113. Latin American Problems;    114. Catholicity and Dissent

113. LATIN AMERICAN PROBLEMS

 Relations with the United States were on the whole cordial until 1845, for the Monroe Doctrine was deemed a shield against the still existing threat of reconquest by Spain, aided by a coalition of reactionary powers. The war with Mexico and the annexation of New Mexico and California, however, raised Latin American suspicions of the United States, and these were increased by the irresponsible demands of American Jingoists. This mounting tension (1845-98) was changed into acute fear and dislike by the Spanish-American War which found most of the Latin Americans sympathizing with Spain. From 1898 to 1918 United States intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominica, and Mexico provoked a rabid anti-North American polemic in Latin American lands. World War I, however, forced these to resort to the United States, as much trading with Europe was cut off, while American military prowess elicited new respect. Waning North American intervention in the Caribbean, and the conciliatory policies of Presidents Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt somewhat mitigated suspicion. World War II drove the American nations together and culminated in the Declaration of Chapultepec, February, 1945, that “every attack of a state against the integrity or the inviolability of territory or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American state . . . shall be considered as an act of aggression against the other states which sign this declaration.”

Inter-American conflict, frequent during the nineteenth century, lessened during the twentieth. The Chilean-Peruvian Nitrate dispute was arbitrated in 1929, and the Bolivian-Paraguayan Chaco War between 1935 and 1938. There was increasing willingness to make use of arbitral machinery, whether of a World Court, Pan-American Union, or ABC  ^{[p. 787]} Powers. Union to preserve hemispheric freedom against Totalitarianism furnished an enduring motive for Pan-American solidarity, but fear of the United States still rendered Latin American non-co-operation quite possible.

Pan-American Union had been originally suggested by President Bolivar of Columbia and Secretary of State Clay, but the Panama Congress of 1826 was poorly attended and without practical result. The project was revived by Secretary of State Blaine and an initial meeting held at Washington during 1889. Other meetings followed at frequent intervals, and in addition there were hemispheric conferences of American statesmen regarding World War II. “It has become evident from the above that as the twentieth century progressed toward its middle point, Pan-Americanism, as represented by the official congresses and the official but more especial meetings, became increasingly identified with the Monroe Doctrine as it developed from a unilateral instrument to a multilateral agreement. The example of international co-operation given to the world since the 1930’s by the free nations of the Western Hemisphere has been one to edify and encourage.” ²⁰

²⁰ John Bannon and Peter Dunne, Latin America (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1946), p. 862.

Hierarchical organization. The effects of the Plenary Latin American Council of 1899-1900 appeared in improved clerical leadership. The Holy See followed up the meeting by erecting new sees or vicariates. Between 1900 and 1921, twenty-one dioceses were erected in Spanish South America, forty-one in Brazil, and eight in Central America. Yet by 1940 an estimated 100,000,000 Catholics were served by only 227 bishops and 17,370 priests. Maryknoll missionaries from the United States began to reinforce the Latin American clergy in 1942, and the expulsion of many of their confreres from the Far East enabled them to send more help to this new field. By 1946, there were 571 priests and brothers and 511 sisters of United States religious communities laboring in Latin America, and this roster has been increasing. Yet in 1946 the lack of priests was still serious.

Education. Improved clerical education is seen in new seminaries at Montevideo and Lima, a Brazilian college at Rome, and better curricula in older institutions. New Catholic universities for lay training were established at Bogota and Medellin, and improved facilities added to other institutions. More guidance was furnished Catholic college students, and there has been greater exchange between Latin and North American Catholic institutions. Educational in a religious sense were the International Eucharistic Congress at Buenos Aires (1934) and ^{[p. 788]} similar gatherings. Catholic Action is beginning to take hold among the youth. Bishop Andrea in Buenos Aires became noted for the social centers that he organized and the study and recreational opportunities afforded in the city’s youth center, Ateneo de la Juventud.

