Melchites

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(Melkites).

Origin and name

Melchites are the people ofSyria, Palestine, andEgypt who remained faithful to theCouncil of Chalcedon (451) when the greater part turnedMonophysite.

The original meaning of the name therefore is an opposition to Monophysism. TheNestorians had their communities in easternSyria till the Emperor Zeno (474-491) closed theirschool atEdessa in 489, and drove them over the frontier intoPersia. The people of westernSyria, Palestine, andEgypt were either Melchites who accepted Chalcedon, orMonophysites (also calledJacobites inSyria and Palestine,Copts inEgypt) who rejected it, till theMonothelite heresy in the seventh century further complicated the situation. But Melchite remained the name for those who were faithful to the great Church,Catholic and Orthodox, till the Schism of Photius (867) andCerularius (1054) again divided them. From that time there have been two kinds of Melchites in these countries, theCatholic Melchites who kept the communion ofRome, andschismatical (Orthodox) Melchites who followed Constantinople and the great mass ofeastern Christians intoschism. Although the name has been and still is occasionally used for both these groups, it is now commonly applied only to the Eastern-RiteCatholics. For the sake of clearness it is better to keep to this use; the nameOrthodox is sufficient for the others, whereas among the many groups ofCatholics, Latin and Eastern, of various rites, we need a special name for this group. It would be, indeed, still more convenient if we could call all Byzantine-RiteCatholics "Melchite." But such a use of the word has never obtained. One could not with any propriety callRuthenians, the EasternCatholics of southernItaly or Rumania, Melchites. One must therefore keep the name for those ofSyria, Palestine, andEgypt, all of whom speak Arabic.

We define a Melchite then as anyChristian of these lands in communion withRome, Constantinople, and the great Church of the Empire before the Photianschism, or as aChristian of the Byzantine Rite in communion withRome since. As the word implied opposition to theMonophysites originally, so it now marks the distinction between these people and all schismatics on the one hand, between them and Latins orCatholics of other rites (Maronites,Armenians,Syrians, etc.) on the other. The name is easily explained philologically. It is aSemitic (presumably Syriac) root with a Greek ending, meaningimperialist.Melk is Syriac for king (Hebrewmelek,Arab.malik). The word is used in all theSemitic languages for the Roman Emperor, like the Greekbasileus. By adding the Greek ending —ites we have the formmelkites, equal tobasilikos. It should be noted that the third radical of theSemitic root iskaf: there is no guttural. Therefore the correct form of the word isMelkite, rather than the usual form Melchite. The pure Syriac word ismalkoyo (Arab.malakiyyu; vulgar,milkiyyu).

History before the Schism

The decrees of the Fourth General Council (Chalcedon, 451) were unpopular inSyria and still more inEgypt. Monophysism began as an exaggeration of the teaching ofSt. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), theEgyptian national hero, against Nestorius. In theCouncil of Chalcedon the Egyptians and their friends inSyria saw a betrayal of Cyril, a concession toNestorianism. Still more did national, anti-imperial feeling cause opposition to it. The Emperor Marcian (450-457) made the Faith of Chalcedon thelaw of the empire. Laws passed on 27 February and again on 13 March, 452, enforced the decrees of the council and threatened heavy penalties against dissenters. From that time Dyophysism was the religion of the court, identified with loyalty to the emperor. In spite of the compromising concessions of later emperors, the Faith of Chalcedon was always looked upon as the religion of the state, demanded and enforced on all subjects of Caesar. So the long-smouldering disloyalty of these two provinces broke out in the form of rebellion against Chalcedon. For centuries (till theArab conquest) Monophysism was the symbol of nationalEgyptian and Syrian patriotism. The root of the matter was always political. The people ofEgypt andSyria, keeping their own languages and their consciousness of being separate races, had never been really amalgamated with the Empire, originally Latin, now fast becoming Greek. They had no chance of political independence, theirhatred ofRome found a vent in thistheological question. The cry of thefaith of Cyril, "one nature in Christ", no betrayal of Ephesus, meant really no submission to the foreign tyrant on the Bosphorus. So the great majority of the population in these lands turnedMonophysite, rose in continual rebellion against the creed of the Empire, committed savage atrocities against the Chalcedonianbishops and officials, and in return were fiercelypersecuted.

