIV, and had at its head the patriarch Abraham-Peter I Ardzivian. Ardzivian was an Orthodox Armenian bishop converted to Catholicism. His episcopal jurisdiction included the Armenians residing in Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia, while the Armenian Catholics in Armenia and Istanbul were attached to the Apostolic Vicariate in Istanbul. Armenian Catholics became free of temporal tutelage to the Armenian Orthodox Patriarch in the mid- nineteenth century.
The Armenian Patriarchal Vicariate in Jerusalem was formed under the sponsorship of the Latin Patriarchate. The first Armenian Patriarchal Vicar in Jerusalem was Father Serope Tavitian, who was ordained in 1855. Father Tavitian joined the Latin patriarchal clergy and continued to reside in the Latin Patriarchate until the Armenian Patriarchal Vicariate was built in 1885. The Armenians had two churches in Jerusalem located at the third and fourth stations of the Via Dolorosa. The Latin Patriarch inaugurated the church of the third station of the Via Dolorosa in 1897.[38]
5-Melchite Greek Catholics:
Already in the seventeenth century tentative efforts at reunion with Rome were made by some of the Orthodox bishops in the Antiochene Patriarchate, under the same circumstances as the Armenian and Syrian Churches. Latin missionaries encouraged these phenomena, which led to the formation of the Melchite[39] Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch in the eighteenth century.
In 1682, the Orthodox Bishop of Sidon, Euthimios Saifi, declared loyalty to the Catholic Church and expressed his desire to forge unity with it. In 1697, some monks separated from Balamand Monastery and formed, in Wadi al-Jamajem near Chueir village, the Basilian Order of Chueirites, which was the first Melchite Greek Catholic order united with Rome. The bishop of Beirut Sylvester Dahan sent to Rome in 1701 a letter declaring that he had embraced the Catholic faith. Pope Clement IX accepted the declaration, and the Apostolic See adopted a positive attitude toward the clerics and faithful who declared their unity with Rome and cut off the Greeks who were controlling the Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchates.
On 6 December 1701 the bishop of Sidon, Euthimios Saifi, was appointed Apostolic Administrator for the faithful of the Antiochene Patriarchate willing to unite with Rome, provided that they were not attached to another bishop united with Rome,[40] because there were then bishops of the non-Orthodox Church who declared their unity with Rome. Therefore, “Euthimios Saifi was viewed as the greatest man to spread Catholicism in the Patriarchate of Antioch outside the scope of Aleppo and Damascus.”[41] As for the Ottoman Sultanate, it adopted a hostile attitude toward the Melchite Greek Catholic groups.[42]
With the death of the Athanasios IV Dabbas (1720 - 1724), Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, two patriarchs were simultaneously elected. The faction loyal to Catholicism elected Seraphim Tanas, who was enthroned on 20 September 1724 and was called Cyril VI Tanas. The faction loyal to Orthodoxy elected Sylvester the Cyprian, a Greek monk from Athos. He was recognized by the Phanar and other Orthodox Churches; through him the Orthodox line continues. Sylvester was enthroned patriarch on 27 September 1824. Rome had to make a decision and settle the conflict. Propaganda Fide held recurrent sessions from 15 May to 5 July 1728. Finally, Rome recognized Cyril VI Tanas as patriarch of the Melchite Greek Catholics. Since the days of Cyril VI Tanas, the series of Melchite patriarchs has not been interrupted. In 1773 Clement XIV united the few scattered Melchites of Alexandria and Jerusalem to the jurisdiction of the Melchite Patriarch of Antioch. The obstacle facing the new Patriarchate of Antioch was that the Ottoman authorities did not recognize the temporal power of the Catholic Patriarch of Antioch as head of the Melchite millet, until the mid nineteenth-century during the era of Patriarch Maximos III Mazlum.
A- The temporal independence of the Greek Catholic and other Eastern Churches in the era of Patriarch Maximos III Mazlum(1833-1855):
The occupation of Syria by Mohammad Ali and the international interventions and conferences that followed constituted an important turning point in the history of the Eastern Churches. These developments made the Sultanate more tolerant toward the Christian denominations. In the aftermath of Mohammad Ali’s occupation, international relations between Istanbul and the European states became stronger, prompting the Ottoman Sultanate to grant more constitutional freedoms to its subjects. Christians benefited from this new development, particularly those united with Rome.[43] The patriarchs united with Rome rushed to seize the opportunity to secure freedom from the temporal trusteeship imposed on them by the Orthodox Patriarch of Istanbul. The personality of the Melchite Greek Catholic Patriarch Maximos III Mazlum played an important role in freeing his Church and the other Uniate Churches.
Patriarch Maximos III Mazlum was born in 1779. He was from Aleppo, and was one of the students of Melchite Metropolitan Germanos Adam, who ordained him as a priest in 1806 and appointed him his secretary. After the death of Germanos Adam, Patriarch Agapios II Matar consecrated Mazlum bishop in 1810. Mazlum had been infected with the ideas of Germanos and accused of Gallicanism, and had been elected Metropolitan of Aleppo, The faction opposing Germanos Adam in Aleppo did not accept Mazlum as metropolitan, and his election had not been confirmed in Rome. Then he renounced the post, and became titular Metropolitan of Myra, and procurator of the patriarch at Rome until 1831. During this time he founded, in 1820, the Melchite church at Marseilles (St. Nicholas), and took steps at the courts of Vienna and Paris to protect the Melchites from their Orthodox rivals.
