www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Detroit Church will be a Mosque

Shlomo Aho SamB,

I find it interesting that you do point out that:


This is a point that I had made also, in explaining why there is some anthesis between Byzantines (non-Arab) and the other Christian communities of the Middle East. Just as the Slavic and Hellenic Byzantines have repeated for the Roman Church to apoligize for the sins of the past; many from those Churches refuse too apologize to us for the sins they have committed in the past.

Many here do not realize that because of those past sins, Islam was able to spread in the Middle East.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Peace and Love!

I find it a great grief to have to say what follows, but truth has a claim.

The sad truth is that the greatest imposition of a non-indigenous liturgical tradition on the Christians of the Middle East is exemplified by the Maronites. Internalized oppression is the worst of all.

When all is said and done, the Byzantine liturgical tradition is largely developed from Antioch and Jerusalem; the Byzantine Liturgy is native to the Middle East.

At Kashlik about 10 years ago I attended a Mass (that's what they called it) celebrated by the Maronite Patriarch - by way of introduction we were proudly told that this was the authentic Antiochian Liturgy as it had been in the eighth century. The Maronite Patriarch then came in, vested in a Latin cope and an enormous Renaissance mitre and proceeded to offer this Mass "facing the people". Eighth-century Antioch? Not bloomin' likely!

I am a Greek-Catholic and I apologize to no one for that. But neither am I about to take the blame for what some Christians of the Middle East still regard as Constantinopolitan intrusions on them; Greek moved in on Antioch and Jerusalem long after the Great Schism.

I could go on at great and boring length, but the topic is utterly sad and boring into the bargain. Today, now, we are facing the consequences of those who chose the Turkish turban over the Emperor's crown or the Pope's tiara; it is time for Christians in the Middle East to stand together. In fact it is past time.

Father Serge

Shlomo Abuna Serge,

First, truth is never sad. The Latinization of the Maronite Church was done by us to prove our loyality to the ideal of Catholicism. It was wrong, but we are changing that now. That is why we are just had our first Holy Synod in more than 300 years and the first order of business is to reform our liturgy back to its original.

And I agree with your point about the Byzantine Tradition coming out of the Jerusalem and Antiochene Traditions, you can definately see the difference in that Liturgy and that of the Syriac Orthodox which is the most authentic of the Antiochene Churches.

The point being made is not that the Byzantine Liturgy is not from the Middle East, it is just as SamB (who is also a Greek-Catholic) pointed out it was imposed by force of arms on the Christians of the region as the only legitimate Liturgy in which to praise the Lord.

The point that I and others are making Abuna is that all groups do have issues with other Christian groups, but if Eastern Orthodoxy is going to insist on apologies from Roman for the pass, then they need to do what they preach to those they have offended.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Yuhannon,
I fully agree that the Eastern Orthodox have some apologies to make.
As to the Maronite Latinizations, some of them were self-imposed; others were, alas, imposed by Rome or by Roman emissaries.
The claim that the Byzantine Liturgy was imposed by force of arms is new to me. Can you provide some details?

Alas, truth is frequently sad. But without truth, sadness multiplies.

Now about those icons . . .

Fr. Serge

No disputes here. Like I said, the Byzantine traditions and liturgies developed from Antiochian traditions and liturgical uses, which in turn draws us back to Jerusalem. And prior to Melchite (in the old sense) Antioch finally adopting the liturgies of Constantinople (sometime after the turn of the 2nd millennium, I would think and in their developed forms, as the primitive form of the Basilian liturgy was native to Antioch, no?), the Antiochian tradition as held onto by the Melchites had a space of centuries (following Chalcedon) to develop its own way (and perhaps in turn influence and shape the Byzantine tradition, though it seems that the most influence came from Antioch prior to Chalcedon) distinctly from the manner in which it continued under the custody of the Suryanis. One may stop and consider that St. John Damascene who is credited with establishing the octo-echos, the backbone of Byzantine musicology, lived during a time before Melchite Antioch had adopted the Byzantine rite. So yes, I am in agreement with you in that the evolution of Byzantine tradition harkens back to Antioch, its parent rite.

