Is it true that the Melkite Church never broke off from Rome?

[DeusExMachina]

I read somewhere that the Patriarch of Antioch never actually recognized the East-West Schism. I also read that there had been contact between dominicans and antioch as early as the 1300’s, and that one of the Patriarchs in the 17th century was trained under the Jesuits and made a catholic confession of a half-century before reunion with Rome. Is any of this true?

 

[porthos11]

It is the the Maronite Church that never broke from Rome, although contact was lost for centuries.

The Melkite reunion with Rome was a result of a schism in 1724 stemming from the election of Cyril VI as the Greek Orthodox (Melkite) Patriarch of Antioch. Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople deposed him and appointed Sylvester as Patriarch in his place.

Rome recognized Cyril’s claim and that he and his followers were in full communion with the Roman Church. This is the beginning of the reunion between the Melkites and the Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

I read somewhere that the Patriarch of Antioch never actually recognized the East-West Schism. I also read that there had been contact between dominicans and antioch as early as the 1300’s, and that one of the Patriarchs in the 17th century was trained under the Jesuits and made a catholic confession of a half-century before reunion with Rome. Is any of this true?

There were three at the time, if you are thinking of 1054 A.D. Which are you thinking of?

• Syriac Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) - from 512 A.D.
• Greek Orthodox (Chalcedonian) - from 518 A.D.
• Maronite - from 686 A.D.

 

[DeusExMachina]

greek orthodox

 

[fin]

Based on this article by Deacon Robert Spencer, it was the Maronite that didn’t break off.

crisismagazine.com/2011/we-are-non-roman-catholics

 

[Vico]

greek orthodox

The Melchite patriarchs under Moslem rule became insignificant people, while the power of the Patriarach of Constantinople grew steadily. So, looking always to the capital for guidance, they gradually accepted the position of being his dependents, almost suffragans. When the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” it was not his Melchite brothers who protested. This attitude explains their share in his schism. The quarrels between Photius and Pope Nicholas I, between Michael Cerularius and Leo IX were not their affair; they hardly understood what was happening. But naturally, almost inevitably, when the schism broke out, in spite of some protests [Peter III of Antioch (1053-1076?) protested vehemently against Cerularius’s schism; see Fortescue, Orthodox Eastern Church, 189-192], the Melchites followed their leader, and when orders came from Constantinople to strike the pope’s name from their diptychs they quietly obeyed.
…

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 and the emperor’s patriarch. The Melchite patriarchs under Moslem rule became insignificant people, while the power of the Patriarach of Constantinople grew steadily. So, looking always to the capital for guidance, they gradually accepted the position of being his dependents, almost suffragans. When the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” it was not his Melchite brothers who protested. This attitude explains their share in his schism. The quarrels between Photius and Pope Nicholas I, between Michael Cerularius and Leo IX were not their affair; they hardly understood what was happening. But naturally, almost inevitably, when the schism broke out, in spite of some protests [Peter III of Antioch (1053-1076?) protested vehemently against Cerularius’s schism; see Fortescue, Orthodox Eastern Church, 189-192], the Melchites followed their leader, and when orders came from Constantinople to strike the pope’s name from their diptychs they quietly obeyed.

Fortescue, A. (1911). Melchites. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/10157b.htm

 

[Peter_J]

In 1724, the Antiochian-Melkite Orthodox Church split into the Melkite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Until recent times, Melkites claimed that we were the true continuation of the Antiochian-Melkite Orthodox Church (and hence they-left-us) but nowadays we take a more symmetric view of the split.

In any event, it is certainly true that the Melkite Church has been in full communion with Rome continuously since 1724.

 

[DeusExMachina]

The Melchite patriarchs under Moslem rule became insignificant people, while the power of the Patriarach of Constantinople grew steadily. So, looking always to the capital for guidance, they gradually accepted the position of being his dependents, almost suffragans. When the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” it was not his Melchite brothers who protested. This attitude explains their share in his schism. The quarrels between Photius and Pope Nicholas I, between Michael Cerularius and Leo IX were not their affair; they hardly understood what was happening. But naturally, almost inevitably, when the schism broke out, in spite of some protests [Peter III of Antioch (1053-1076?) protested vehemently against Cerularius’s schism; see Fortescue, Orthodox Eastern Church, 189-192], the Melchites followed their leader, and when orders came from Constantinople to strike the pope’s name from their diptychs they quietly obeyed.
…

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 and the emperor’s patriarch. The Melchite patriarchs under Moslem rule became insignificant people, while the power of the Patriarach of Constantinople grew steadily. So, looking always to the capital for guidance, they gradually accepted the position of being his dependents, almost suffragans. When the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” it was not his Melchite brothers who protested. This attitude explains their share in his schism. The quarrels between Photius and Pope Nicholas I, between Michael Cerularius and Leo IX were not their affair; they hardly understood what was happening. But naturally, almost inevitably, when the schism broke out, in spite of some protests [Peter III of Antioch (1053-1076?) protested vehemently against Cerularius’s schism; see Fortescue, Orthodox Eastern Church, 189-192], the Melchites followed their leader, and when orders came from Constantinople to strike the pope’s name from their diptychs they quietly obeyed.

Fortescue, A. (1911). Melchites. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/10157b.htm

Interesting… so, correct me if Im wrong, but one of their reasons fro staying orthodox as long as they did was simply because of Byzantium’s political muscle?

 

[Vico]

Interesting… so, correct me if Im wrong, but one of their reasons fro staying orthodox as long as they did was simply because of Byzantium’s political muscle?

Unity with the King and Church, the article also has:

Melk is Syriac for king (Hebrew melek, Arab. malik). The word is used in all the Semitic languages for the Roman Emperor, like the Greek basileus. By adding the Greek ending — ites we have the form melkites, equal to basilikos.

 

[Peter_J]

Right. Hence it was applied to those who adhere to the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[DeusExMachina]

In 1724, the Antiochian-Melkite Orthodox Church split into the Melkite Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Until recent times, Melkites claimed that we were the true continuation of the Antiochian-Melkite Orthodox Church (and hence they-left-us) but nowadays we take a more symmetric view of the split.

In any event, it is certainly true that the Melkite Church has been in full communion with Rome continuously since 1724.

This may have been what I was thinking of