Patriarch Ignatius Kattan died on 13 March 1833. The bishops held a synod and elected Mazlum as patriarch on 24 March 1833, and was confirmed at Rome after many difficulties in 1836. During the era of Mazlum, the issue of the headgear was resolved in 1848, i.e. Melchites may use the eastern headgear as the Orthodox do, provided that it had hexagonal angles and violet color. The reason for this was that the Orthodox protested that the Melchite were wearing a uniform similar to their, or were looking like them in their priestly clothes. The headgear issue was a sign of unfriendly relations between the Orthodox and the Melchites, and the severe Orthodox trusteeship upon the Melchite affairs. The Ottoman government had not recognized the Uniates, the Melchites and the other Eastern Catholic Churches, as separate millets; so all their communications with the State, the Berat given to their bishops and so on, had to be made through the Orthodox. They were still officially, in the eyes of the law, members of the rum millet, that is of the Orthodox community under the Patriarch of Constantinople. This naturally gave the Orthodox endless opportunities to annoy them, which were not lost; the headgear issue was one of these opportunities.
The Melchite Greek Catholics and other Uniates were freed from temporal subservience to the Orthodox Patriarchate in three phases:
1-The Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople represented the interests of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches at the Sublime Porte. Meanwhile, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople represented the interests of the non-Chalcedonian Churches, such as the Armenian and Syrian Churches. Although the Apostolic See recognized the Uniates, Istanbul didn’t recognize their head temporal authority. In the millet system, the patriarch represented the millet with the Ottoman authorities from the religious and temporal standpoints. “The patriarchs were viewed as the religious and secular heads of the Christian millet, and were viewed as middlemen between God and man and they represented their groups with the government.”[44]
The first phase of the liberation of the Catholic Churches was accomplished on 3 June 1834 when Istanbul issued a firman according to which the Ottomans appointed the Catholic Armenian priest Hagop Shakarian as religious and secular head of the millets united with Rome. This Priest-Patriarch, and the word patriarch here denoted a temporal, not an ecclesiastical position, represented the interests of the Uniates. These were the Maronite, Melchite, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic and Chaldean Churches. Thus these Churches freed themselves from the temporal subservience imposed on them by the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox Patriarchs. The relationships between the patriarchs of the Uniate Churches and the Armenian Priest-Patriarch from the temporal standpoint were similar to the relationship that existed between a patriarch and his assistants or vicars.[45]
The internal and international changes that were introduced to the Ottoman arena made this new organization possible. “The Greek influence declined during the war for the liberation of Greece. The European public displayed sympathy with the Catholic denominations because of the ruthlessness of the persecution and repression they had to endure. Thus, Catholic diplomats managed to pressure the Ottoman government to emancipate the Catholics from subservience to the Orthodox patriarchs; Greek and Armenian. They were encouraged to do so by the ideas of freedom and equality, which became widespread then in all parts of the Ottoman Sultanate. The Sultan therefore, was compelled to recognize the rights of the Christians in general in issues of religion, politics, taxes and the army, and the rights of the Catholics in particular on matters related to their independence from the Orthodox.”[46]
2-In the second phase, Patriarch Mazlum secured the exercise of his religious and temporal powers over the Melchites in the three patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem in 1837. “This made him a very important figure.”[47] On the ecclesiastical level, the patriarch requested Pope Gregory XVI to grant him the title of “Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.” The new thing about the title was the addition of Jerusalem and Alexandria. The patriarch got the requested title, but ad personam, which was not transmitted to his successors.[48] However, what really happened was that the Holy See granted his successors the title ad personam.
3-From the year 1841 until 1848, Patriarch Mazlum resided in Istanbul. He made efforts with the Ottoman government to free himself completely from the authority of the Armenian Priest-Patriarch and to obtain the same rights and privileges which the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople used to enjoy. He got from Sultan Abdulhamid a firman, on 7 January 1848, declaring his temporal power over the Greek Catholics. Thus the denomination became free of every external power.
Mazlum built a church in Constantinople and appointed there a patriarchal vicar to represent him at the Sublime Porte. The remaining Uniates were given the same privileges, which Patriarch Mazlum obtained. The Ottoman Sultanate recognized the temporal power of its patriarchs, putting an end to the temporary rule, which the Catholic Armenian Priest-Patriarch played in Istanbul.[49]
B- The Acre Melchite Diocese:
The region of Galilee is geographically located in northern Palestine. However, in the Melchite Church, Galilee and its center, the diocese of Acre, were attached, from the administrative ecclesiastical standpoint, to the Metropolitan of Tyre who in turn was attached to the Patriarch of Antioch.[50] Historically the existence of Acre diocese precedes the creation of the Jerusalem patriarchal diocese, which was created in the nineteenth century. The oldest sources mention that Acre was attached to Tyre in the age of the first Melchite Greek Catholic Patriarch Cyril VI Tanas (1724-1759).[51] Its bishop Makarios Ajami said in 1759 that it was part of the Antiochene Patriarchate.[52]
The figures available on the Acre diocese date back to 1907, and we can sum it up as follows:[53] There were 13,923 faithful, 38 priests, including 24 Salvatorian priests, 17 schools for boys and 10 schools for girls. The center of the diocese was Acre, which had one church in which the bishop, one priest, and four Salvatorians resided. In the Acre parish there was a school for boys and the number of the faithful in the parish was 580. The diocese of Acre consisted of 32 villages and cities with a total of 98 churches.[54]
C- The Melchites in Jerusalem in the era of Patriarch Maximos III Mazlum (1833-1855) – the first half of the nineteenth century:
The Uniates in Palestine did not constitute a religious and temporal weight because of the few numbers of their followers compared with the major Churches and because of their belated establishment in the countries adjoining Palestine. Therefore, patriarchal vicars, who occasionally became bishops, represented these Churches, who did not protest against the initiative by the Apostolic See to re-establish the Latin Patriarchate in 1847. Their interests did not run into conflict with the interests of the Latin Patriarchate or the Franciscans, because these Churches had no specific ambitions in Palestine or rights in the Holy Places according to the firmans of the Status Quo. However, this situation did not apply to the Melchite Church, which viewed itself as the heir in Palestine of Catholicism, with its eastern and western wings.