The Syrian Orthodox (Suryanis) are those whose church possesses the most genuine form of the Antiochian rite as we know it today. Today's Maronites, and no disrespect intended, due to their special, historical relations with Rome and the lack of an Orthodox counterpart, are one of, if not the most hybridised and romanised amongst Eastern Catholics. This includes both traditional latinisations and N.O.-isms such as the versus populum posture in certain cases which has been used by the patriarch. What is at present being planned for moving towards a positive liturgical direction is of course knowledge that Yuhan'non is best qualified to give.

I will make clear that Byzantine Christians in these parts do not consider themselves C'ople-ised or in possession of an alien or compromised rite. They are, as I said (and as I am myself) staunchly and proudly Antiochian (vis a vis church, apostolic throne, and history) and Byzantine (and can easily be so, given the rite's roots here, and the contribution of saints from our lands to its emerging form). Unlike the case with Suryanis and Copts (and they have valid reasons which I do not dispute), there is no historical grudge or hostile sentiment (not meaning present sentiment -- all churches have cordial relations of course -- but historical sentiment) directed by Arab Rum against Constantinople (except perhaps -- and Jerusalem's monastic brotherhood is more the primary target -- in relation to the oecumenical throne's part in the ethnic Greek captivity of the Antiochian Orthodox patriarchal throne following the Melchite/Orthodox split, which helped to forge a stronger and very special relationship with the Russian Church which assisted the Antiochians immensely during that time). Furthermore, as 'Rum' we historically recognised our ties to the emperors, were of an Hellenistic (do not read Greek nationalism into this whatsoever) milieu and heritage and considered ourselves Romaioi. Also, there is no historical memory or, upon the part of an average believer today, knowledge of being Byzantinised once upon a time. It doesn't factor in, for our rite is not a different one with Byzantine trappings and intrusions (similar to Eastern Catholic churches' rites battling it out with Latin infusions, forced or otherwise, trying to preserve themselves but that are still their own rites that cannot be considered technically replaced by the Latin rite), but fully Byzantine, and ritually speaking as far as we're concerned, even though historically, yes, the Byzantine liturgy was adopted (and doing this, whether by forceful means or at all for that matter, was wrong) at the expense of and to replace the Antiochian and Alexandrine liturgies and rites, it (the Byzantine) is first of all, our rite, now and has been so for close to a thousand years (i.e. the past is history whether we choose to accept this or not), regardless of what means were used to have it take the place of what had existed prior, and second, the Antiochian heritage and rite that was cultivated over the centuries is in good measure present in the roots of this Byzantine rite which itself was also formed in part by our Antiochian saints. We cannot say this though with regards to the Byzantine Alexandrines, whose lost Coptic patrimony does not underlie the Byzantine rite they adopted eventually. In any case, the fact that the Coptic and Antiochian rites are preserved today by Copts and Suryanis to the best degree that is possible today (though nothing remains today in some 'pristine' form) is a boon for Christianity. Of course these rites also took on their own unique direction of development under the non-Chalcedonians -- consider for one that, the Coptic and Syriac liturgical texts were originally in Greek (I am not at all saying that Syriac and Coptic texts and prayer were later, post-schism introductions into the rites), and that following the split, one side (and yet the Chalcedonian Maronites used no Greek as far as I know) used Greek generally (but apparently still also made extensive use of the native tongue) and the other exclusively or almost exclusively Coptic or Syriac, and produced newer versions of the original Syriac and Coptic liturgies. Also notice that the Armenian rite during the Crusader periods was influenced by the Franks, and this explains the mitres Armenian bishops wear today.

