Fr. Gabriel Bunge – Benedictine monk, well-respected patristic scholar, and author of the book Earthen Vessels: The Practice of Personal Prayer According to the Patristic Tradition – was recently received into the Orthodox Church:

[Metropolitan] Hilarion also heartily welcomed hieromonk Gabriel (Bunge), who, for more than 30 years has lived a hermetical life in the mountains of Switzerland. “You were a Catholic, but in soul you were Orthodox” – Metropolitan Hilarion said to him – “Today, before the all-night vigil, you converted to Orthodoxy, which was a natural conclusion of a long spiritual journey. ”

Metropolitan Hilarion warmly congratulated Father Gabriel on his reception into holy Orthodoxy, and gave him an icon of the Heavenly Queen, “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in memory of the fact that he was united to the Orthodox Church in this church, consecrated in honor of this icon.

Most of us non-Orthodox here in the West do not realize the precarious situation the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is currently in. Due to persecution by the Turkish government, there is a good chance that the current occupant of the patriarchal chair, Bartholomew I, will be the last Ecumenical Patriarch to reside in Constantinople:

Istanbul, Turkey (CNN) — Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the living embodiment of an ancient tradition. From his historic base in Istanbul, Turkey, the 270th Patriarch of Constantinople claims to be the direct successor of the Apostle Andrew.

Today he’s considered “first among equals” in the leadership of the Greek Orthodox church, and is the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians around the world. But few of them are in his own home country.

“We are a small Christian minority,” Bartholomew laments.

“We have suffered because of Greek-Turkish confrontation, struggle, and a lack of mutual trust and confidence. And that is why we lost most of our faithful.”

Turkey’s once-flourishing Greek community is fading away. The country is predominantly Muslim and led by a secular government that’s had a complicated relationship with the patriarchate.

If Turkish laws, demographics and attitudes aren’t changed, Bartholomew could ultimately be the last Patriarch of Constantinople.

“We are not all in despair for the future of our church,” Bartholomew said. “It is not easy, but it is not impossible.”

The Turkish government can veto any candidate put forward for the position of patriarch. And it requires the patriarch be a Turkish citizen. Bartholomew is, but most of those best qualified to succeed him are not.

So the government has proposed offering Turkish citizenship to Orthodox archbishops overseas. Several have applied; so far, none has been approved.

The Turkish government also refuses to recognize the title Ecumenical Patriarch, or Bartholomew’s role as an international religious leader.

Officially, he is viewed as a local bishop who leads a shrinking community of a few thousand Greek Orthodox citizens. Yorgo Stefanopulos is one of them. “I am a curiosity now in Turkey,” he said. “We used to be a minority; now we are a curiosity.”

Stefanopulos is an outspoken leader of Istanbul’s Greek community. About 50 years ago, that community numbered more than 100,000. Today, it’s probably less than 3,000.

He insists that decline was not accidental. Instead, he blames the Turkish government. Decades ago, he said, they targeted ethnic Greeks with nationalist policies, like wealth taxes, property seizures, and campaigns to speak only Turkish in the streets.

Then there was the pogrom in 1955: riots directed against Greeks and Greek-owned property. The violence was later found to have been orchestrated by Turkish authorities.

As a result, Greeks left Istanbul in droves. “The Turkish government somehow managed to do a bloodless ethnic cleansing,” Stefanopulos said. Today’s Turkish government says those events are from the distant past, and they’re now looking ahead to reconciliation.

“Turkey is going through a period of transition,” said Egemen Bagis, the country’s Minister for European Union Affairs. “Turkey’s becoming a much more democratic, much more prosperous, much more transparent society.”

Yet, the government has resisted calls to reopen the patriarchate’s main school of theology.

For more than a century, the Halki seminary educated future Greek Orthodox bishops, theologians and patriarchs, until Turkey’s highest court ordered it closed in 1971. Since then, it’s remained empty, worrying former students like theologian Satirios Varnalidis.