The Melchite Church is of Syrian origin. It grew in Syria and Lebanon and then extended to Palestine. Its center of weight continued to be in Syria where its patriarchs resided. “In the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem there was a small number of Melchites. Most of them were immigrants from Syria and Lebanon. These faithful were cared for by the Franciscans until a decision was issued by Propaganda Fide on 13 August 1773 entrusting the Melchite Patriarch of Antioch residing in Lebanon to run their affairs.”[55] Historian Cyrille Charon (Karalevskij) confirms this fact by saying: “A few Melchites resided in Nazareth in 1772. Nazareth was attached to the diocese of Acre, which in turn was attached to the Patriarchate of Antioch. In Jerusalem, the question of the Melchites was solved when they were joined to the Patriarchate of Antioch. There were a few Melchites in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, there were no full-fledged Melchite ecclesiastical authorities, because the Patriarch of Antioch was the Apostolic Administrator of the Jerusalem diocese. The same applied to his Patriarchal Vicar who occasionally held the rank of bishop.”[56] In another place, Charon says that in the mid nineteenth century, there were in Jerusalem “three Melchite families and 20 families in Jaffa.”[57] and that the three Jerusalemite families were the families of three Ottoman employees.[58] As for the report of the French foreign minister in 1842-1843, to which Hajjar referred, the number of the Melchite Greek Catholics in Jerusalem was estimated at 50 persons.[59]
There were two theories to explain why the Melchite Church did not grow and develop in the Holy Land, as did the Latin Patriarchate which was re-established in 1847. The first theory is related to the Latin Patriarchate’s historian Father Pierre Médebielle. Charon agreed with Médebielle. We call it the Médebielle Theory. Another historian of the Melchite Church, Monsignor Joseph Hajjar, promoted the second theory, which we call the Hajjar Theory.
1-The Médebielle Theory:[60]
The Melchite Church had more potential to grow in Syria than it did in Palestine for two reasons: First, the control by the Greek Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher of the Orthodox Church in Palestine. The Brotherhood managed to keep its privileges and rights in the Holy Places and resisted every Arab liberation movement in the Orthodox Church. The phenomenon of the Melchite Church united with Rome was, to start with, an Arab liberation movement from the despotism of the Ottomans and Greeks. Therefore, the Greek clergy resisted the movement. Two, the Franciscan monopoly of missionary work in Palestine, which provided an encouraging atmosphere for the growth of Catholicism according to the Uniates form. The Franciscan monopoly was valid on the non-Franciscan Latin orders and congregations who wished to work in Palestine, and the Uniate Churches which looked to establish themselves in the Holy Land. The Custody paid attention to the few Eastern Catholics in Palestine, including a few of them who were residing in Jerusalem. With the re-establishment of the Latin Patriarchate during the era of Patriarch Valerga in 1847, the circle of the Franciscan-Greek monopoly was broken, and Palestine was opened to all forms of missionary work. Jordan took its share of the religious resurgence, which was led by the Patriarchate, all the more so because Jordan was forgotten and was living on the periphery of Palestinian ecclesiastical life.
Charon justified the weakness of the Melchite Church in Palestine by saying: “We can find the real reason in the low standards of the clergy assigned to serve the Melchites. Parish priests were married. Originally, they were farmers, who moved from agricultural work to religious service within two to three months of quick preparations. Basilian monks were not better educated than the Parish priests.”[61] Charon commended the Latin Patriarchal clergy who had good material resources which they utilized appropriately. The Latin clergy was a mixture of foreigners and Arabs. Everyone agreed that this clergy was well prepared. It should be asserted that the goal of Catholic missionary work was to save the souls of all those belonging to any liturgical rite. Nonetheless, the Melchite clergy, until recently, namely 1911, was incapable of serving the Palestinian parishes as they should. Therefore, we should be happy at what the Latin clergy was doing for the faithful, particularly rescuing them from deliberate negligence, which the Greek clergy sought for them in Jerusalem. The goal of the Greek clergy was certainly not to care for spiritual matters. However, there was a consensus that whenever the performance, preparation and education of the Melchite clergy was improved, it would take its appropriate place in Palestine and other regions. Many priests from the Latin clergy have stated that when the eastern pastors became prepared and well educated, many people, who followed the Latin liturgy and other Christians also, would join them.[62]
Charon offered three solutions to the issue of the liturgies and the Melchite and Latin powers that were interlocked in Palestine:[63]
A-That the Church ignore the faithful and let them face their inevitable doom which is the outcome of their religious ignorance. In other words, the Latin Patriarchate should stop those embracing Catholicism from joining it. Of course, this is something that is inappropriate for the Catholic Church to do.
