This chapter illustrates the broader historical context in which the 1724 internal schism of the Antiochian Patriarchate took place, examining how the Catholic apostolate affected the relationship between Ottoman authorities and their Eastern Christian subjects over time. In particular, I analyse the transition from one period (the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), in which cross‑confessional interaction and ambiguous affiliations were a wide‑spread reality in the Near East, to another (the eighteenth century), which saw the insurgence of more clear‑cut and exclusive confessional boundaries. In my view, this evolution was fundamental in re‑shaping the confessional characteristics and the self‑perception of the Eastern Christian communities of the Empire, as well as their role in the Ottoman society. To support the validity of this argument, my analysis, rather than focusing on Arab Christianity, instead turns to other Christian communities of the Empire, especially Greeks and Armenians.

The struggle that started with the parallel appointments of Silvestros of Cyprus and Kyrillos Ṭānās in 1724 as patriarch of Antioch has attracted the attention of scholars for a long time. This struggle, which caused a still unresolved schism, comprised several interrelated aspects, and most of these aspects have received due attention by many scholars. However, the role of the Ottoman central administration in the schism of 1724 has been either ignored or analysed through indirect resources or references. This paper aims to fill this gap by focusing on the role of the Ottoman central administration in the conflict between Silvestros and Kyrillos with the incorporation of Ottoman documentation into the debate, in particular the Ottoman correspondence during Kyrillos Ṭānās’ brief tenure in 1745. Because the Ottoman documents contain the correspondence between the Ottoman imperial chancery and both Silvestros and Kyrillos, they are instrumental for two particular reasons. First, they shed light on certain unexplored intricacies of the conflict between the two contestants, most notably how the two sides presented their case vis‑à‑vis the Ottoman central administration through effective use of the Ottoman bureaucratic apparatus and administrative jargon. Second, they offer the most useful glance through which to scrutinise the way the Ottoman administration approached this conflict through the fundamental principles of governance. Overall, through a detailed analysis of the Ottoman correspondence this paper analyses how, in support of their cases, Silvestros and Kyrillos contributed to the formation of a common Ottoman language compatible with the discourse of the Ottoman central administration.

During the Ottoman period, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople exerted its influence over several autocephalous Churches, including the Patriarchate of Antioch. Its interventions challenged the independence of these Churches, particularly in the matters of the election and deposition of their primates. These actions were motivated by the needs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the exceptional rights granted to the Ecumenical Patriarch, rooted in Byzantine legislation and ecclesiastical canons. Specific instances of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s intervention in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Antioch include significant depositions and elections of patriarchs.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople acted to restore order and legality within the Patriarchate of Antioch, in accordance with the canonical norms of the Orthodox Church. Additionally, other events mentioned in the documents reflect divisions and power struggles within the Patriarchate of Antioch. Some individuals attempted to usurp the patriarchal seat of Antioch and promote Latin innovations and ideas. The Ecumenical Patriarchate acted to put an end to these machinations and requested the Ottoman authorities to exile the culprits. Ecclesiastical sanctions were imposed, leading to the deposition of clergy members and the excommunication of supporting laypersons.

These interventions by Constantinople in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Antioch before the rupture of 1724 aimed to preserve its autonomy from union with the Roman Church and to maintain its orthodoxy, thereby keeping it within the sphere of influence of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

This text focuses on the involvement of French and British merchants, in Saida and Acre, in the religious struggles around 1724. Saida emerged as a stronghold for the French‑Catholic‑Melkite faction, becoming a strategic hub for their activities. The French merchants, primarily engaged in the cotton trade and other commodities, forged close collaborations with the local Rūm and Maronite communities. The British merchants relied more heavily on their trade interests with Armenians and Greek Orthodox communities. The European merchants, wielding substantial credit power, played a crucial role in maintaining stability and safeguarding their own interests. Leveraging their credit network, the merchants extended financial support to the conflicting parties of the religious schism.

This text also emphasizes the active involvement of the French nation in supporting the Catholic cause, missionaries, and Oriental Catholics. French merchants relied on the expertise of Rūm Catholic ship captains and corsairs for their trade interests, often cooperating with Rūm Orthodox as well. They engaged in real estate investments and donations, the rental revenues of which were supporting the Melkite monasteries in the Syrian hinterland.