“We want to reopen this school so that we can provide new priests to the Ecumenical Patriarchate,” Varnalidis said. “Otherwise, in a little while our community just won’t have any more priests.”

Continue reading…

Pray that this small Christian community can stand strong in the face of such persecution.

One of the most influential books in East-West relations is “After Nine Hundred Years,” written by Yves Congar in the 1950’s – nine hundred years after the mutual excommunications of 1054. In this book, Congar posits that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not really in a state of schism, but of “estrangement.” By this he means that there was no formal act of schism by either side (the 1054 excommunications were not considered by anyone contemporary to them to be such an act), but instead the two churches simply grew apart over time until they finally acknowledged that they were no longer in communion with each other. Such an outlook has profound implications for how one views our current lack of communion.

I had heard about this book for years but never could get my hands on it because it is long out of print. I finally found it at a used book store about two years ago. But now, thanks to the wonders of the internet and expiring copyrights, it is available for free online. I highly recommend it.

This looks quite interesting:

And if that looks interesting to you as well, I highly recommend the movie “Ostrov,” which can be seen in its entirety on YouTube.

Over at Called to Communion there is a wonderful article by an Eastern Catholic recounting the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic viewpoints on Holy Orders, and noting that this difference convinced him to remain Catholic. It has the very provocative title “I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox (or How I learned to stop worrying and love the atomic bomb of Holy Orders)“. It begins:

In a previous blog post, I wrote about the joys and similarities which bind together the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As tragic as our lack of full communion with one another is, there is a bond which unites us even now while our sacramental reunion is mostly a hope for the future. This bond is so deep in my estimation that it is with much fear and trembling that I write this post. But to be honest to my conscience and to my understanding of the Apostolic Churches that are not in full communion with one another, I must state it loud and state it clear: I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox.

This paradoxical statement is not for shock purposes-it is wholly and entirely true. As one who is in communion with Rome via an Eastern Catholic Church, I find this to be an inevitable conclusion.

Continue reading…

Yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of the papal decree which lowered the age of first communion in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of waiting until the age of 12 or 13, first communicants are now allowed to receive the Eucharist at the “age of reason”, which is usually interpreted to be around 7 or 8 years old. This decree has been a wonderful blessing in the Church and I know that I am very thankful that my own children have been able to receive the Eucharist before they reach their teen years. However, at the risk of sounding ungrateful for this decision, I do have to say:

I wish children could receive the Eucharist at an earlier age, even as infants.

Some might argue that communion should not be given to someone until he understands what it is that he is receiving; in fact, this is one of the primary arguments for waiting until the “age of reason.” However, this fails to appreciate the mystery involved in all the sacraments, including the Eucharist. After all, does anyone really understand what they receive at communion? Sure, we can acknowledge that it is the Lord Himself, body, blood, soul and divinity that we receive in the Eucharist, but it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend this great mystery. Reason simply is unable to grasp what is happening. So connecting the Eucharist to “reason” seems to me to be a tenuous connection at best.

Another argument against an earlier communion age is that one should receive confession before receiving communion. And it is true that once one has reached the age of reason, he should go to confession before making his first communion. Since a person can truly sin after they can reason, they should learn that confession is an integral part of receiving our Lord in the Eucharist. But obviously an infant cannot commit actual sin, and since he is baptized, he has been washed clean of the stain of original sin. So in fact such a child would be more pure to receive the Eucharist than most adults.

A third argument for waiting for the age of reason is that small children might not be properly respectful of this great gift – they may simply look at it as a “treat” they receive at Mass and not as the life-giving food it really is. However, children have always received the Eucharist in the Eastern churches (including Eastern Catholic churches) and they have never encountered this problem. Furthermore, this argument sounds much like the apostles’ protests about children “bothering” our Lord during his ministry. Christ told them, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14). Jesus treated little children as co-heirs to his kingdom, not as “extras” that needed to wait until they were mature to be full members of it.