The beginning of these troubles inEgypt was the deposition of theMonophysite PatriarchDioscur, and the election by the government party of Proterius as his successor, immediately after the council. The people, especially the lower classes and the great crowd ofEgyptianmonks, refused to acknowledge Proterius, and began to make tumults and riots that 2000 soldiers sent from Constantinople could hardly put down. WhenDioscur died in 454 a certain Timothy, called the Cat or Weasel (ailouros), wasordained by theMonophysites as his successor. In 457 Proterius wasmurdered; Timothy drove out the Chalcedonianclergy and so began the organized Coptic (Monophysite) Church ofEgypt. InSyria and Palestine there was the same opposition to the council and the government. The people andmonks drove out the OrthodoxPatriarch ofAntioch, Martyrius, and set up one Peter the Dyer (gnapheus, fullo), aMonophysite as his successor. Juvenal ofJerusalem, once a friend ofDioscur, gave up hisheresy at Chalcedon. When he came back to his newpatriarchate he found the whole country in rebellion against him. He too was driven out and aMonophysitemonk Theodosius was set up in his place. So began theMonophysite national churches of these provinces. Their opposition to the court and rebellion lasted two centuries, till theArab conquest (Syria, 637;Egypt, 641). During this time the government, realizing the danger of the disaffection of the frontier provinces, alternated fiercepersecution of theheretics with vain attempts to conciliate them by compromises (Zeno's Henotikon in 482, theAcacianSchism, 484-519, etc.) It should be realized thatEgypt was much more consistentlyMonophysite thanSyria or Palestine.Egypt was much closer knit as one land than the other provinces, and so stood more uniformly on the side of the national party. (For all this see MONOPHYSISM.)

Meanwhile against the nationalist party stood the minority on the side of the government and the council. These are the Melchites. Why they were so-called is obvious: they were the loyal Imperialists, the emperor's party. The name occurs first in a pure Greek form asbasilikos.Evagrius says of Timothy Sakophakiolos (The OrthodoxPatriarch ofAlexandria set up by the government when Timothy the Cat was driven out in 460) that some called him the Imperialist (on oi men ekaloun basilikon) (H.E., II,11). These Melchites were naturally for the most part the government officials, inEgypt almost entirely so, while inSyria and Palestine a certain part of the native population was Melchite too. Small in numbers, they were until theArab conquest strong through the support of the government and the army. The contrast betweenMonophysites and Melchites (Nationalists and Imperialists) was expressed in their language. TheMonophysites spoke the national language of the country (Coptic inEgypt, Syriac inSyria and Palestine), Melchites for the most part were foreigners sent out from Constantinople who spoke Greek. For a long time the history of these countries is that of a continual feud between Melchites andMonophysites; sometimes the government is strong, theheretics arepersecuted, thepatriarchate is occupied by a Melchite; then again the people get the upper hand, drive out the Melchitebishops, set upMonophysites in their place andmurder the Greeks. By the time of theArab conquest the two Churches exist as rivals with rival lines of bishops. But theMonophysites are much the larger party, especially inEgypt, and form the national religion of the country. The difference by new expresses itself to a great extent inliturgical language. Both parties used the sameliturgies (St. Mark inEgypt, St. James inSyria and Palestine), but while theMonophysites made a point of using the national language in church (Coptic and Syriac) the Melchites generally used Greek. It seems, however, that this was less the case than has been thought; the Melchites, too, used the vulgar tongue to a considerable extent (Charon,Le Rite byzantin, 26-29).