Finally, this contribution aims to provide a rough idea of the “overall cost” of the schism through the documentation of both Roman and Melkite sums and payments in letters, notes of the Propaganda Fide and in Niʿmah Ibn al‑ḫūrī Tūmā’s chronicle. Some 230,000 to 320,000 piastres (400 to 600 Ottoman purses) are given as sums spent on the Melkite side between 1724 and 1750. Doubling or tripling this fragmentary information might give an idea of what a “Cold War” situation of a schism in the Near‑East was costing in the first half of the eighteenth century.

In the modern era, religious minorities in Bilād al‑Šām defined their identities by differentiating themselves from one another. Often, they chose a Western patron to solidify their position vis-à-vis their rivals. In early eighteenth-century Beirut, the rivalry that energized the Rūm community was an internal one that emerged after the schism of 1724. In a marginal city on the periphery of the Ottoman Empire, far from Western influence, two factions of the same sect developed agency to defend their beliefs and control their community. They established relations with local notables: the Orthodox stayed close to the Muslims and the Ottomans, while the Catholics allied themselves with the ruling families of Mount Lebanon. Two printing presses, one for each camp, were active in Beirut and its immediate surroundings. Educated young men from Aleppo joined a local Catholic monastic order, while the Orthodox opened a school in the city. Rūms also held high offices in Beirut in the second half of the eighteenth century. Yūnus Ğubaylī used his friendship with Aḥmad Pasha al‑Ğazzār to give the Orthodox faction an advantage in controlling the community. Blinded by greed, Fāris Dahhān weakened the Catholic’s community in the city. Both Ğubaylī and Dahhān involved themselves in the affairs of other sects. When Aḥmad Pasha al‑Ğazzār died in 1804, the Rūm community was exhausted and impoverished, but the Orthodox faction had the upper hand. It controlled the church and included the majority of the community’s members. Contrary to its coreligionists in Aleppo and Saida, it held its ground.

The establishment of a Rūm Catholic Church in the Patriarchate of Antioch, i.e. the creation of a Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy and administration, was a complex process, which was not only met with fierce opposition by the Orthodox Church but also caused heavy internal disputes within the Uniate movement, an aspect which has only received little attention so far. By analysing a letter to be found in the Archives of the Metropolitan Cathedral in Mdina ( Malta), the present paper sheds some light on the internal quarrels in the early Rūm Catholic Melkite Church. The letter, which was written in 1736 by Ignatios, the Rūm Catholic bishop of Homs, contains severe accusations against Kyrillos Ṭānās, whose assumption of the post of patriarch of Antioch in 1724 is generally seen as the beginning of the Melkite Rūm Catholic Church, and also against Maximos Ḥakīm, a close associate of Kyrillos who became Rūm Catholic metropolitan of Aleppo in 1732. Both men are accused of a great variety of misdeeds, mainly connected with their coming to power, which is regarded as uncanonical. In strong words full of anger and contempt, Ignatios casts serious doubts on their personal qualifications to be leaders of their communities. An analysis of Ignatios’ letter based on a great variety of other documents shows that the establishment of the Rūm Catholic Church in the patriarchate of Antioch was a process full of internal contradictions and that resistance against certain developments did not only come from the Orthodox adversary and the Ottoman authorities but also from forces within the Uniate movement.

The history of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church from 1724 remains a largely unwritten chapter. Between the late 17th century and the early 18th century, two new monastic congregations, the Salvatorians and the Shwayrites, emerged in the Lebanese mountains. While the role of monks was crucial in shaping the dynamics of the new Church, these two congregations, experiencing initial growth, began constructing themselves in a situation marked by intense rivalry from the 1730s onward. The competition between these orders within local churches, particularly for the acquisition of eparchies and the patriarchate, served as a driving force for the expansion of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. The intertwining of the emerging ecclesiastical hierarchy and the Basilian orders sheds light on the mechanisms shaping the Church until the late 18th century and beyond.

The initial Greek‑Catholic religious orders within the Patriarchate of Antioch, specifically the Order of the Holy Savior and the Choueirite Basilian Order, played a pivotal role in shaping the Greek‑Catholic Church’s formation, consolidation, and development. This analysis spans from the 18th to the late 19th century, employing a comparative approach to explore the robust connection between these orders and the Greek‑Catholic Church. The examination covers their founding, geographical expansion, contributions to Greek‑Catholic parishes, and roles in shaping the Greek‑Catholic episcopal body.

This study argues that, beyond the recognized influence of Western missionaries, three factors significantly influenced these orders’ establishment and growth: the monastic geography of their locales, the ecclesiastical standing of their founders, and the support from Lebanese mountain political authorities. In essence, this contribution underscores the complex dynamics that drove the Greek‑Catholic Church’s formation and growth, analyzing the interactions between the Order of the Holy Savior, the Choueirite Basilian Order, and the broader socio‑political and ecclesiastical context during this critical historical period.