B-That the priests of the Latin Patriarchate should shift to the Melchite Greek Catholic liturgy. This of course, would be encountered with difficulties vis-à-vis the episcopal jurisdictions. Charon commented on this by saying: “It is enough for us to know the nature of the East to realize the impossibility of such a solution from the practical standpoint. How can a whole clergy that included several priests of European origin join now (1911) a Church in which there was no clear ecclesiastical legislation or firmly established order, 60 years after the events which we mentioned earlier. (The mid-nineteenth century.)[64]
C-The third solution was that those willing to embrace Catholicism and join the Latin Patriarchate should follow the Latin liturgy, as was usually done, until now, (namely 1911.) It is enough for to carefully examine the developments that culminated to realize that “compulsory circumstances related to places, particularly to persons,[65] prompted the Apostolic See to adopt this system which looked at first glance contradictory to the principle of keeping and protecting the eastern liturgy in the Eastern Churches.”[66]
2-The Hajjar Theory:[67]
The sponsor of this theory is Monsignor Joseph Hajjar. The theory can be summed up as follows: The policy of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) was to absorb and melt the Eastern Churches in the Roman Latin pot through the work of the European missionaries. The re-establishment of the Latin Patriarchate by Pius IX achieved this policy. “The re-establishment of the Latin Patriarchate was reminiscent of the Crusaders’ experience in Jerusalem. It confirmed the inclination by Roman Catholicism to expand in the heart of the Christian East.”[68] The Latin Patriarchate, in collaboration with the Custody of the Holy Land, latinized the easterners through the Latin Patriarchate at the expense of the Eastern Catholic Churches.[69]
The two theories of Médebielle and Hajjar each represented part of the truth. The views of Charon on this complex issue remain the more realistic: “compulsory circumstances related to places, particularly to persons, prompted the Apostolic See to adopt this system which looked at first glance contradictory to the principle of keeping and protecting the eastern liturgy in the Eastern Churches..”[70]
Taking into consideration the foregoing circumstances, Palestine had its share of the general prosperity of the Melchite Church in Syria during the age of Patriarch Maximos III Mazlum. The winds of progress and development blew from Syria in the north to Palestine in the south. Syrian churchmen completed important projects in Palestine. Greater Syria (Bilad al-Sham) was one cohesive unit in the Ottoman era. The most important achievements and projects of the Jerusalem Patriarchal Vicariate in the age of Patriarch Mazlum were the following:[71]
3-The Cathedral and the Patriarchal Vicariate in Jerusalem:
The Greek Catholics in Jerusalem had no premises or churches until the thirties of the nineteenth century. “As soon as the powers of Mazlum expanded to the Holy City, he wished to build premises there and to transfer to it the Ain Traz seminary.”[72] During the convening of an episcopal synod in Jerusalem, the bishops refused his proposal to transfer the seminary to Jerusalem.[73] Mazlum’s powers in Jerusalem were consolidated when Pope Gregory XVI granted him ad personam the title of Patriarch of Alexandria and Jerusalem. The patriarch assigned in 1836 Anton Ayoub, a notable of the Greek Catholic in Jerusalem, to purchase the necessary land for building the cathedral and the premises of the patriarchal vicariate of Jerusalem. So he tried to buy al-Salahia, which, according to tradition, was the home of SS. Joachim and Anna, grandparents of Jesus, near the eastern gate of Jerusalem, known as the Gate of the Tribes, or the Gate of our Lady Mary. However, his efforts failed. So he bought a vast piece of land near the Jaffa Gate. Building started in 1844 after the Ottoman Sultanate granted the firman for the building of the church and the patriarchal premises. This was confirmed by a Greek historian, who lived in Jerusalem, called Neophyte the Cypriot, in a manuscript worked out by Henry Musset: “Arab Greek Catholics then bought land on which there was a garden and the ruins of a house. When they started building the foundations, they were fortunate to find ruins with stones fit for building. The church consisted of three naves. Two monks, a deacon and a servant were now living in the house.”[74]
Patriarch Mazlum arrived in Jerusalem on 6 April 1848. Work on the church was almost completed. The only thing left was to build the dome. The patriarch came from Sidon to Acre, Jaffa and finally to Jerusalem. He was granted the Ottoman firman on 7 January 1848. The firman totally freed the Greek Catholics from the religious and temporal subservience to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. He was received in Jerusalem as a victorious leader because he was the liberator of the Greek Catholic millet, and the man who achieved its independence.[75] The importance of the church was due to the fact that it meant “a moral victory over the Greeks who were in charge of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Jerusalem, where no Catholic priest of the eastern liturgy dared then to hold mass there, except in secret or in a private capacity, in one of the Franciscan shrines. In other words, he could not hold a public mass attended by the congregation.”[76] The patriarch inaugurated the church on 24 May 1848 and it was called the Church of the Annunciation. He laid down the foundation stone for the altar. “The cost totaled some 50,000 piasters, which was a large sum of money. Patriarch Maximos Mazlum paid half of this sum from his private money, and announced a subscription among the public in all the dioceses to secure the other half.”[77]
Patriarch Mazlum left Jerusalem in October 1848 for Damascus via land and met with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Methodios (1843 - 1859), despite their differences on the issue of the headgear and other issues. On 14 March 1849, the patriarch issued a statement to his bishops inviting them to a synod to be held in Jerusalem. He left Damascus on 17 March and arrived in Jerusalem on 12 May 1849.