When theArabs came in the seventh century, theMonophysites,true to their anti-imperial policy, rather helped than hindered the invaders. But they gained little by their treason; both churches received the usual terms granted toChristians; they became twosects of Rayas under theMoslem Khalifa, both were equallypersecuted during the repeated outbursts ofMoslem fanaticism, of which the reign of Al-Hakim inEgypt (996-1021) is the best known instance. In the tenth century part ofSyria was conquered back by the empire (Antioch reconquered in 968-969, lost again to the SeljukTurks 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 theMoslems the characteristic notes of both churches became, if possible, stronger. TheMonophysites (Copts andJacobites) sank into isolated localsects. 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 Melchitepatriarchs underMoslem 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 theBishop of Constantinople assumed the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch" it was not his Melchite brothers who protested. This attitude explains their share in hisschism. The quarrels between Photius andPope Nicholas I, betweenMichael Cerularius andLeo IX were not their affair; they hardly understood what was happening. But naturally, almost inevitably, when theschism broke out, in spite of some protests [Peter III of Antioch (1053-1076?) protested vehemently againstCerularius'sschism; see Fortescue,OrthodoxEastern Church, 189-192], the Melchites followed their leader, and when orders came from Constantinople to strike thepope's name from theirdiptychs they quietly obeyed.

From the Schism to the beginning of the Union

So all the Melchites inSyria, Palestine andEgypt broke withRome and went intoschism at the command of Constantinople. Here, too, they justified their name of Imperialist. From this time to almost our own day there is little to chronicle of their history. They existed as a "nation" (millet) under the Khalifa; when theTurks took Constantinople (1453) they made the patriarch of that city head of this "nation" (Rum millet, i.e., theOrthodox Church) for civil affairs. Otherbishops, or evenpatriarchs, could only approach the government through him. This further increased his authority and influence over all the Orthodox in theTurkish Empire. During the dark ages that follow, the Ecumenical Patriarch continually strove (and generally managed) to assertecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Melchites (Ort. Eastern Ch., 240, 285-289, 310, etc.). Meanwhile the threepatriarchs (of Alexandria,Antioch, andJerusalem), finding little to do among their diminished flocks, for long periods came to live at Constantinople, idle ornaments of the Phanar. The lists of thesepatriarchs will be found inLe Quien (loc. cit. Below). Gradually all the people ofEgypt,Syria, and Palestine since theArab conquest forgot their original languages and spoke only Arabic, as they do still. This further affected theirliturgies. Little by little Arabic began to be used in church. Since the seventeenth century at the latest, the native Orthodox of these countries use Arabic for all services, though the great number of Greeks among them keep their own language.

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 theMonophysites, long after the quarrel about the nature of Christ had practically been forgotten. TheMonophysites, isolated from the rest ofChristendom, 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 theirliturgies. The Byzantinelitanies (Synaptai), the service of the Ptoskomide and other elements were introduced into the Greek Alexandrine Rite before the twelfth or thirteenth centuries; so also inSyria 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 thedate of this change. Thecrusaders 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 on both churches received the usual terms granted toChristians; they became twosects of Rayas under theMoslem Khalifa, both were equallypersecuted during the repeated outbursts ofMoslem fanaticism, of which the reign of Al-Hakim inEgypt (996-1021) is the best known instance. In the tenth century part ofSyria was conquered back by the empire (Antioch reconquered in 968-969, lost again to the SeljukTurks 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 theMoslems the characteristic notes of both churches became, if possible, stronger. TheMonophysites (Copts andJacobites) sank into isolated localsects. 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 ConstantinopleRome and the West were far off; the immediate object of their devotion was the emperor's court and 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 hisclergy. AtJerusalem the old liturgy disappeared at about the same time. (Charon, op. Cit., 11-12, 21, 23).

We have then for theliturgies of the Melchites these periods: first the old national rites in Greek, but also in the languages of the country, especially inSyria and Palestine, gradually Byzantinized till the thirteenth century. Then the Byzantine Rite alone in Greek inEgypt, in Greek and Syriac inSyria 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 andbishops.