Parochial life. “One of the weaknesses in the Church in South America is the lack of parochial life as that is understood in other countries. There is not the same family spirit binding the people to the priest, not the same interest in such parochial concerns as sodalities, as one finds in countries where hampering traditions do not exist. Personal visits, the taking of a census, the making of annual reports about the spiritual state of the parish, which are ordinary concerns of a pastor in the United States, are practiced only in parts of the southern continent. That is a serious matter since parochial life is the foundation of the Church and no degree of progress in other fields—monasteries, universities, and the rest—can make up for the lack of a closely knit and well organized parish life. Many of the younger clergy realize that and are trying to remedy the situation, but the old traditions die hard and the type of parish priest who does little beyond saying Mass, reciting the Breviary, and attending the sick when summoned is not yet extinct in South America. The blame must, however, be placed on the shoulders of many of the laity themselves, who are prone to misinterpret the motives of a priest who displays an eagerness to mingle with his people and get to know them, the clergy being in consequence forced to forego many such outlets for their zeal for fear of giving scandal.” ²¹ Hierarchical concern was reflected in the meeting of six hundred Latin American bishops at Rio during July, 1955, and the setting up of an episcopal conference which first met at Bogota in 1956.

Edwin Ryan, The Church in the South American Republics (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1943), Introduction, v—vi.

Porfirio Diaz (1830-1915) won power by successful revolution in November, 1876, and remained caudillo until expelled by the same means during 1911. His prolonged dictatorship gave Mexico good order, increased railway transport, promoted commerce and stimulated construction and industry, all with the assistance of foreign capital. Unfortunately the chief benefits of this new prosperity went to a few. President Diaz, without removing the anticlerical legislation, did not try to enforce it in many details. Seminaries, novitiates or schools might be operated by religious, and Catholic welfare institutions were unhindered. But the state schools, from which all ecclesiastical control ^{[p. 789]} had been removed, did little for the temporal benefit of the great proportion of the Mexican people.

Francisco Madero, a doctrinaire idealist and wealthy landowner, was installed as Diaz’s successor in 1911 after a successful rising against the aging dictator who had neglected to infuse new blood into his governmental system. Madero, though sincere and honest, was something of a neurotic and in any event could not promptly redeem promises made to the divergent elements of the coalition which had promoted him to the presidency. In February, 1913, Madero was deposed by General Huerta and subsequently killed. A promising Catholic social party, founded by Gabriel Fernandez Somellera in 1911, was denied an opportunity to initiate a reform program and was later (1917) outlawed.

Victoriano Huerta (1913-14) was an able but unscrupulous military chieftain who sought Mexico’s pacification in accord with his own ambitions. President Wilson of the United States, ill-advised by his personal agent in Mexico, Mr. Lind, insisted upon Huerta’s retirement and the installation of his rival Carranza, a disciple of Madero, as legitimate president. Ammunition was accordingly sent to the latter and denied to the former. Importation of arms from abroad by Huerta led to the Tampico Incident (1914) when detention of American sailors by Huerta provoked American intervention and an armed clash at Vera Cruz which resulted in two hundred casualties. When all the Mexican leaders denounced this action, President Wilson invited ABC mediation. Huerta finally took the hint and resigned—he died two years later, reconciled to the Church.

Venustiano Carranza (1914-20) now gradually emerged as the generally recognized President of Mexico, although he was long troubled by the guerilla chief, Pancho Villa, whose raid into New Mexico in March, 1916, provoked a futile American pursuit into Mexico by General Pershing. Though Carranza had once been a practicing Catholic and had been friendly toward the Church before his “election” to the presidency, he had accepted the support of Villareal, Obregon, Calles, Alvarado, and other Jacobin Liberals. In Yucatan, Alvarado imprisoned or exiled all of the bishops and most of the priests; nuns were molested and expelled, churches profaned and the sacred vessels stolen. In 1915, President Wilson, though disposed to regard these excesses as byproducts of an otherwise wholesome revolution, protested against the treatment of the clergy. Carranza attempted to fulfill his pledges to Wilson of fair treatment, but proved incapable of controlling his followers, or rather masters. ^{[p. 790]}

President Alvaro Obregon (1920-24) avoided open persecution of the Church until he had secured the recognition of the United States in 1923. But then he dismissed the apostolic delegate for presuming to bless the cornerstone of a monument to the Sacred Heart, and during 1924 arrests were made of those who attended Eucharistic celebrations, even within church buildings.