I think that now since Christendom has vanished from this globe and feuding Christian kingdoms and empires, which helped in bringing about Christian schisms, have passed away, we can go about cultivating better relations with each other as apostolic Christians worldwide. In the Middle East, despite historical prejudices (and they will remain), we're co-operating with each other much better than before, since we are a minority facing the challenges of a modern era together.

Seems to be the case in perhaps every Eastern Catholic Church, no?

Speaking for myself, I only remember reading somewhere that the rite was somehow enforced, though I did not specify whether this was by arms or by directive. I'll have to fact check for myself. In the meantime, I quickly found something from the Catholic Encyclopaedia that gives an idea, though note that it is an early 20th century entry that carries with it a strong polemical tone against the Byzantines. With that in mind, it appears upon reading this that the Antiochian patriarchs' habit of residing in the imperial capital and their close proximity to the imperial court brought about one patriarch's imposition of the city's rite on his flock.

But already a much more important change in the liturgy of the Melchites had taken place. We have seen that the most characteristic note of these communities was their dependence on Constantinople. That was the difference between them and their old rivals the Monophysites, long after the quarrel about the nature of Christ had practically been forgotten. The Monophysites, isolated from the rest of Christendom, kept the old rites of Alexandria and Antioch-Jerusalem pure. They still use these rites in the old languages (Coptic and Syriac). The Melchites on the other hand submitted to Byzantine influence in their liturgies. The Byzantine litanies (Synaptai), the service of the Ptoskomide and other elements were introduced into the Greek Alexandrine Rite before the twelfth or thirteenth centuries; so also in Syria and Palestine the Melchites admitted a number of Byzantine elements into their services (Charon, op. Cit., 9-25).

Then in the thirteenth century came the final change. The Melchites gave up their old rites altogether and adopted that of Constantinople. Theodore IV (Balsamon) of Antioch (1185-1214?) marks the date of this change. The crusaders held Antioch in his name, so he retired to Constantinople and lived there under the shadow of the Ecumenical Patriarch. While he was there he adopted the Byzantine Rite. In 1203, Mark II of Alexandria (1195-c.1210) wrote to Theodore asking various questions about the liturgy. Theodore in his answer insists onn; both churches received the usual terms granted to Christians; they became two sects of Rayas under the Moslem Khalifa, both were equally persecuted during the repeated outbursts of Moslem fanaticism, of which the reign of Al-Hakim in Egypt (996-1021) is the best known instance. In the tenth century part of Syria was conquered back by the empire (Antioch reconquered in 968-969, lost again to the Seljuk Turks in 1078-1081). This caused for a time a revival of the Melchites and an increase of enthusiasm for Constantinople and everything Greek among them. Under the Moslems the characteristic notes of both churches became, if possible, stronger. The Monophysites (Copts and Jacobites) sank into isolated local sects. On the other hand, the Melchite minorities clung all the more to their union with the great church that reigned free and dominant in the empire. This expressed itself chiefly in loyalty to Constantinople Rome and the West were far off; the immediate object of their devotion was the emperor's court an the use of Constantinople as the only right one, for all the Orthodox, and Mark undertook to adopt it (P.G., CXXXVIII, 935 sq.) When Thheodosius IV of Antioch (1295-1276) was able to set up his throne again in his own city he imposed the Byzantine Rite on all his clergy. At Jerusalem the old liturgy disappeared at about the same time. (Charon, op. Cit., 11-12, 21, 23).

We have then for the liturgies of the Melchites these periods: first the old national rites in Greek, but also in the languages of the country, especially in Syria and Palestine, gradually Byzantinized till the thirteenth century. Then the Byzantine Rite alone in Greek in Egypt, in Greek and Syriac in Syria and Palestine, with gradually increasing use of Arabic to the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Lastly the same rite in Arabic only by the natives, in Greek by the foreign (Greek) patriarchs and bishops.

Shlomo Abuna Serge,

I am a big believe in Truth. That is why I have pressed my fellow Maronites to recognize the Sins we did against the Palestinians, and are still doing to them.

