At the inauguration of an academic conference on the Melkite Schism of 1724, held at Balamand University last October,1 His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East gave an important address articulating his understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology and the role of the study of history in the life of the Church that perhaps merits more attention than it received. The chief point of reference in this address was the career of His Beatitude’s predecessor, Peter III, who embodied a particularly self-confident vision of Antioch’s place alongside and equal to, rather than under, the Sees of Rome and Constantinople. In what follows, I will attempt to fill in some of the historical background to Peter III, who should be seen as the classic point of reference for Antiochian ecclesiology.
Peter III’s brief reign from 1052 to 10572 was at a pivotal moment in the life of the Patriarchate of Antioch, not only because it took place during the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople, but also because of Antioch’s unique position at that time straddling the Byzantine and Islamic worlds. During the period of Muslim rule over Antioch that began in 637, the city was reduced from its previous status as one of the chief cities of the Roman Empire to being a relatively sleepy border town, largely important for its strategic location. Nevertheless, from the installation of the Patriarch Stephen IV in 743, Antioch was a major center of Orthodox life in the Islamic Caliphate, both as the administrative seat of the patriarchate and because of the remarkable network of multilingual monasteries in the mountains surrounding it, which were home to a lively intellectual scene that fostered an enormous amount of translation activity between Greek, Syriac, Arabic and Georgian that would continue under Byzantine rule.3
Under Muslim rule, the patriarchs of Antioch were elected directly by the clergy and people of the city, a practice described and defended in detail by the protospatharios Ibrahim ibn Yuhanna in his Life of the martyred Patriarch Christopher,4 who, despite his loyalty to Byzantium’s Hamdanid enemies, would later be venerated as a saint, commemorated on May 22. All this would change, however, following the Byzantine reconquest of Antioch and much of northern Syria in 969, when the city’s patriarchs came to be appointed directly by the emperor. Moreover, following the Patriarch Agapius II’s (r. 978-996) support of a failed rebellion against the emperor, his successor Patriarch John III Polites (r. 996-1021) agreed that subsequent patriarchs would not only be selected by the emperor, but would also be consecrated in the capital by the patriarch of Constantinople5—a situation that Peter III judged to be “illegal” (παράνομος).6
As John X mentions, Peter was very eager to stress that he, unlike his immediate predecessors, was a native son of Antioch, referring to himself in his enthronement address to the people of the city as “bone of your bone and blood of your blood”7 and mentioning in correspondence with the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria his birth in Antioch to Antiochene parents and his early education there, most likely in Arabic, perhaps in the clerical school established by the Patriarch Christopher.8 From there, he left to Constantinople to pursue higher studies, eventually becoming skeuophylax of Hagia Sophia. No doubt, his success and connections in the imperial capital would be a major factor allowing for his pursuit of an independent policy as patriarch.
Peter’s concern to assert the rightful status of the Patriarchate of Antioch is on evidence from the moment of his enthronement, in the enthronistika addressed to his fellow patriarchs. While his letter to his consecrator, the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius (r. 1043-1059) was hand-delivered at his enthronement and does not appear to be extant and the letters to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem are largely standard statements of his Orthodox Trinitarian and Chrisotolgical beliefs, in his letter to Pope Leo IX (r. 1049-1054), he makes a point of calling into question Leo’s orthodoxy because of his use of the filioque clause in the Creed and demands an explanation for why he has broken off from the other four patriarchs. Although certainly a bold move, it is not completely unheard in this era for the exchange of synodical letters to be an occasion for airing disagreements between hierarchs. The letters exchanged between Patriarchs Agapius II of Antioch and Elias I of Alexandria (r. 963-1000),9 for example, entailed a debate over the canonicity of the transfer of bishops from one see to another, while the letters between the non-Chalcedonian Patriarchs John of Antioch and Christodoulos of Alexandria (r. 1046-1077) involved a debate over the proper ingredients for Eucharistic bread.10
The tone of the letter, while respectful, makes it clear that Peter believed that the patriarchs are responsible to each other for their actions and that he has the right to demand an explanation from the pope and to ascertain its orthodoxy, as they are equal members of the one body of the Church, sharing Christ as their head:
Day and night, I have been pondering what the reason is for the ecclesiastical disagreement, that the great successor of the great Peter, the shepherd of elder Rome, might break from the divine body of the churches and be cut off, not sharing with those placed in authority over those divine resolutions and in turn bearing together with them the ecclesiastical understandings, although he is apostolically guided by them.
But if schism is the reason for the disagreement, I thought that it does not befit those wise in divine matters and ministers of the word to stumble so irrationally about principal matters on a weak pretext. If it is a deviation of dogma and a novelty, I had not been able to see this first among us, the apostolic and patristic characteristics of orthodox teaching having been kept inviolable. Then I shrank from attributing such a disgrace to your church prior to having firsthand knowledge, knowing her to have preserved authentic orthodoxy from the succession of the Apostles down to our forefathers.