President Plutarco Calles (1924-28), like Obregon, was a capitalist exploiting the poor in the name of Socialism.

The Ley Calles was a sweeping penal code announced by the president in June, 1926, to go into effect the following July 31. This enforced a most rigorous and even extended interpretation of the anticlerical provisions of the Constitution of 1917, and added to any violation extreme penalties.

Clerics might not

Resistance. Although the Mexican hierarchy placed an interdict on public church services, and Catholics presented a petition with two million signatures to Congress, no redress was given. A nationwide boycott failed. From January, 1927, Flores and his Cristeros waged guerilla warfare in Jalisco; though Flores was shot in April, 1927, some of his followers held out until July, 1929.

 Among these was Padre Miguel Pro, S.J., falsely ^{[p. 791]} accused with his brothers of trying to assassinate Obregon. When Obregon was actually slain in July, 1928, Galles seems to have been frightened, for he entered into negotiations with Archbishop Ruiz through the mediation of Father Burke of NCWC and Ambassador Morrow of the United States. In September, 1928, Galles retired from the presidency in favor of Emilio Portes Gil, though as minister of war he remained caudillo in all subsequent presidential administrations until 1935.

The Arreglo or Pact of 1929 between President Portes Gil (1928-30) and Bishops Ruiz and Diaz, promised:

The president announced that officials should not interpret the anticlerical laws unreasonably, nor interfere with ecclesiastical services and instructions within the church buildings. Federal anticlericalism was thus considerably mitigated during the next six years, despite occasional flare-ups, but Governor Canabal of Tabasco continued to terrorize his province until expelled by a revolt in 1935.

President Lazaro Cardenas (1934-40), substituted by Galles for several incompetent puppets, soon (1935) turned on the dictator and exiled him. Cardenas seems to have had genuine sympathy for the poor and sought their betterment through a socialistic program.

But Church-state relations reached a new crisis when Cardenas decreed, January 8, 1935, that all schools, public or private, must teach Socialism or be closed.

Teachers were obliged to be devoid of any religious convictions, and preferably atheists.

Sex education was offered indiscriminately to pupils through crude methods.

Mitigation of persecution followed under President Avila Camacho (1940-46) who suppressed the Cardenas educational directives in 1941. Although ecclesiastical property remained “nationalized,” it was placed under the protection of the Supreme Court, itself less dependent on ^{[p. 792]} factional politics through its life membership. Camacho admitted publicly that he was a “believer,” and permitted two small conservative parties to operate. One was the Acciôn Nacional founded in 1939 by the Catholic lawyer, Don Gomez Morin; the other the Union Nacional Sinarquista, sometimes accused of Fascist leanings. The official candidates nevertheless—perhaps inevitably—triumphed in the 1946, 1952, and 1958 elections. But Camacho’s successors, Aleman, Ruiz Cortines, and Lopez Mateos, continued his policy of benign religious toleration, without, however, disturbing the antiecclesiastical legislation still on the statute books.

Catholic Action, evoked by the persecutions, has labored in the narrow sphere allowed it. Buena Prensa, begun in 1937, distributes Catholic literature. The national organization of Catholic Action enlisted 345,000 members, and Bishop Miranda, a progressive sponsor of this work, was promoted to the primatial see of Mexico City in 1956. While Mexican seminaries are reviving, the mission seminary at Montezuma, New Mexico, founded during 1937, is still being maintained. In 1917 a Mexican missionary congregation, Missionaries of the Holy Spirit, was formed. Promotion of a Mexican prelate to the cardinalate, which in the past had encountered governmental opposition, seemed a portent of better times in 1958.