4-The Synod of Jerusalem:
Three bishops protested against the holding of the synod in Jerusalem and lodged their protest with Rome indicating the reasons for their opposition. They were the Metropolitan of Tyre, Ignatius Qarout; the Metropolitan of Beirut, Agapios Riashi; and the bishop of Baalbek, Athanatios Aibed: “Jerusalem was too far and travel to it was difficult and costly. There were only three Melchite families there. They were the families of government employees. The bishops demanded that the synod be held in Syria under the chairmanship of a delegate of the Apostolic See.”[78] The opposition failed and the synod held its 10 sessions in Jerusalem from 24 May to 25 June 1849.[79] The synod discussed organizational, theological and legal matters involving the Melchite Church. Basic differences rose among the conferees and this shook confidence in the resolutions of the synod which were signed by the bishops after hesitation.[80] “The patriarch sought to make the bishops sign the resolutions which he had drafted, provided that these resolutions be immediately enforced. However, some bishops were of the view that the Apostolic See should endorse these resolutions first. Patriarch Maximos replied to this by saying: should we refer every matter that concerned us to the Apostolic See? We are meeting in a synod and we can decide whatever we deem fit.”[81]
The differences shock confidence in the synod and it was not approved by Rome. The resolutions were referred to the Apostolic See. They consisted of five parts, each of five chapters on the sacraments, bishop’s powers, Church administration, religious life, and liturgy, and also included five appendices. The Apostolic See assigned Latin Patriarch Valerga in his capacity as advisor to the Apostolic See to study the resolutions. His good experience in the East qualified him for this assignment. “Valerga submitted a lengthy study on the resolutions in Italian. However, the study involved the first four chapters of Part I. His study was neutral and encouraging. However, he did not hesitate to criticize whenever it was appropriate to do so.”[82] The Apostolic See did not endorse the resolutions of the synod. Hajjar believed that the reason for this was the objections made by the bishops casting doubt on the synod, thereby prompting the circles of Rome to freeze the resolutions of the synod on 9 June 1850.[83] The three foregoing bishops sent an appeal to Rome on 30 August 1850 confirming their opposition.[84] No synod for the Greek Catholics met to issue any ecclesiastical legislation until 1909. Charon.[85]
Patriarch Mazlum sought to appoint a vicar to represent him in Jerusalem in 1836. So he consecrated Father Elia Fanda, known as Meletios, as bishop for this purpose. However, the plans of the patriarch did not materialize and he appointed the said bishop as his vicar in Istanbul. In 1846, Father Elias Kattan was appointed as his vicar. Kattan continued in his post until 1874. During his service, “the patriarchate bought a cemetery for the denomination in November 1848. He was also in charge of the secretarial work in the synod of Jerusalem in 1849.”[86]
Patriarch Mazlum died on 23 August 1855. “In his era the number of Melchites rose by 20,000, thereby, becoming 70,000. The number of bishops rose from eight to thirteen. Patriarch Mazlum is viewed as one of the senior patriarchs of the Melchites, because he is credited for freeing and organizing that Church.”[87]
D- The Melchites in Jerusalem in the second half of the nineteenth century:
Two Vatican figures made a basic impression on the Uniates Churches in the second half of the nineteenth century. They were Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII.
1-Pope Pius IX (1846-1878):
The first achievement of Pope Pius IX was that he re-established the Latin Patriarchate in 1847. In the view of the Uniates, he achieved the centrality of the Church of Rome through the latinization of the Eastern Churches: “In the era of Pope Pius IX, the centralized trend in the management of the Church became stronger.”[88] The Apostolic letter “Reversurus” issued on 12 July 1867 on the election of Andon Bedros IX Hassoun to the Armenian Patriarchal See, was a consecration of Rome’s centralizing trend. The most important thing contained in the Apostolic letter was that the synod of bishops may be held under the chairmanship of the patriarchs without the participation of the priests or the intervention of the faithful and that the Pope could endorse or refuse the election of the new bishops.[89] The Apostolic letter “Reversurus” caused strong reactions from the various Eastern Churches creating acute crises that undercut the good relations between the Uniates and the Apostolic See. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870) was part of the administrative policy of Pope Pius IX who sought to strengthen the influence of Rome and to assert papal infallibility.
The strongman, who was close to Pius IX and who was an expert on eastern affairs, was the Jerusalem Latin Patriarch, Valerga, who supported the principle of papal infallibility. Most bishops of the Uniates “supported the views of the Eastern Churches that it was inappropriate to declare the principle of Papal infallibility because this would widen the difference between them and the Orthodox. However, when the majority in the First Vatican Council insisted on the principle of infallibility, the Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour agreed and signed the statement issued by the First Vatican Council, but added to it a phrase which he quoted from the Council of Florence, namely, “while preserving the rights of the patriarchs.”[90]
In the view of the easterners, the First Vatican Council, which did not conclude its meetings, led to a drastic failure vis-à-vis the Eastern Churches.[91] Easterners in general do not view the era of Pius IX with much optimism. The last years of his reign were extremely tense. Until his death, major issues remained pending without solution, and eastern Catholicism suffered a crisis of confidence that involved the causes of its existence and future.[92]
2-Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903):
The age of Pope Leo XIII constituted a period of relaxation and prosperity. He displayed “a greater understanding of the conditions of the Eastern Churches.”[93] The Pope came close to the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches and worked hard to strengthen the fragile unity of the Eastern Church and to restore mutual confidence between the Uniates and the Holy See.
The easterners received the election of Pope Leo XIII with negativism and pessimism until he displayed his good intentions to have them participate in the preparation and execution of his programs that were aimed at the resurgence of the Eastern Churches. The policy of Pope Leo XIII can be summed up in his endeavors to create progress in the East with the participation of the easterners themselves. He has voiced his respect and eagerness to protect the eastern liturgy. He thus motivated the Eastern Churches to decide their goals and to consolidate their strength. This was done through several projects to develop and strengthen these Churches. The Melchite seminary was opened in Jerusalem in 1882 and the Armenian seminary in Rome in 1883.[94] As much as the First Vatican Council was the climax of the policy of Pius IX in running the Church, the International Eucharistic Congress in Jerusalem held in 1893 was the crowning of the eastern policy of Leo XIII, which was aimed at securing the progress of the Eastern Churches.
3-The International Eucharistic Congress in Jerusalem in 1893:
The International Eucharistic Congress was held in Jerusalem from 13 to 21 May 1893. Cardinal Langénieux presided over the congress as papal legate. The eight sessions of the congress were held in the Franciscan Church of St. Saviour. Some 1,000 European Catholic pilgrims came to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Land and to attend the sessions of the congress. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Luigi Piavi, the Greek Catholic, Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour, representatives of the Eastern Churches, and a number of bishops and superiors of religious congregations participated in the works of the congress. The congress was described as a mini-Church council held in the heart of the Ottoman Sultanate.[95]
The Eucharistic Congress was part of the plan and perception, which Pope Leo XIII had about the Christian east. “As soon as the Eucharist Congress was inaugurated in Jerusalem, the Apostolic See started to display its good intentions by all means to encourage the return of the Orthodox to Catholicism. Preservation of the eastern liturgy was one of the most important pillars of the policy of Pope Leo XIII.”[96] The congress can be viewed as a basic document for “organizing the relationships between the Eastern Churches and the Latin missionaries.”[97] Claude Soetens believed that the congress played an important role in the Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement and the preservation of the eastern liturgy in the Catholic Church. He proposed that the congress should be listed as a shining landmark in the history of relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, not merely as another in a series of Eucharistic Congresses. The congress did not discuss theological questions as much as it discussed eastern ecclesiastical administrative issues.[98]
Ever since his enthronement in the See of Peter, Pope Leo XIII sought to open channels of communication between the Apostolic See and the non-Catholic states, such as Czarist Russia and the Ottoman Sultanate without resorting to the traditional French role of representing Catholicism in the East. France had monopolized this rule for long centuries. Moreover, the only way for ridding the Eastern Churches from Russian hegemony was the return to Catholicism while keeping their liturgy and independence. The Pope took into consideration the existing current of latinization which the Custody of the Holy Land, the Latin Patriarchate, and the Propaganda Fide were accused of promoting. The Italian churchmen led this current. As for the current of the Eastern Churches, the Uniates, it was sponsored by the Assumptionists and was led by the French elements, particularly the White Fathers. The French felt that Propaganda Fide was inclined to get rid of the French role or to downsize it in the traditional mediation between the Church and the Ottoman authorities. The White Fathers and the Assumptionists were inclined to approach the easterners through the Uniates, not through the Latin Churches and missionaries, whose presence in the East was an infringement on the rights and independence of the Eastern Churches.
On the political level, the Catholic states were afraid of the increasing French influence in the Ottoman arena at their expense through the Eucharist Congress and the eastern Catholic policy sponsored by the French. On the ecclesiastical level, the congress achieved its goal of granting the Uniates their role in ecclesiastical work in the East, perhaps at the expense of the Latin institutions, whose activity Leo XIII tried to restrain.
The goal of the congress in achieving Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement failed because the congress could not attract the Orthodox Churches to Catholicism. These Churches suspected the good intentions of the Apostolic See, and were afraid that the Uniates proposal was an alternative or a new image of the Latin Churches and missionaries in the East.
Pope Leo XIII continued his eastern policy after the conclusion of the Eucharist Congress by holding a synod in Rome for the eastern bishops from 24 November until 14 December 1894. It was tantamount to a “summit conference.”[99], [100] The synod held eight sessions. The Pope chaired most of these sessions. Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour requested the formation of a special council for the Eastern Churches independent from the Propaganda Fide. The Pope approved his request by the formation of the “Permanent Committee of Cardinals” on 19 March 1895 to work on ecumenical issues and to look into the situation of the Eastern Churches. The Apostolic Letter “Orientalium Dignitas” was issued on 30 November 1894. The Apostolic Letter was compatible with the general line of Vatican policy in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, which urged support for the Eastern Churches.
The eastern policy of Pope Leo XIII enabled the Melchite Greek Catholic Church to further develop and grow as the Eastern Churches began to receive the care and support of the Apostolic See. Palestine had its share of the progress which prevailed in the Melchite Church. Patriarch Clement I Bahous was then enthroned as Patriarch of Antioch (1856-1864). During his reign, the crisis of adopting the Gregorian calendar by the Melchites erupted. As for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour, he renewed the schools, built new schools, constructed well over 20 churches, and ordained 11 bishops. He also organized the dioceses and formed new ones. He was a contemporary of Pope Leo XIII.
4-Patriarchal Vicars in Jerusalem:[101]
Nine dignitaries occupied the post of Patriarchal Vicar of Antioch, in Jerusalem, in the nineteenth century. All of them were Syrians or Lebanese.
1-Father Elias Kattan: (1846-1874). He was the first Patriarchal Vicar who was appointed by Patriarch Mazlum.
2-Bishop Ambrosios Abdo: (1875-1876). He was ordained bishop of the Jerusalem Vicariate in 1860. He resided in Jerusalem without exercising his episcopal powers as vicar. In 1866 he was transferred to Zahleh. After the death of Vicar Elias Kattan (1846-1874), Bishop Ambrosios Abdo officially held the post of Vicar of Jerusalem in 1875-1876. He was then vicar for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour.
3-Father Youssef Khawam: (1876-1880). He was vicar for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour.
4-Father Agnatius Moaqad: (1881-1886). He was the vicar for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour. In his era, the White Fathers opened St. Anne Seminary (al-Salahia) and the Melchites bought the sixth station of the Via Dolorosa in 1883. The parishes of Nablus and al-Ramla were opened in 1885. In the same year, the parish of Nablus was closed down.
5-Father Raphael Zolhof: (1886). He was acting vicar for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour.
6-Archimandrite Basilios Amara: (1886-1889). He was acting vicar for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour. In his era, the missions of Beit Jala and Bethlehem were opened and then closed down.