Seeking a manner of unity, I came upon the ancient custom. That is, it is required of newly-installed hierarchs to make their right teaching of the faith known to the leading major hierarchs and to request communion from each of them. Proceeding on that basis, I declare what I hold about God, I ask Your Perfection for a statement of faith in writing, and I unyieldingly demand the reason for the disagreement. And if this is something trifling and inoffensive to correct dogma, I require and request you to spare those who are at risk of separation, make peace with the churches of God, and renew the Lord’s clergy until the peace that comes from above, once again bringing together bone to bone and harmony to harmony on the course to Christ, the common head.
But if it is great and runs too far from the correct dogmas, immediately do away with the dispute about this, and either provide proof in the scriptures (for our preaching is not in the persuasion of human wisdom) or set it aside so that the current conflict may be resolved, so as not to be indefinitely cut off in vain, battling shadows, and attacking one’s own like people fighting in the dark. May You, Master, and God the Word, consubstantial with the Father, with whom are the treasuries of knowledge and wisdom and who restores both shepherds and flock, inspire me with reason from above to scrutinize sufficiently the theology that has been set forth.11
The image of the churches harmoniously fitting together as the parts of the body whose sole head is Christ is a key image for Peter’s ecclesiology and he elaborates on it in a letter to the “Patriarch” of Venice, Dominic of Grado:
Pay attention to what I say. The human body is governed by one head. In it, there are many parts and all are regulated by only five senses. These are: sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Likewise, the body of Christ, that of the faithful, the Church, is fitted together from different members and is regulated by five senses, which are called the great sees, and is governed by one head, which is Christ. Just as there is no sense above the five senses, there is no patriarch admitted above the five patriarchs. Thus, by these five sees, which are like the senses in the body of Christ, all the parts, that is all the countries of the peoples and the local episcopates, are regulated and guided in a Godly manner. Just as in one head, Christ our true God, they are likewise fitted together and governed by one Orthodox faith.12
Peter’s strong opposition to the filioque and belief that to depart from the consensus of the patriarchs is to be cut off from the Church seems to have been common in the Patriarchate of Antioch in the 10th and 11th centuries. An example of this position can be found, for example, in an anonymous Arabic text, composed in the mid-10th century in northern Syria, written by a convert to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy from the non-Chalcedonians. After explaining that Dioscorus of Alexandria’s heretical status is self-evident from his departure from the consensus of the other patriarchs at the Council of Chalcedon, he turns to the problem of the pope of Rome’s departure from consensus due to his use of the filioque, an issue that had first come to the attention of Middle Eastern Christians in 807, when the Church of Jerusalem was scandalized by its inclusion in the Creed by Latin monks on the Mount of Olives.13 The writer takes the view that while the pope is the successor of Peter, he abdicated this role by abandoning the consensus of his fellow patriarchs, explaining that:
When our God promised to preserve Simon Peter from deficiency in faith when He told him, “O Simon, the devil is asking to sift you like grain and I ask my Father for your sake that you do not lose your faith,” at that moment He made it clear that He designated Peter for this promise. Since He told him, “Return after a while and strengthen your brothers,” He proved that He did not designate him for this promise for his own sake, but for the sake of his brothers. He is the one whom He made shepherd for them because He said, “Shepherd my sheep. Shepherd my rams. Shepherd my ewes.” Because He made him a shepherd to them, He preserved him from deficiency of faith out of care for them, because every time the pope of Rome, who is the successor of Peter, was in agreement with the rest of his brother patriarchs and was a shepherd to them, this promise always endured. […] When, around one hundred and fifty years ago or a little more, there came about a disagreement between the kings of the Franks and the Byzantines, the pope inclined away from agreement with the rest of the patriarchs on account of the king alone, so when he did the like of this and withdrew on his own instead of shepherding his brothers, he was no longer the one whom the Lord had specially designated for the sake of his brothers, but rather Christ abandoned him and ceased to preserve him.14
***
Peter’s readiness to call Leo into account for his doctrinal error was not out of partisanship for Constantinople, with which he had his own difficulties. In the summer of 1054, the patriarch of Constantinople wrote to him, chastising him (and the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem) for commemorating the pope in the diptychs, something that he claimed had not been the case in Constantinople since the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-681, which he moreover confused with the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553. This must have struck Peter as a bizarre claim, since it could be so easily refuted by personal experience:
I was ashamed of these claims contained in the letter of Your Honor, nor do I know, believe me, how to express my shame, especially if you have also written to the other most blessed patriarchs in a way similar to what you wrote beforehand to us. For you have, before examination and comprehension and from empty rumor, depicted something that never happened as if it had happened.15
He then goes on to give his patriarchal colleague a brief history lesson, and states what should have been obvious:
I myself am also a witness admissible without challenge, and with me many other notable men of the church, that up to the time of the Lord Patriarch of Antioch John of blessed memory, the pope of Rome, also named John, was commemorated in the sacred diptychs. And when I went to Constantinople 45 years ago, under the Lord Patriarch Sergius of blessed memory, I found that the pope at that time was being commemorated in the divine service along with the other patriarchs. How the commemoration of the pope was later cut off and for what reason, I do not know. But since I know these things, I do not want you to do anything further regarding the commemoration of the pope.16