Some good sources would be Syriac Orthodox & Catholic websites, and Coptic Orthodox websites of the very same. Also you would read Walid Phares' book [B]Lebanese Christian Nationalism: The Rise and Fall of an Ethnic Resistance.[B]

I will try to get more resources for you to go over.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Ya hala, Yuhannon. Yes, I agree that there remain transgressions by the sword on the part of the hand of imperial authority cloaked in religious justification that are still uncomfortably swept under the rug today by those whose ancestors in religious affiliation were victimised but who yet also left behind victims. I like that it helps to, dispel the phoney category of a pure victim class (especially when the members of such a class are proposed to be ruling states) from our minds as we reflect back on history.

That is a most true statement.

As to Egypt, the pitiful remnant today of Byzantine Alexandria is hardly even enough to remind us of what was. For the Greek-Catholics, it will soon vanish, barring divine intervention (though it is never safe to bar divine intervention); for the Greek Orthodox, the future lies, surely, in the work in sub-Saharan Africa.

If you wish to see just how sad it is, go, as I have done, to the huge and beautiful Greek-Catholic Cathedral in Cairo for the Divine Liturgy on Pentecost Sunday - there might be as many as three dozen people, but don't count on it. Then, to cheer up, go to the enormous Coptic Orthodox Cathedral at Anba Ruis (not far from the Greek-Catholic Cathedral); it's the biggest Christian Church in Africa and it will be jam-packed on Pentecost. Then go on Pentecost Sunday evening to the Coptic Catholic Cathedral, which will be full to the doors. The Syrian Catholic Cathedral also has a good-sized congregation. Didn't have a chance to stop in on the Maronites, the Armenians or the Chaldeans, but packing all this into one Sunday does have its limitations.

Patriarch Maximos V of most holy memory once told me that of all the Christians in Egypt, we have the best relations with the Coptic Orthodox Church - and Pope Shenhouda confirmed this when I had an opportunity to meet with him in Cairo.

If there is any Eastern Catholic Local Church anywhere which has not suffered some ill effects from Latinizations, I have yet to find it (and, as you can gather, I have looked in many places). The best analysis I know of is still Cyril Korolevsky's Uniatism, which I translated from French into English. [Fr. Cyril Korolevsky and Fr. Francois Charon are, of course, the same person.]

But there are degrees of this, and that must be taken into account. I mentioned the Syrian Catholic church in Cairo - it's relatively new, which means that the altar is "facing the people" (and the evening I was there I was treated to the not-entirely-welcome sound of a hymn to Our Lady of Lourdes being sung in Arabic!). However, when a Syro-Malankara hierarch served the Qorbono recently on EWTN, he insisted on facing the liturgical East, even though the altar in that chapel is normally arranged for the "facing the people" thing. Father Pacwa then proceeded - on the air - to tell the Hierarch and the viewers that it makes no difference whether we use leavened or unleavened bread!

Right here in Dublin, quite recently, I was invited to come and concelebrate with a Maronite priest from London who was visiting with a view to organizing a Maronite congregation here. Lovely - until I arrived at the chapel where I was expecting to find the Maronite Liturgy. The priest served the Roman Mass in English, explaining to me that most of the people who were coming were unfamiliar with the Maronite Liturgy. I wish I was making that up, but I am not.

But I don't want to pursue this polemic - in my experience it leads nowhere except to emotional accusations of "Byzantine chauvinism" Since I'm the only person I know who claims to be a Byzantine chauvinist, that seems a bit odd, but what can we do?

What we can and should do at the moment is put this polemic aside for a while, and get on with the challenge of surviving in the face of the Moslems.

Fr. Serge

the key words here are "rumored"

I would have rather that the church had been razed and turned into a parking lot and not this unspeakable sacrilege.Jesus Christ is the way to life, Islam is the way to eternal damnation.
Much Love,
Jonn