The last development we notice is the steady increase of this foreign (Greek) element in all the higher places of theclergy. As the Phanar at Constantinople grew more and more powerful over the Melchites, so did it more and more, in ruthless defiance of the feeling of the people, send them Greekpatriarchs,metropolitans, and archimandrites from its own body. For centuries the lower marriedclergy and simplemonks have been natives, speaking Arabic and using Arabic in the liturgy, while all theprelates have been Greeks, who often do not evenknow the language of the country. At last, in our own time, the native Orthodox have rebelled against this state of things. At Antioch they have now succeeded in the recognition of their native Patriarch, Gregory IV (Hadad) after aschism with Constantinople. The troubles caused by the same movement atJerusalem are still fresh in everyone's mind. It iscertain that as soon as the present Greekpatriarchs ofJerusalem (Damianos V) and Alexandria (Photios) die, there will be a determined effort to appoint natives as their successors. But these quarrels affect the modern Orthodox of these lands who do not come within the limit of this article inasmuch as they are no longer Melchites.

Eastern-rite Catholics

We have said that in modern times since the foundation of ByzantineCatholic churches inSyria, Palestine, andEgypt, only these Uniates should be called Melchites. Why the old name is now reserved for them it is impossible to say. It is, however, a fact that it is so. One still occasionally in a western book finds allChristians of the Byzantine Rite in these countries called Melchites, with a further distinction betweenCatholic and Orthodox Melchites; but the present writer's experience is that this is never the case among themselves. The man in union with the greatEastern Church in those parts never now calls himself or allows himself to be called a Melchite. He is simply "Orthodox" in Greek or any Western language,Rumi in Arabic. Everyone there understands byMelchite a Uniate. It istrue that even for them the word is not very commonly used. They are more likely to speak of themselves asrumi kathuliki or in FrenchGrecs catholiques; but the nameMelchite, if used at all, always means to Eastern people theseCatholics. It is convenient for us too to have a definite name for them less entirely wrong than "GreekCatholic" for they are Greeks in no sense at all. A question that has often been raised is whether there is any continuity of these ByzantineCatholics since before the greatschism, whether there are any communities that have never lost communion withRome. There are such communities certainly in the south ofItaly,Sicily, andCorsica. In the case of the Melchite lands there are none. It istrue that there have been approaches to reunion continually since the eleventh century, individualbishops have made their submission at various times, the short-lived unions ofLyons (1274) and Florence (1439) included the Orthodox of these countries too. But there is no continuous line; when the union of Florence was broken all theByzantine Christians in the East fell away. The present Melchite Church dates from the eighteenth century.

Already in the seventeenth century tentative efforts at reunion were made by some of the Orthodoxbishops ofSyria. A certain Euthymius,Metropolitan ofTyre and Sidon, then the Antiochene PatriarchsAthanasius IV (1700-1728) and the famous Cyril of Berrhoea (d. 1724, the rival of Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople, who for a time was rivalPatriarch ofAntioch) approached theHoly See and hoped to receive thepallium. But the professions offaith which they submitted were considered insufficient atRome. The latinizing tendency ofSyria was so well known that in 1722 a synod was held at Constantinople which drew up and sent to the Antiochenebishops a warning letter with a list of Latinheresies (in Assemani, "Bibl. Orient.", III, 639). However, in 1724Seraphim Tanas, who had studied at the RomanPropaganda, was electedPatriarch ofAntioch by the latinizing party. He at once made his submission toRome and sent aCatholic profession offaith. He took the name Cyril (Cyril VI, 1274-1759); with him begins the line of Melchitepatriarchs in the new sense (Uniates). In 1728 the schismatics elected Sylvester, a Greekmonk fromAthos. He was recognized by the Phanar and the other Orthodox churches; through him the Orthodox line continues. Cyril VI suffered considerablepersecution from the Orthodox, and for a time had to flee to the Lebanon. He received thepallium fromBenedict XIV in 1744. In 1760, wearied by the continual struggle against the Orthodox majority, he resigned his office. Ignatius Jauhar was appointed to succeed him, but the appointment was rejected atRome andClement XIII appointed Maximus Hakim,Metropolitan ofBaalbek, as patriarch (Maximus II, 1760-1761).Athanasius Dahan of Beruit succeeded by regular election and confirmation after Maximus's death and became Theodosius VI (1761-1788). But in 1764 Ignatius Jauhar succeeded in being re-elected patriarch. Thepopeexcommunicated him, and persuaded theTurkish authorities to drive him out. In 1773Clement XIV united the few scattered Melchites of Alexandria andJerusalem to thejurisdiction of the Melchite patriarch of Antioch. When Theodosius VI died, Ignatius Jauhar was again elected, this time lawfully, and took the name Athanasius V (1788-1794).