The division of the Patriarchate of Antioch between Orthodox and Catholics has always been a contentious issue, involving theological, political, and economic reasons. Generally, believers have little knowledge about the theological reasons that led to this division. They tend to think that the choices of ritual and community are motivated by political and economic interests rather than profound doctrinal differences. Only the clerical elites, close to local governors and families responsible for tax collection, seem to understand the theological motivations underlying this division.

The question of sharing assets between the two separated communities is a major source of conflict, especially concerning monasteries, agricultural lands, liturgical objects, and manuscripts. Each community accuses the other of appropriating the best assets, and these tensions have persisted for centuries, making reunification difficult, if not impossible.

In this article, we will provide an example of conflicts over the allocations of Dayr Mār Yūḥannā al‑Ṣābiġ Choueir and Dayr al‑Nabī Īliyyā Šwayyā between the Orthodox and Catholic, in which the Abī al‑Lamʿ emirs intervened and received sums of money from both parties.

These conflicts and rivalries have left deep scars that persist to this day. Despite this, the laity has maintained a certain understanding and peace by adhering to the traditions of good neighborliness and forming commercial and marital alliances.

The Choueirite Annals are a detailed account of significant events in the history of the Choueirite Basilian Order, the Rūm Patriarchate of Antioch, several archdioceses, and civil history. There exist five manuscripts of this account. This article specifically focuses on the period of the split within the Rum Patriarchate of Antioch, which occurred from 1724 to 1729, and examines how the Choueirites experienced and perceived this event. The 1724 schism within the Rum Patriarchate of Antioch cannot be considered a purely ecclesiastical event. In addition to the evident interference of the Roman See, Latin missionaries present in the Near East, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in this matter, the Ottoman Empire and local authorities played a significant role in endorsing this schism. Furthermore, the Choueirite Annals highlight that certain elements of Latin tradition were already present in the spiritual life of the Rums of Antioch before the 1724 split. Practices such as the worship of Saint Joseph, Corpus Christi, the litany of the Virgin Mary, holy water fonts in churches, and the filioque were already present and integrated into the religious life of the Rums of Antioch. The Choueirite Annals use offensive language and frequently refer to the Bible. These elements can be interpreted as a form of self‑defense in a conflicted context, where the Choueirites, on behalf of the Rūms Catholic, sought to justify their position and strengthen their identity against various external influences.

Born in 1701 in the historic city of Kyiv, Vassili Grigorovitch‑Barski began his educational journey at the renowned Mohyla Orthodoxe College. However, his quest for knowledge and desire to explore new Christian lands led him on a journey of intellectual and spiritual exploration around the world. Spanning from 1723 to 1747, his travels took him through a multitude of cultural landscapes, from the Cossack lands to the picturesque landscapes of Italy and Greece, traversing the Ottoman provinces of the Levant, passing through Mount Athos, then Constantinople, before arriving in the Romanian Principalities.

In 2019, a partial French translation of his travels, done by Myriam Odaysky based on the Russian edition, provided valuable insights into the notes Barski wrote during his stay in Ottoman Syria, shortly after the momentous schism in the Church of Antioch in 1724.

Barski maintained a close relationship with Patriarch Sylvester of Cyprus, who ordained him a priest and protected him for many years. His relationships and observations regarding the upheavals that shook all levels of the community, from the humblest to the most eminent, paint a vivid portrait of that time, which he testifies to as a direct witness. His valuable annotations complement and enrich the information provided by Arab chroniclers of the 18th century, shedding light on the transformations that the Antiochian Christians underwent after the fateful year 1724.

Nikolaos al-Ṣāʾiġ (1692‑1756) not only played a crucial role in the establishment of the Basilian Shwayrite Order in the Melkite Church, but he was also the most important Christian poet in Arabic in the first half of the 18th century. In his Dīwān, several poems are devoted to attacks on the Orthodox and their hierarchy. Nikolaos was well acquainted with the Arabic poetic tradition and Byzantine liturgical poetry. At the same time, he had adopted the position of the Roman Catholic Church on those dogmatic issues which distinguished it from the Orthodox. His hiğāʾ (satirical poetry), which reflects these different elements, expresses the Melkite position in a genre which was easy to memorise and accessible to wide circles who would not read or follow learned treatises.

The double patriarchal election of 1724 within the Rūm Patriarchate of Antioch precipitated the emergence of two distinct Churches ‐ one Orthodox and the other Catholic. This juncture prompted profound questions about the identity of the nascent community, particularly the challenge of reconciling Eastern heritage with Catholic affiliation. These queries extended to the realm of liturgy, with specific implications for the observance of the Sunday dedicated to St. Gregory Palamas ‐ an emblematic figure symbolizing the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity. This paper seeks to investigate the liturgical transformations within this community during the initial years following the union, focusing on the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent as an illustrative case. The examination, grounded in contemporary Triodia, operates on both a liturgical and terminological plane. As liturgical texts and rites serve as vehicles for conveying the Church’s beliefs, the analysis of this particular facet post‑union sheds light on the intricate process of shaping the identity of the Melkite Church.

Dealing with the early stage of the controversy regarding the epiclesis in the Church of Antioch, the authors analyze an unpublished correspondence between the Christians of Tripoli and Aleppo and Patriarch Gerasimos II of Alexandria, which took place in 1701‑1702, concerning the moment of the consecration of the holy gifts. The article provides essential information on the ecclesio‑political situation and the history of the Catholic presence in the Levant, as well as on subsequent eucharistic disputes in the Arab East. The authors speculate on the circumstances of the controversy, the possible initiators of the appeal to the Greek patriarch within the community of Tripoli, and which members of the Aleppan party might have been behind the critical reaction to Gerasimos’s epistle. The second part of the article places Patriarch Gerasimos’s epistle and the response of the Aleppans within the centuries‑old context of the history of the controversy regarding the moment of consecration of the holy gifts at the Divine Liturgy, thus clarifying the origin and content of the arguments of both sides.

The aim of this article is to clarify the internal and external factors that influenced the development of the self-consciousness of the Russian Orthodox Church and some aspects of its ecclesiology in the 18th century. In this context, the ecclesiological positions of the Russian Church regarding its own Old Believer schism and the disputes within the Eastern Orthodox Churches, particularly the Rūm schism in the Patriarchate of Antioch, will be examined, especially in light of the significant state changes in Russia during the reign of Tsar Peter the Great. Additionally, the analysis will explore how these factors, along with the broader issue of Latin uniatism, contributed to the theoretical formulation and resolution of the question of the essence and principles of Church unity. The conclusions reached during this period are largely determined by the historical context, making the ecclesiology developed at that time distinctly contextual.

The main objective of this article is to analyze the theses put forth by three prominent authors from the 19th and early 20th centuries, focusing specifically on the meaning of the terms “Melkites” and “Rūms”, the origin of the designated group, and the linguistic diversity characterizing this community. The authors examined in this endeavor include Amīn Ẓāhir Ḫayr Allāh, Father Henri Lammens, and Father Constantin Bacha.

The nearly unanimous convergence of opinions between Ḫayr Allāh and Lammens, favoring a predominantly Syriac origin of the Rūm community, significantly contrasts with Bacha’s view, which confidently attributes a predominantly Greek origin. The article outlines the continuation of this discussion by exploring the perspectives of four other Rūm authors from the 20th century.

While the exploration of the appellation, its meanings, and related themes may be the subject of future studies through new sources, this article demonstrates the construction of a certain consensus among scholars on the points raised during the last century.

Although a prime cradle of Christianity, Antioch did not remain in its swaddling clothes but acquired such biblical and patristic credentials as only Jerusalem and Rome could surpass. In spite of its towering position as the third city of the Roman Empire and as a key frontier outpost, it suffered greatly from both its rickety geophysical foundation and its being a favorite venue of carrying out Church conflicts. The year 1724 thus epitomizes the past in such a way that the Split has seemed to serve as the definite rift between the Byzantine Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic Church. Certainly, the Split of 1724 has been thought to have better credentials as the definitive rift between East and West than does 1054 or 1204 or 1484 or any other date.

However, the present study begs to differ. The Split itself was based on the shifting sands of a vacillating interplay of theological and non‑theological factors, rendering the Split itself a variable in a long series of blowups, albeit the most serious. If we want to move ahead, as the Antiochian Christians of old did, we cannot seek refuge in theological subterfuges with their hair‑splitting as an alibi but rather must build on the foundational theology of the birth of the Church from the Split Side of the Savior. The paper thus calls for reflection on the providential design behind church divisions, urging a commitment to communitarian theology and the common good for spiritual growth and reconciliation. This study encourages viewing splits as opportunities for renewal and spiritual growth and offers a nuanced perspective on the dual nature of church divisions as both challenging and transformative.