114.  ECUMENISM and DIVERSITY("CATHOLICITY AND DISSENT")

 A. Catholic Attitude toward Reunion

(1) REUNION TRENDS

Agnostic and materialistic assaults upon Christian truth had influenced many earnest religiously minded persons to deplore the disunion of Christendom, and to discuss projects of co-operation or union among all who revered Christ. The Holy See had never ceased to invite Dissidents to return, and appeals to this effect were sent out prior to the First Vatican Council of 1869 and in preparation for the Second in 1959. Oriental Dissidents, if gradually thawing, remained cool toward papal overtures, while the Protestants generally ignored any reunion upon Rome’s terms. The most promising reunion movement in the West, the Oxford, had failed of mass conversion. In the United States, Lewis Wattson (1863-1940), an Episcopalian minister, founded the Society of the Atonement on Franciscan models in 1898. As Father Paul Francis he had worked and prayed for Christian reunion, instituting the Church Unity Octave in 1908. Presently he applied to Rome and during 1909 was received with his community, numbering, however, less than a score. Individual rather than group reunion continued to be the pattern, despite many non-Catholic meetings and expressions of good will. ^{[p. 793]}

 (2) ROMAN NORMS

Ecclesia Catholica, a decree of the Holy Office, December 20, 1949, instructed the hierarchy on the Holy See’s attitude toward this increasingly publicized “ecumenical movement.”

(1) Rome, it was pointed out, deplored the existing disunion. Though she takes no part in “ecumenical” conferences arranged by schismatic or heretical sects, she remains intensely concerned and continually prays that all “who believe in Him may be perfect in one.” Bishops should promote agencies and information centers for consultation by non-Catholics, and train worthy and competent counselors.

(2) Union, however, must be attained without sacrifice of truth. “Unity can result only from one single rule of faith and one same belief among all Christians.” Hence: a) Differences in dogma must not be deemed negligible, and Catholic dogma is not to be “accommodated” to suit apologetic needs. b) “Bishops will not allow recourse to a perilous mode of speaking which engenders false notions and raises deceitful hopes.” c) In treating of accounts of the Protestant Reformation, Catholic faults and foibles should not be exaggerated nor dwelt upon exclusively without indicating the malice of rebellion. d) Catholic doctrines should not be adulterated or suppressed, but expounded “whole and entire” without reservation or ambiguity.

(3) Bishops ought, then, (a) exercise vigilance and care; (b) be well informed on prospects through able priests; (c) lay down rules for mixed meetings held only after careful scrutiny and authorization of the hierarchy, and when there is prospect of good result; (d) these reservations are not to apply to catechetical instructions or conferences to non-Catholic inquirers, nor to non-doctrinal meetings for promotion of joint social works with non-Catholics.²²

22 Bishop Emile Blanchet, “Union of Christendom,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Supplement II.

B. Protestant Attitudes

(1) REUNION CONFERENCES

Proposals. During 1888 the Anglican Lambeth Conference urged reunion of Christians on what became known as the “Lambeth Quadrilateral”: (1) the Bible as containing all truths necessary for salvation; (2) the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds; (3) acceptance of baptism and Holy Communion; (4) the historic episcopate. Anglo-Catholics (High Church) opposed such a program, but Evangelicals (Low Church) for the most part favored union on some such terms. At the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910, the Episcopalian prelate Brent urged a ^{[p. 794]} world conference looking toward reunion. This was delayed by World War I, but in 1920 the Lambeth Conference issued an “Appeal to all Members of Christendom” on the basis of the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Congresses. Such a world conference, subsidized by J. P. Morgan to the extent of $100,000, convened at Lausanne, Switzerland, during 1927. But working agreement could not be reached even on the basis of the Lambeth Quadrilateral; yet a delegation invited the Holy See to participate. Another conference was scheduled for Utrecht in 1938, but was prevented by the strained international political conditions. After World War II, the delayed World Conference met at Amsterdam where 136 [denominations] were represented in 1948. It was claimed that this non-authoritative “World Council” was not designed to further union so much as to demonstrate unity already existing. The conference finally issued this qualified declaration: “We cannot unite because there are deep and serious differences between us in matters of faith, but neither can we continue to live in complete separation from one another. . . . We are not ready to enter into a full communion with each other and to act as one unified body, but we are now ready to give up all policies of isolation, to enter a truly Christian conversation with each other, and to act together whenever we can find common ground.” A third ecumenical conference of the permanent World Council and Secretariate was held at Evanston, Illinois, during 1954; Cardinal Stritch of Chicago in a pastoral of June 29, 1954, tactfully but firmly reiterated the Catholic stand that true Christian unity must be based on the Rock that is Peter. The Ninth Lambeth Conference (1958) reached no real unity, even on Primate Fisher’s proposed three points of the Bible, the Creeds, and the Book of Common Prayer. Evading any definition of schism, they conceded contraception to the married.

(2) INTER-DENOMINATIONAL FEDERATIONS

Prior to the Norwegian Lutheran Union of 1917, the only fusion of note among Protestant denominations had been the Prussian Evangelical Union which had been externally imposed by Hohenzollern fiat. Lutherans, disrupted by the overthrow of the monarchical German state churches in 1918, strove to achieve a Präktisches Christentum, a “Life and Work” program confining itself to social activity and minimizing doctrine. This was the spirit of the Stockholm Conference (1925) which advocated a Christianity, if need be, “without Church and without Bible.” American Lutherans formed a Conference in 1918, and a World Lutheran Federation was set up in 1948. During 1929 the United Free Churches of Scotland joined the Presbyterian Establishment, and during 1937 an American Methodist Union was formed. In 1925 Canadian Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists formed a loose “experimental” ^{[p. 795]} union, and in 1947 the “Church of South India” attempted to fuse Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists—though the project did not receive the full sanction of the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1948. Anglicans, Jansenists [i.e. “Old Catholics”], American National Polish, and Filipino Aglipayans have inter-communicated and exchanged orders at times, and there has been some co-operation between Episcopalians and Greek Orthodox, though most of the latter have remained reserved on all doctrinal issues. Outside of Rome, no universal or lasting bond of union has been discovered.

C. Byzantine Dissidents

(1) POLITICAL STATUS

Nationalistic movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries within the Ottoman dominions occasioned the Byzantine patriarchate much grief. Now the patriarchs’ co-operation with the sultans in Hellenizing the Slavic churches led to their identification with the Turkish regime by nationalist patriots. Thus, secular independence from Turkish rule as achieved in the Balkans usually soon entailed repudiation of patriarchal jurisdiction as well. Eventually all of these national churches became autocephalous, and the patriarch, while retaining an honorary precedence, was reduced to jurisdiction over less than one hundred thousand subjects. The patriarchs, indeed, excommunicated such rebels, but ultimately were obliged to concede a grudging recognition of an accomplished fact. Moreover, as Russia grew powerful, her secularized Holy Synod monopolized and regimented ecclesiastical discipline in all the Byzantine-Slavic lands, asserting a protectorate over the Orthodox still under Turkish rule. Most Orthodox bishops now took the title of metropolitan, which accordingly came to be meaningless. After the overthrow of the Ottoman dynasty, there arose a secular leader, Mustapha Kemal Pasha (1923-38) , who knew not the Phanar. Not merely did the patriarch lose all of his official privileges, but even the Mohammedan religion was disestablished.

(2) RELIGIOUS POSITION

Internal theological disputes during the nineteenth century caused a number of divisions. During the patriarchate of Gregory V, three times in office between 1797 and 1821, controversy raged about the propriety of colybes, wheaten cakes blessed at funeral repasts. The monks of Athos moved obsequies from the customary Saturday to Sunday for financial reasons. The patriarch allowed each community to follow local option, and Sunday observance has become common. He also introduced some disciplinary reforms and renewed the canon against second marriage for those in major orders. ^{[p. 796]}

Roman relations. Though an estimated fifteen thousand Catholics survived Turkish persecutions into the nineteenth century, they received in 1830 bare toleration from either Turkey or the newly created Greek state. Greek Orthodox prejudice, both among clergy and people, has remained strong against Latins. The papal encyclicals of Pius IX (1848, 1868) inviting the return of the Dissidents to Catholic unity were officially ignored, and that of Leo XIII (1894) elicited an insulting reply from Patriarch Anthemios VII of Constantinople. Patriarch Joachim III (1901-12), indeed, displayed a friendlier spirit, but his proposal of discussions was overruled by the other Orthodox patriarchs. Subsequent papal overtures were studiously ignored, but a representative of the Byzantine patriarch attended the coronation of Pius XII in 1939, and a papal envoy attended the installation of Maximos V. During 1957 the Phanar’s official newspaper, Apostolos Andreas, congratulated Pius XII on his eightieth birthday, and after the accession of Pope John XXIII Patriarch Athenagoras welcomed “appeals for peace . . . from a Christian center such as that of Old Rome.” Continued Roman solicitude for reunion has been manifested in the erection of new Oriental colleges in Rome, more frequent recognition of Oriental liturgies, erection of an Oriental curial congregation (1917), and direction of the Leonine Prayers after Low Mass to Russia’s conversion (1929). Hence, hopeful eyes were turned toward Venice, where unofficial discussions between Catholic and Orthodox theologians were expected.

D. Catholic Orientals

(1) BYZANTINE RITE

Greeks. Most of the Catholics in Turkey and Greece belonged to the Latin Rite, and efforts to form a Catholic Byzantine Rite mission date only from Father Marango’s arrival in Constantinople in 1856. By 1861 he had a small congregation at Pera, and had reconciled two Dissident bishops on their deathbeds. He was followed by Father Polycarp Anastides in 1878. During 1895 Pope Leo XIII sent French Assumption-ist Fathers who founded a seminary and two parishes, going over to the Byzantine Rite in 1897 with the approbation of the Holy See. Their review, Echos d’Orient, began to appear in 1907. In 1911 the Byzantine Catholics received an episcopal exarch, Isaias Papadopoulos, subsequently an advisor of the Roman curia. After a century of effort, however, only three thousand Greeks had been won to reunion, under episcopal exarchs at Constantinople and Athens.

Rumanians of the Byzantine Rite prospered under the independent Rumanian principality, several of whose princes were Catholic. By the time of the opening of Communist persecution, Rumania had some 1,500,000 Catholics of the Greek Rite under a metropolitan and four suffragans. In 1948 these were all declared “Orthodox” by the Soviet fiat.

Serbian Byzantine Catholics remained comparatively few—only fifty-five thousand under a bishop by 1945—but the Croats and Slovenes, later united with the Serbs in Yugoslavia, numbered six million Catholics, though mostly of the Latin Rite.

Albanian Catholics of the Greek Rite were but 120 in 1945, but there were 100,000 of the Latin Rite.

Bulgarian Catholicity of the Latin Rite dated from Franciscan evangelization during the sixteenth century, but Greek Rite converts began only in 1861 with the reconciliation of Bishop Sokolsky with nearly sixty thousand followers. Though many of these relapsed, in 1945 there were six thousand Byzantine Rite Catholics under an exarch, besides forty thousand Latins.

Ruthenians, forcibly subjected to Moscow by the czar in 1839, had been given liberty to reunite with Rome openly during the twentieth century. The Communists forced them back into the Greek Orthodox Church in 1946, although many refugees and emigrants had carried the Ruthenian Rite to Poland, Austria-Hungary, the United States, Canada, and elsewhere.

Melkites were disturbed during the nineteenth century both by elements of Jansenism and Gallicanism introduced from the Synod of Pistoia (1796) by Bishop Germanus Adama of Acre, and by Turkish persecutions which claimed the lives of eleven Catholics in 1817, and exiled many of the clergy. French intervention halted this persecution by 1831. The great Patriarch Maximos III (1833-55) organized the Melkite Rite, and the healthy condition of the community continued into the twentieth century when the Catholic Melkite patriarch of Antioch exercises jurisdiction over 150,000 in the Levant, not counting a diaspora.

(2) ARMENIAN RITE

Since the Catholics remained subject to the civil jurisdiction of the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, petty persecutions continued until religious liberty was proclaimed in 1831. The Catholic Armenians thereafter constituted a separate protectorate. Codification of Armenian legislation was begun in 1851, but Armenian Rite views clashed with those of the Roman Curia. A temporary schism was provoked by the papal bull Reversurus which defined episcopal jurisdiction and curbed lay interference. Rome had to intervene again in 1910-11. Turkish atrocities during World War I took the lives of seven Catholic bishops, one hundred priests, forty-five nuns, and thirty thousand of the faithful, ^{[p. 798]} besides destroying eight hundred churches. Since 1937 Patriarch Agaganian, named cardinal by Pius XII, has exercised jurisdiction over some 150,000 Catholic Armenians.

(3) SYRIAN RITES

“Catholic Jacobites” were recognized as a distinct body in 1830 by the Sultan, and conversions multiplied. The most extraordinary was that of the fanatic anti-Catholic, Mar Matthew Nakkar, metropolitan of Mosul, in the Vinentian house at Aleppo, November 27, 1832. Within two months he had won over fifty-four more Jacobites. Despite imprisonment, he continued a staunch Catholic until his death in 1868, bringing about the reconciliation of five Jacobite bishops. By the end of the century three more bishops and eight thousand Dissidents had been converted. Mar Gabriel Tappuni was named patriarch in 1929. Named cardinal in 1935, he became in 1939 the first residential patriarch to participate in a papal election. By this time Catholic Syrians nearly equaled the Dissidents in numbers: seventy-five to eighty thousand.

The Maronites had enjoyed comparative toleration under the autonomous Emirs of Lebanon, but were exposed after 1840 to attacks by the Druzes, a fanatical sect of Moslems. During May-June, 1860, over seven thousand Catholics were killed—eleven of the victims were beatified in 1926. French intervention restored order, though still others were slain by the Turks during World War I. After the war, the Maronites were included in the Republic of Lebanon under French protection. Withdrawal of this protection during and after World War II exposed the Maronites alike to Communist attacks and Pan-Arabian Nationalism. In 1932 there were 10 sees and 366,000 Catholics.

The Malankarese are a small group of Indian ex-Jacobites who returned to Catholic unity under Mar Ivanios and Mar Theophilus during 1930. By 1946 their example had been followed by fifty thousand of the faithful, including two more Dissident prelates.

(4) COPTIC RITE

Progress remained slow during the nineteenth century under vicars apostolic and there were but five thousand Catholic Copts in 1895 when the patriarchate was revived. The first patriarch of the new era, Cyril Makarios (1899-1908), subsequently resigned, apostatized, but returned to union on his deathbed. Rome returned to the system of apostolic administrators until 1947 when the patriarchate was restored in the person of Mark II Khuzam (1947-58) , who had been administrator since 1926. By this time Catholics numbered fifty thousand and there were sixty-six priests. ^{[p. 799]}

 (5) CHALDEAN RITE

The Chaldeans of Mesopotamia and Persia had been converted from Nestorianism in the sixteenth century but long continued restive in the Catholic fold. Disputes about the patriarchate continued until 1830, and Patriarch Joseph VI Audo (1848-78), who attended the Vatican Council, defied papal commands for a number of years, though he was reconciled before his death. Under the patriarchate of Emmanuel II (1900-46), the Chaldeans survived Turkish massacres, and numbered at its close about one hundred thousand, exceeding the Dissidents.

The Malabarese are converts from Nestorian missions in India during the Portuguese occupation. Though subjected to Latinizing and occasionally relapsing, numbers survived to 1887 when they received a native hierarchy, accorded full status in 1923.

This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2002....x....  ’ “”.