Then followed Cyril VII (Siage, 1794-1796), Agapius III (Matar, formerlyMetropolitan ofTyre and Sidon, patriarch 1796-1812). During this time there was a movement of Josephinism andJansenism in the sense of the synod of Pistoia (1786) among the Melchites, led by Germanus Adam,Metropolitan ofBaalbek. This movement for a time invaded nearly all the Melchite Church. In 1806 they held a synod at Qarqafe which approved many of thePistoian decrees. The acts of the synod were published without authority fromRome in Arabic in 1810; in 1835 they were censured atRome.Pius VII had already condemned acatechism and other works written by Germanus ofBaalbek. Among hiserrors was the Orthodox theory thatconsecration is not effected by the words of institution in the liturgy. Eventually the patriarch (Agapius) and the other Melchitebishops were persuaded to renounce theseideas. In 1812 another synod established aseminary at Ain-Traz for the Melchite "nation." The nextpatriarchs were Ignatius IV (Sarruf, Feb.-Nov., 1812,murdered),Athanasius VI (Matar, 1813), Macarius IV (Tawil, 1813-1815), Ignatius V (Qattan, 1816-1833). He was followed by the famous Maximus III (Mazlum, 1833-1855). His former name was Michael. He had been infected with theideas of Germanus ofBaalbek, and had been electedMetropolitan ofAleppo, but his election had not been confirmed atRome. Then he renounced theseideas and became titularMetropolitan ofMyra, andprocurator of his patriarch atRome. During this time he founded the Melchite church atMarseilles (St. Nicholas), and took steps at the courts ofVienna andParis to protect the Melchites from their Orthodox rivals.

Hitherto theTurkish government had not recognized the Uniates as a separatemillet; so all their communications with the State, theberat given to theirbishops and so on, had to be made through the Orthodox. They were still officially, in the eyes of thelaw, members of therum millet, that is of the Orthodox community under thePatriarch of Constantinople. This naturally gave the Orthodox endless opportunities of annoying them, which were not lost. In 1831 Mazlum went back toSyria, in 1833 after the death of Ignatius V he was elected patriarch, and was confirmed atRome after many difficulties in 1836. His reign was full of disputes. In 1835 he held anational synod at Ain-Traz, which laid down twenty-five canons for the regulation of the affairs of the Melchite Church; the synod was approved atRome and is published in the Collectio Lacensis (II, 579-592). During his reign at last the Melchites obtained recognition as a separatemillet from the Porte. Maximus III obtained fromRome for himself and his successors the additional titles of Alexandria andJerusalem, which sees his predecessors had administered since Theodosius VI. In 1849 he held a synod atJerusalem in which he renewed many of theerrors of Germanus Adam. Thus he got into new difficulties withRome as well as with his people. But these difficulties were gradually composed and the old patriarch died in peace in 1855. He is the most famous of the line of Melchitepatriarchs. He was succeeded by Clement I (Bahus, 1856-1864), Gregory II (Yussef, 1865-1879), Peter IV (Jeraïjiri, 1897-1902), and Cyril VIII (Jeha, the reigning patriarch, who was elected 27 June, 1903, confirmed at once by telegram fromRome,enthroned in the patriarchal church atDamascus, 8 August, 1903).