7-Exarch Philippe Mallouk: (1890-1895). He was vicar for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour. The missions of Beit Sahor and Taybeh were opened and closed down; the Eucharistic Congress of Jerusalem was held in 1893 in his era.
8-Father Youssef Cadi: (1895-1898). He was vicar for Patriarch Gregorios II Youssef Sayour and was promoted to Metropolitan of the Aleppo See in 1903. He was elected Patriarch of the Antioch See in 1919 and carried the name of Dimitrios I Cadi.
9-Exarch Philippe Mallouk (1899-1903). He was acting vicar for Patriarch Peter IV Geraigiry (1898-1902). The parish of Ramallah was opened during his era.
5-St. Anne Seminary (Al-Salahia):
The St. Anne Church, the seminary and the convent of the White Fathers are located east of Jerusalem within the walls, near the Gate of the Tribes, north of the al-Aqsa Mosque in a vast area popularly known as al-Salahia.[102] Patriarchs Valerga and Mazlum wished to obtain al-Salahia to build their premises on it, but their efforts failed. “Following the Crimean war of 1856 in which our state, namely, the Ottoman Sultanate scored victory over Russia, an Ottoman firman was issued granting the French the home of St. Anne site of the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.”[103] The French government started to do restoration work on the old ruins from 1870-1877. Monsignor Charles Martial Lavigerie[104], archbishop of Algiers and founder of the White Fathers, was offered to have his priests supervise the French site: “Agreement was reached by the two sides that the St. Anne Church should be considered as French territory and that 12 priests of the White Fathers should serve it. The French government would pay them an annual salary amounting to 12,000 francs. The White Fathers were requested to establish an Institute for biblical and archeological Studies.”[105]
On 1 October 1878, four White Fathers came to Jerusalem and took over the St. Anne Church. On 26 July 1879, Latin Patriarch Vincenzo Bracco inaugurated the restored St. Anne Church. When Lavigerie visited Jerusalem in 1878, the Latin Patriarch, Vincenzo Bracco, received him as the convent of the White Fathers was within the powers of his episcopal jurisdiction. The French consul handed the keys of the convent to Lavigerie. The cardinal displayed respect and appreciation of the Eastern Churches and their liturgy and defended their independence. He viewed the promotion of the Latin liturgy among the followers of the Eastern Churches as an infringement on their powers. He warned his priests against going along with the trend of latinization. According to Lavigerie: “The latinization of the followers of the Eastern Churches was a grave danger which the Latin missionaries to the East made. The latinization trend would not have any chance of success in the coming days.”[106] Lavigerie loved and supported the Eastern Churches. “The early White Fathers in Jerusalem were content with studying the existing situation and collecting information in accordance with the recommendation of their founder.”[107]
Lavigerie committed himself to the agreement concluded with the French government. However, he did not display any enthusiasm for the project of opening an institute for biblical and archeological studies. It was the Dominicans who undertook to carry out such a project in their famous École Biblique. Lavigerie thought about establishing an eastern seminary run by the White Fathers. The White Fathers in Jerusalem submitted several ideas, such as a hospital, or an orphanage, or an agricultural school, or caring for the Christians of Trans Jordan, or establishing an eastern seminary. The White fathers showed special interest in the last idea, because the conditions of the eastern clergy drew their attention.[108]
In June 1880, Patriarch Gregorios I Youssef Sayour visited Jerusalem and offered the project of the seminary to the superior of the White Fathers: “If you wanted to gather in this home of yours some eastern boys to prepare and teach them to become in the future Catholics teachers or priests, you would be doing one of the greatest services for the East.”[109] The proposal was conveyed to Lavigerie. It was in line with his wishes and aspirations.[110]
The project was submitted to the French government, which owned St. Anne premises. The French government declared its satisfaction with the project. The project was in line with the aspirations of the French government in spreading the French language and influence. Therefore, it gave the necessary loans for opening the institute, which was viewed as a French school.[111]
On the ecclesiastical level, Rome did not object to having an eastern seminary run by the White Fathers. Propaganda Fide issued an edict on 18 March 1882 in this regard. It announced the independence of the White Fathers convent from the episcopal territorial jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarch and explained that the convent would be directly attached to Rome, for the time being, through the Apostolic Delegation in Syria. The Apostolic Delegate in Syria then was the Franciscan Piavi. In the same year of 1881, Monsignor Lavigerie was granted the rank of cardinal. Therefore, he asked the Apostolic See “to have the St. Anne convent directly attached to him, and his request was granted.”[112] Thus the White Fathers convent was directly attached to Rome through the cardinal. The title chosen by Father Charon (Karalevskij) for his book on the seminary reveals the nature of the formation of the seminary and its management. The title reads as follows: “The Melchite Catholic Seminary, St. Anne in Jerusalem, a monograph of an eastern rite seminary, under the management of the Latins.”[113]
On 2 December 1882, the school year was started at the seminary with 20 students. They were divided into two classes who were tutored by five teachers. The early seminarians lived in the Patriarchal Vicariate until the seminary’s building within the complex of the St. Anne Church was completed. So the students moved into the seminary in December 1883. The White Fathers bought a house in Ain Karem where the students could spend their summer vacation. In 1886, five students shifted to the study of philosophy in the grand seminary. French was the language of instruction.
In 1890, the seminary began to produce fruit by ordaining the early graduates, namely Alexi Aqel and Theodore Sayegh. The years of study at the seminary, both minor and major, became 13 instead of 10 years. The following subjects were taught at the minor seminary: Arabic, French, Latin, Greek, history, geography, science, and Church singing. The daily language used was the French.[114] As for the courses taught at the major seminary, they were philosophy and dogmatic, moral and pastoral theology, spirituality, biblical studies, canon law, Church history, liturgy, Byzantine Church singing, and rhetoric. There were 78 students in the minor seminary in 1896, 101 students in 1902, and 110 students in 1909. Moreover, there were some 30-35 students in the major seminary. The total number of graduates until 1909 was 79 priests and deacons, or 16 per cent of the students who joined the seminary.[115] Students from the various parts of the Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem joined the seminary. Most graduate priests were parish priests and a few of them were monks. The number of the beneficiaries of the followers of the Jerusalem Patriarchal Vicariate of the services of the seminary was limited or non-existent, because the Melchite Greek Catholics in Jerusalem consisted of a few followers only.
The nomination of students by the bishops and the heads of religious congregations was the basis of enrollment in the seminary. The selection of candidates was done during the annual tour of the parishes and monasteries by one of the White Fathers. Some 20 to 30 seminary students joined the seminary every year. Admission to the seminary was done in September. The students of the seminary maintained their eastern liturgy. Supervisors of the seminary enacted a law prohibiting the transfer of eastern students to the Society of the White Fathers in order to protect the interests of the Melchite Church and so as the students would not leak to Western societies or dioceses. The White Fathers residing in Jerusalem obtained in 1896 a bi-ritual dispensation from the Apostolic See to hold mass according to the Byzantine liturgy; earlier a Melchite priest held the mass for the students.[116]
E- Census of the Greek Catholics in Palestine in the early twentieth century:
This census covers the Jerusalem Patriarchal Vicariate. Northern Palestine is not included, as it was attached to the bishopric of Tyre, and some figures were reported on it earlier. As for Jordan, known as the diocese of Petra and Philadelphia, it was established in 1932, so it is not included in the census.
The source of these figures was Father Charon (Karalevskij). “I myself made the census for Palestine for the year 1906-1907. The sources of my information are diverse, most of it was personal, private and well scanned. I can guarantee the authenticity of this information.”[117] The most important figures available in the said census were the following:[118]
1-Jerusalem: It had two churches served by one priest and a Salvatorian monk. There were 100 faithful there.
2-Jaffa: Its church was built in 1901 in place of an old church that was built in the era of Patriarch Mazlum. There were 500 faithful.
3-Bethlehem: The parish was established in 1885. It was cancelled and re-established in 1902. There was a church under construction, and the number of faithful reached 180.
4-Beit Sahor: It had a church and a priest with 40 faithful.
5-Ramallah: It had a church, served by a Salvatorian monk, with 70 faithful.
6-Al-Ramla: It had a church, served by a Salvatorian monk, with 35 faithful.
7-Taybeh: It had a church served by a priest with 35 faithful. The two missions of Beit Jala and Nablus were opened in 1885 and then closed.
-The total number of churches was eight.
-The total number of priests was eight. These included two married parish priests, two celibate parish priests, and four Salvatorian monks.
-The number of faithful was 1,105, including the seminarians in Jerusalem.
-There was one seminary in Jerusalem, which was founded in 1882.
-There were no schools for boys or girls. “Our denomination had no schools in the Jerusalem diocese. The small numbers of the congregations in most places precludes the opening of schools.”[119] Thus the total number of Greek Catholics in the various parts of the Antiochene Patriarchate and in the diaspora reached 144,791 faithful in 1907.[120], [121]
Conclusion
Catholic means universal. Catholic is one of the four distinctive characteristics of Church in the Nicene Creed, “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” In Palestine, Catholicism embraced several Churches, peoples and denomination. The Catholic Church in the Holy Land had diverse forms and leaderships. However, it was united in its one Catholic and Apostolic faith. There were the Custody of the Holy Land and the Latin Patriarchate. The Custody of the Holy Land was part of the Latin Patriarchate on matters related to the parishes and affairs of the parishioners. However, it was semi-independent when it came to the Holy Places or to its internal organization or monastic life. There were the Churches of the Greek Catholics, the Armenian Catholics, the Syriac Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Maronites and the Chaldeans. The faith was the same and the reference to Rome is one. However, on the local level, there was the liturgical pluralism and multiplicity of leaderships compared to the area of the country or the number of the population in general, and consequently, the number of Christians compared to the total population, and finally to the Catholics of this population.
The nineteenth century placed its final touches on this pluralism within the Catholic Church, which tried not to melt these groups in its pot to form a unified Church organization. Pluralism in the Catholic Church in Palestine was the product of historic events that occurred in the past centuries. The last of these were in the nineteenth century with its religious and political aspects. Meanwhile, pluralism did not mean division or split, at least it is not supposed to, but rather diversity in unity. Since the apostolic age, the Church has been cherishing these sublime ideals. Unity was the wish of the Lord Jesus: “Holy Father, keep those you have given me true to your name, so that they may be one like us” (John 17:11). As for diversity, it was part of the nature of man, whom God created in his image in love, understanding and spirituality. However, peoples were distinct in their traits, colors, and habits. Thus each group of faithful throughout the ages brought in its cultural and liturgical heritage to enrich the great treasure of the Church and to share with other groups what it had of the new expressions, tunes, organization and liturgy within the one belief and the one baptism.
The Holy See coordinated among these groups and sponsored their affairs through the Apostolic Delegation in Syria until 1929 when Pope Pius XI (1939-1958) separated Palestine from the Syrian Apostolic Delegation and attached it to the Apostolic Delegation in Cairo through a representative in Palestine. On 11 February 1948, Pope Pius XII formed the Apostolic Delegation in Jerusalem. The powers of the Apostolic Delegate extended to Palestine, Jordan and Cyprus. Monsignor Gustavo Testa (1948-1957) was the first to occupy this post.[122] ,[123]