The Western practice today is to baptize infants, give first communion at the “age of reason” and confirm in the teenage years. Aside from the ages that these sacraments are given, there is something irregular about this setup, as it changes the ordering of the Sacraments of Initiation from its original order of baptism, confirmation, then communion. This order is still preserved for adult converts such as myself, who receive confirmation at the Easter Vigil before they receive their first communion. But for cradle Catholics, it is communion first, then confirmation. So I would argue for embracing the complete Eastern practice of infants receiving all three Sacraments of Initiation at once: baptism, confirmation, then first communion. In today’s world I believe our children need as much grace as possible, and as early as possible, to withstand the enormous obstacles to holiness that they will face growing up. Receiving all three sacraments soon after birth, and regular reception of the Eucharist after that, would go a long way in helping them. Our Lord wants all children to come to him, and infant communion would be one way to obey that command.

Obviously, I submit to the practice of the Church and I follow her rules in this matter. Individuals like myself do not have any authority to change such practices and should never break the guidelines set out by the successors to the apostles. But I do wish and pray that one day the Church will change the practice of the Latin rite so that even the smallest children can be part of the Eucharistic feast.

I thought this story of a young boy and an Orthodox priest was a perfect embodiment of today’s Gospel:

I am visiting the family back in upstate New York for a little bit and today went off to the 9:30 AM divine liturgy at one of the eight(!) local Orthodox parishes that are within a convenient drive of my father’s house. The liturgy was reasonably well attended for midsummer and was unremarkable until the time came for the last major censing by the deacon. The priest was at the altar with the doors open when suddenly a small boy, not more than four or five years old, broke loose from his parents and ran up towards the altar and… charged right through the doors and started tugging on the priests vestments.

I can now relate that the sudden and simultaneous intake of breath on the part of a couple of hundred people creates a very distinctive sound. But the silence that followed was almost painful. The parents… visibly horrified seemed not sure of whether or not to rush up and add to the chaos in the sanctuary. This was coupled with a deep silence from everyone else frantically trying to avert their eyes from what was at the least surely going to prove a terrible embarrassment if not a major catastrophe.

Then in a few seconds the crisis was ended. The priest looked over his shoulder and after a moment of visible (and understandable) shock, smiled and I thought he was going to laugh. With a quick motion of his hand he called over the deacon who had been in the process of censing and calmly relieved the deacon of his censor. He then bent over and handed the censor to the little boy, showing him how to hold it and swing it, and then directed him to finish censing the iconostasis and assorted icon stands.

Off went the overjoyed little boy, with the deacon hot on his trail, happily censing everything that looked even remotely like an icon. OK OK he almost knocked over a candle stand but the deacon saved the day. After he was done the deacon relieved him of the censor and quietly guided the happiest child in the city back to his parents.

I have no idea how many church canons or liturgical rubrics were violated today. But I can tell you that there was not a dry eye in the church.

Last week a couple of blogs compiled the 10 worst hymns of all-time and the 10 best hymns of all-time. Not surprisingly, the lists set off a flurry of comments, as everyone has an opinion as to what music should be played during Mass. I have my own favorite (and not-so-favorite) hymns and I admit that my tastes are eclectic. But some of my favorite liturgical music is found in the Eastern Divine Liturgy: the words are theologically rich and the tunes lift one up to God. One thing interesting about Eastern liturgical music is that it doesn’t use instruments; only the human voice is used.

Archpriest David M. Petras has an interesting article on music in the Divine Liturgy over at SperoNews and it is well worth the read:

From the beginning, music has been an aspect of our worship of God. This was true of the Jews and passed into Christianity. Even pagans worshiped in song. St. Paul writes, “Be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another (in) psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing to the Lord in your hearts” (Eph 5:18-19). St. Paul therefore tells us that singing is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

The same Holy Spirit is “present everywhere and fills all things.” It is through the Spirit that the Divine Liturgy becomes a “sacrifice of praise,” identified with the one true sacrifice of Our Lord, and it is through the same Holy Spirit that we sing hymns Even before Christ, in the Jewish era, Philo identified spiritual sacrifice with hymns, though he is also very cautious about the adequacy of audible sounds to contain the divine reality.

Only the human voice

For the Christians, the hymns had to have words. Liturgical hymns are not just hummed, they are absolutely not only a matter of melody, notes and meter. They are not just beautiful sounds, but they convey a truth and a concept. This is perhaps why the church early on accepted only the human voice in song and forbade musical instruments. Eusebius of Caesaria was to write, “more sweetly pleasing to God than any musical instrument would be the symphony of the people of God, by which, in every church of God, with kindred spirit and single disposition, with one mind and unanimity of faith and piety, we raise melody in unison in our psalmody” (”On Psalm 91, 4″). The Eastern Church accepted this principle as its tradition. The rejection of instruments, however, was not universal, for the Western Church later allowed their use in the church.

Continue reading…

During the pontificate of John Paul II there were recurring complaints that the pope too liberally tolerated heresy within the Catholic Church. Prominent laypeople, priests, and even some bishops advocated practices and beliefs contrary to the Church’s teachings, yet JPII rarely cracked down on such offenses. The pope’s defenders, however, argued that JPII was doing so in order to avoid a formal schism. If he too quickly punished those who advocated heresy, the argument went, then an even worse schism would rupture the Church.

This tension between tolerating heresy or tolerating schism has been with the Church since the beginning, and Church leaders have always had to tolerate one or the other when dealing with those members who promote something against the teachings of the Church. Pope John Paul II obviously leaned towards tolerating heresy more than schism, and in doing so, he stayed within the more common Western tradition. But this is not the way of the East; in fact, if you look at the history of the Church, a general rule of thumb has been that the West tolerates heresy more than schism, and the East tolerates schism more than heresy.

The very names that have been associated with the Church in the East and the West support this rule. The Church in the West has been known as the “Catholic” Church: “catholic” means “universal” and emphasizes the unity of the Body of Christ throughout the world. The Church in the East has been known as the “Orthodox” Church; “orthodox” means “right belief” and emphasizes the correct teachings of the church. Although there are obviously exceptions, this has been the path taken by each throughout the centuries: the Catholic Church has tolerated heresy in its ranks more liberally, but the Orthodox churches have endured more internal schisms than the West. This also partially explains the fact that the drive for reunification between East and West has mostly originated in the West: we are more willing to endure varied beliefs between us for the cause of unity, but the East is more adamant that our beliefs align fully before we talk unity (for example, note the differing receptions between the East and West to the Council of Florence).

Ecclesiology (the theological understanding of the Church) is the fundamental reason for these different perspectives. In the West, the Church is most often seen as a worldwide Body – each diocese is “part” of the one, universal Church. But in the East, each diocese is seen as the “whole,” even “catholic” (which can also mean “full”) church, and the universal Church is the communion of all these local, “catholic” churches. In fact, it is common to use the singular for the “Catholic Church” but the plural for the “Orthodox churches,” reflecting this essential difference in our understanding of what the Church is. So for a Western Christian, the rupture of one part of the Church is a horrendous calamity, but in the East, even if a part of the Church were to go into schism, one’s diocese still fulfills the meaning of being the “catholic” Church.

So, which way is better? Which should the Church tolerate more: schism or heresy? In an ideal (i.e. unfallen) world, neither would need to be tolerated, as neither would exist. But in our fallen world, both do exist and both must be addressed by the Church. For those of us who live in the West and have seen heresy rampant at times among our ranks, it is easy to long for a stricter stand by the hierarchy, schism be damned. But schism is a terrible breach in the Body of Christ, one that often has a long-lasting impact (consider the fact that two of the greatest schisms of the Church – the Nestorian and Monophysite schisms [both Eastern schisms] – are over 1,500 years old). It is too easy to have an attitude of “let them leave, they aren’t Catholic anyway,” but one must realize that a formal schism has the possibility of institutionalizing heresy or at least non-communion for endless generations to come. Of course, tolerating heresy has its limits as well, for what good is it to be in visible communion if we no longer confess “one Faith?”

Ultimately, the Church abhors both heresy and schism and does everything it can to avoid either. In each case the Church hierarchy must do all it can to avoid schism as well as avoid heretical beliefs or practices taking hold within the Church. As members of the Body of Christ, we must pray fervently for our leaders that when such situations arise they follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in doing all they can to resolve both heretical teachings and schismatic tendencies.

This week I attended the 14th annual Orientale Lumen conference, held at the John Paul II cultural center in Washington, D.C. This was my third year attending, and it was quite enjoyable and informative this year. I am a very enthusiastic supporter of these conferences, as I believe that they foster, on a grass-roots level, the effort to have the Church breathe with both lungs, East and West. The path to unity is two-fold: official dialogue at the highest levels of the Church, and growing appreciation and acceptance of each other’s traditions in the pews. The OL conference works to make the second of these two objectives happen.

The theme of this year’s conference was “the councils of the church” and each of the speakers reflected on the work of the councils in the life of the Church from different perspectives.

The first plenary speaker was Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, D.C. He began by commenting on Christ’s question to the apostles, “Who do you say that I am?” and then noted that the first four ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) were the Church’s dogmatic answer to that question. One of the key events in Church history, according to Archbishop Wuerl, was Nicea’s decision that truths about Jesus could be expressed in non-biblical language. Today, we take this for granted, but this was a momentous decision at the time.

The next plenary speaker was Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America. I heard His Beatitude at last year’s OL conference, and he is my favorite hierarch today. As someone said to me, he is “charming and disarming.” His talk was a paper on the relationship between conciliarity and hierarchy in the Church. While his talk was interesting, the Metropolitan really shines during question and answer. He never avoids a question and can be quite blunt in his answers. In all his answers, one thing comes out: he is devoted to following Jesus Christ and making him the focus of all his activities. He returns to this focus on Christ constantly no matter the topic, and I found it quite refreshing.

On Wednesday morning, Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. gave the third plenary talk. His presentation was a paper on the development of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and how the councils affected that development. Those who are familiar with Fr. Taft know that he is not shy about giving his opinions and he didn’t disappoint in this regard at the conference. He was actively engaged in all the panels and shared many useful bits of information on a wide variety of topics. However, I will say that I found some of his denigrating comments about what he called “right-wing conservative wackos” (i.e. traditional Roman Catholics) to be uncharitable and stereotypical. One can disagree with other viewpoints without demeaning those who hold them and unity will only come about when we charitably engage all elements in the Church. But Fr. Taft has done a tremendous amount of good in the Church in regards to East-West relations, and we should all be thankful for his work over the years.

The Wednesday afternoon plenary was my favorite. Given by Fr. Peter Galadza, it had the provocative title “How Many Ecumenical Councils? A Test Case for Eastern Catholic Theology.” In his talk, Fr. Galadza contended at the “ecumenical” councils after Nicea II (the 7th ecumenical council) should be considered “general” councils of the West and therefore not on the same level as the first seven councils. This might sound crazy, maybe even heretical, to the ears of many Roman Catholics, but for those who know the history of the councils, he is not as far out on a limb as may initially appear. In fact, the council of Constance in the 15th century (considered ecumenical by Roman Catholics) distinguished between the first eight councils, which they called “ecumenical,” and the next six councils, which they called “general.” Fr. Galadza gave a very balanced presentation, noting reasons why councils such as Lateran I-IV or Constance should not be ecumenical but stressing that they are still authoritative and useful in many respects.

The fifth plenary talk was a bit different, as it was given by a layman, Orthodox iconographer Elias Damianakis. I liked the change, as it gave a different perspective to the issue of the councils. Damianakis concentrated his remarks on how the councils have personally affected him in his faith life, as well as focusing on some lesser-known individuals associated with the councils.

The speaker for the final plenary could not make it, so instead a video from the OL conference held at Seton Hall a few weeks ago was shown. Fr. John Behr, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, gave a great talk about the differences between “universal ecclesiology” and “eucharistic ecclesiology,” and how the two can be reconciled. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I thought Fr. Behr was incredibly insightful in his analysis. I only wish he were there to take questions. Fr. Behr also noted the fact that the Pope was absent at all the universally-recognized ecumenical councils. While this may have started as a historical accident, Fr. Behr thinks it might have more meaning than that. By not attending, the Pope remained “above the fray” and was therefore able to remain a court of appeal, even to a council. Fr. Behr then gave a great quote: “Perhaps we Orthodox have not called an ecumenical council in over 1200 years not because we don’t have an emperor to call it, but because we don’t have a pope who won’t be there.”

All in all, the talks were all fascinating and informative. But the OL conference is not just about the talks, it also consists of liturgical services and fellowship. And on this count, this year’s conference was exceptional as usual. The liturgical services (Matins, Vespers and an Akathist) were beautiful and prayerful, and the opportunity to talk with other participants and speakers is always a highlight of the conference. I was actually one of the few Roman Catholics there, so it was great to speak to many Eastern Catholics and Orthodox about their perspectives on East-West relations. I especially enjoyed an afternoon discussion with Elias Damianakis over a range of topics. You should make an effort to visit his website, www.orthodoxiconography.com.

Next year’s conference is the 15th annual, and director Jack Figel has big plans for it. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware already has committed to it, and Jack is working to get some (very) big other figures in East-West relations to come as well. Make an effort to attend next year!

I just returned from the Orientale Lumen conference and I’ll give a report in the next few days. But I wanted to post some pictures from the conference (click on any picture to enlarge)

Archbishop Donald Wuerl

Metropolitan Jonah (OCA)

Vespers at St. Mark's Orthodox Church

Archbishop Wuerl and Metropolitan Jonah discussing a topic

Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.

Fr. Peter Galadza (Ukrainian Catholic)

Orthodox iconographer Elias Damianakis

Panel discussion

Orientale Lumen Director Jack Figel

The Orientale Lumen conference here in DC begins in earnest today, and I am attending. The theme of the conference is the Councils of the Church, and there are some great speakers. Today promises to be especially interesting, as the Washington bishop of both the Roman Catholic Church (Archbishop Donald Wuerl) and the Orthodox Church in America (Metropolitan Jonah) will be speaking.

I hope to have some commentary and pictures up later this week. Pray for all those involved!

As a Roman Catholic who has often attended Divine Liturgy at a Melkite Catholic church, I found this motivational poster quite funny and a bit too close to the mark:

Even the pope* of Alexandria:

Egyptian pope rejects ruling letting Copts remarry

The head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church rejected on Tuesday a court ruling that Coptic men could remarry, saying the decision was against the church’s principles and reflected interference in its affairs.

A court upheld a ruling last week that two Coptic men had the right to remarry even though divorced, a move seen as undermining the church’s efforts to maintain authority over Christians in Muslim-majority Egypt.

The court decision was prompted by a rare intervention by Coptic Pope Shenouda who had launched an appeal on behalf of the church to overturn a similar court ruling made in March 2008.

Shenouda and 90 other officials in Egypt’s Orthodox church had signed a document against the verdict, the pope said.

“This statement expresses our rejection of the ruling,” Shenouda told a news conference, showing reporters the document.

Analysts say the ruling challenges the church’s efforts to hold sway over its flock and guard Coptic values in Egypt, where conservative Islamic trends have gained ground.

Christians, mostly Orthodox Copts, make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s 78 million people. Many Christians grumble about discrimination, although some Christians have risen to ministerial rank or are top business executives. “We should examine the issue, otherwise it would suggest Copts are exhausted and (can be put) under pressure in their religion,” the pope said, saying he was discussing further legal steps, even though the latest ruling followed a final appeal.

After the ruling last month, Pope Shenouda said the church would still not allow remarriage after divorce, except in cases of separation following adultery. Tuesday’s comments were his most outspoken rejection of the ruling.

“I am announcing that the church respects the law but it does not accept rules except from the bible,” the pope said…

*Traditionally, the head of the Coptic Church has always been called “pope,” a name which means “father.”

Those familiar with the churches of the East know that many Orthodox churches have an Eastern Catholic counterpart. This usually occurred because at some point in history a segment of that particular Orthodox Church decided to enter into communion with Rome and thus broke away from the larger Orthodox church of which they belonged. These Eastern Catholic churches are quite controversial among many Orthodox, who believe that they are “Trojan horse” churches attempting to lure Orthodox believers into the Catholic fold (in fact, their existence at one point caused the disruption of Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical talks).

But there is an Eastern Catholic church which has no Orthodox counterpart, because it never left communion with Rome: the Maronite Catholic Church. The history of the Lebanese Maronites is a fascinating one. They trace their church to St. Maron, a monk who lived in the 4th century. They vigorously supported the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon at a time when many in the East rejected it and formed their own communions, but due to a variety of reasons, the Maronites ended up going into seclusion in the mountains of Lebanon in the 8th century.

Then, in the 12th century, Latin Crusaders encountered them. Amazingly, they immediately declared that they were in communion with Rome and always had been! Since that time, they have been faithful Catholics, never wavering from their support of the Pope.

This past week while in Cyprus, the current Pope offered them his greetings and his blessing:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I am very pleased to make this visit to the Cathedral of Our Lady of Graces. I thank Archbishop Youssef Soueif for his kind words of welcome on behalf of the Maronite community in Cyprus, and I cordially greet all of you with the words of the Apostle: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:3)!

As I visit this building, in my heart I make a spiritual pilgrimage to every Maronite church of the island. Be assured that, moved by a father’s care, I am close to all the faithful of those ancient communities.

This Cathedral church in some way represents the very long and rich – and sometimes turbulent – history of the Maronite community in Cyprus. Maronites came to these shores at various times throughout the centuries and were often hard-pressed to remain faithful to their distinct Christian heritage. Nevertheless, in spite of their faith being tested like gold in a fire (cf. 1 Pet 1:7), they remained constant in the faith of their fathers, a faith which has now been passed on to you, the Maronite Cypriots of today. I urge you to treasure this great inheritance, this precious gift.

This Cathedral building also reminds us of an important spiritual truth. Saint Peter tells us that we Christians are the living stones which are being “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 2:4-5). Together with Christians throughout the world, we are part of that great temple which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Our spiritual worship, offered in many tongues, in many places and in a beautiful variety of liturgies, is an expression of the one voice of the People of God, united in praise and thanksgiving to him and in enduring communion with each other. This communion, which we hold so dear, impels us to carry the Good News of our new life in Christ to all mankind.

This is the charge I leave with you today: I pray that your Church, in union with all your pastors and with the Bishop of Rome, may grow in holiness, in fidelity to the Gospel and in love for the Lord and for one another.

Commending you and your families, and especially your beloved children to the intercession of Saint Maron, I willingly impart to all of you my Apostolic Blessing.

The Maronites are a beautiful witness to the Church breathing with both lungs – may they continue to grow and prosper!

Update: I have been informed that the Italo-Albanian church has also never broken communion with Rome. They have a somewhat confusing history, so I was under the impression that they did have a period in which they were out of communion with Rome, but I was mistaken. My apologies!