He then goes on to dismiss most of Cerularius’ long list of unacceptable Latin practices, stating that “Some of them seem abominable and should be fled; others are curable; still others can be overlooked,” and attributing most of them to ignorance, barbarousness or lax observation among the laity. This is not, however, the case with the filioque, which he characterizes as “an evil, even the evilest of evils.” Echoing his demand to Leo that he justify himself from the scriptures alone, Peter dismisses the need for sophisticated theological speculation in light of the clear biblical witness about the Holy Spirit:
If the Gospel is the same among us as among the Romans, whence have they, learning something more, made such a monstrous addition? […] And if the evangelist has so exceedingly clearly declared this, what orthodox person will dare or will be able to add to or to subtract from it? For when it concerns something which the divine Scripture clearly declares, it is not necessary to take a vote, but only to follow. […] For the wise and saving Creed of the divine race [of Christians] suffices for us in perfect knowledge and confirmation of piety. It teaches the perfect story about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and it reveals the incarnation of the Lord to all who receive it with faith. But those who add anything to it or subtract anything from it we anathematize. The Apostle says, “If anyone should evangelize you with something apart from what you received, let him be anathema.”17
This last statement is crucial, because it makes it clear that his concern is not with making peace for its own sake or out of sympathy with Rome, but rather because he was adamant about upholding the truth according to proper ecclesiastical order, and indeed, later in the letter he speaks of “this long separation and dissension which has divided this great apostolic see from our holy Church.” In his view, a separation does de facto exist and the pope may indeed be subject to anathema if he were to insist on this groundless addition to the Creed. Nevertheless, it is not a judgment that can be made unilaterally and sloppily by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Another incident, worth mentioning in passing, also serves to illustrate Peter’s insistence on the equality of the patriarchs and Cerularius’ reluctant acceptance of this reality. At some point, Cerularius had awarded a deacon of Antioch by the name of Christodoulos Hagiostephanites the honorary title of kouboukleisios. Peter protested that the Patriarch of Constantinople had no right to interfere in Antioch’s jurisdiction, even in such a minor way, and that “the Apostolic See of Antioch is not under that of Constantinople.” Clearly in the wrong, Cerularius conceded that he could not make such an award.18
***
Peter III’s lasting influence can be seen in the approach of his successor John IV the Oxite (r. before September 1089-1100) to the schism with Rome. Following the disaster at Manzikert in 1071, the Byzantine emperors were eager to strengthen bonds with the West, and Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099), who in 1095 would call the First Crusade, was amenable to reconciliation, writing a letter to the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (r. 1081-1118) requesting to be restored to the diptychs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Alexius in turn called a council, inquiring as to whether there was any formal, canonical justification for not commemorating the pope. This council, which consisted of the Patriarchs Nicholas III of Constantinople (r. 1084-1111), John IV of Antioch and twenty metropolitans constituting the Synod Endemousa, ruled that there was in fact no document to be found that could attest to a canonical judgement justifying the removal of the pope from the diptychs.19 In light of that fact, they decreed that commemoration of the pope could be provisionally restored upon receipt of his enthronistikon, after which a council of all the patriarchs would quickly be held to resolve the outstanding disputes:
Then all the hierarchs came to one opinion with us, that, in observance of the ancient ecclesiastical custom, the pope should send to our Church a systatikon, which should contained the exposition of his faith; and if it shown that this is sound in all respects and correctly interprets the pious faith, the Apostolic Canons and the holy and ecumenical Seven Councils, and he also accepts the local synods adopted by the Ecumenical Councils, and that on the one hand he condemns those whom the Catholic Church also rejects as heretics and rejects what they reject, and on the other hand it honors and accepts the canons and holy fathers and teachers adopted by the Sixth Council, then the pope should be allowed to be commemorated according to ecclesiastical practice.
If any ecclesiastical problems exist, they should then be examined in such a way that the pope either comes to us himself or sends someone else in his place, and these problems should be solved in exact accordance with the divine canons. Until the pope arrives here or until a legate is sent, a period of eighteen months should elapse after the commemoration, after which, if there is no result, a decision should be made as to what seems in accordance with ecclesiastical precision. Regarding the procedure for the pope’s commemoration, it was suggested that the other patriarchs, those of Jerusalem and Alexandria, should also be invited so that they too might participate.20
As in Peter III’s ecclesiological vision, the council’s decision sets forth the workings of a conciliar Church governed by dialogue, consensus and respect for the canons, where all patriarchs come together as equals to resolve their differences. In 1054, neither Rome nor Constantinople heeded Antioch’s pleas. In 1089, however, with a patriarch of Constantinople who shared this vision, it was Pope Urban II who simply ignored the council’s demands, effectively cementing Rome’s departure from the rest of the Church. This would become all the more painful for John IV a decade later when, after the arrival of the Crusaders, despite his efforts at cooperation, he was expelled from Antioch and replaced with a Latin bishop.