Constitution of the Melchite Church

The head of the Melchite church, under the supreme authority of thepope, is the patriarch. His title is "Patriarch ofAntioch, Alexandria,Jerusalem, and all the East." "Antioch and all the East" is the old title used by allpatriarchs of Antioch. It is less arrogant than it sounds; the "East" means the original Roman Prefecture of the East (Praefectura Orentis) which corresponded exactly to thepatriarchate before the rise of Constantinople (Fortescue,Orth.Eastern Church, 21). Alexandria andJerusalem were added to the title under Maximus III. It should be noted that these come after Antioch, although normally Alexandria has precedence over it. This is because the patriarch is fundamentally of Antioch only; he traces his succession through Cyril VI to the old line of Antioch. He is in some sort only the administrator of Alexandria andJerusalem until the number of Melchites inEgypt and Palestine shall justify the erection of separatepatriarchates for them. Meanwhile he rules equally over his nation in the three provinces. There is also a grander title used in Polychronia and for special solemn occasions in which he is acclaimed as "father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds,High Priest ofHigh Priests and Thirteenth Apostle."

The patriarch is elected by thebishops, and is nearly always chosen from their number. The election is submitted to the Congregation forEastern Rites joined toPropaganda; if it is canonical the patriarch-elect sends a profession offaith and a petition for confirmation and for thepallium of thepope. He must also take anoath of obedience to thepope. If the election is invalid,nomination devolves on thepope. The patriarch may not resign without thepope's consent. He must make his visitad limina, personally or by deputy, every ten years. The patriarch has ordinaryjurisdiction over all his church. He confirms the election of and consecrates allbishops; he can translate or depose them, according to the canons. He foundsparishes and (with consent ofRome)dioceses, and has considerablerights of the nature ofdispensation fromfasting and so on. The patriarch resides at the house next to the patriarchal church atDamascus (near the Eastern Gate). He has also residences at Alexandria andJerusalem, where he spends at least some weeks each year; he is often at theseminary at Ain-Traz, not far fromBeirut, in the Lebanon.

Thebishops are chosen according to the bullReversurus, 12 July, 1867. All the otherbishops in synod with the patriarch choose three names, of which thepope selects one. Allbishops must becelibate, but they are by no means necessarilymonks. Priests who are not monks may keep wives married beforeordination, but as in all uniate churchescelibacy is very common, and the marriedclergy are looked upon rather askance. There areseminaries at Ain-Traz,Jerusalem (the College of St. Ann underCardinal Lavigerie'sWhite Fathers),Beirut, etc. Many students go to theJesuits atBeirut, the Greek College atRome, or St. Sulpice atParis. Themonks follow theRule of St. Basil. They are divided into two great congregations, that of St. John the Baptist at Shuweir in the Lebanon and that of St. Saviour, near Sidon. Both have numerous daughter-houses. The Shuweirites have a further distinction, i.e. between those of Allepo and the Baladites. There are alsoconvents ofBasiliannuns.

Practically all Melchites are natives of the country,Arabs in tongue. Their rite is that of Constantinople, almost always celebrated in Arabic with a few versicles and exclamations (proschomen sophia orthoi, etc.) in Greek. But on certain solemn occasions the liturgy is celebrated entirely in Greek.

The sees of thepatriarchate are: thepatriarchate itself, to which is joined Damascus, administered by a vicar; then twometropolitandioceses,Tyre and Aleppo; twoarchdioceses, Bosra with Hauran, and Horus with Hama; sevenbishoprics,Sidon, Beirut (with Jebail),Tripolis, Acre, Furzil (with Zahle), and the Beqaa, Paneas, andBaalbek. Thepatriarchates ofJerusalem and Alexandria are administered for the patriarch by vicars. The total number of Melchites is estimated at 130,000 (Silbernagl) or 114,080 (Werner).

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT