Ікона
Мелетія Антіохійського
Saint Mélèce d'Antioche
Évêque d'Antioche de
Syrie (+ 381)
"Luminaire de
l'Orthodoxie et modèle de vie évangélique", disent de lui les synaxaires.
Originaire de la Petite Arménie de Cilicie, il avait une vaste culture et une
grande vertu. D'abord évêque de Sébaste, puis élu patriarche d'Antioche, la plus
grande métropole de l'Orient à cette époque, il fut plusieurs fois exilé par
les empereurs ariens. Retiré dans ses propriétés de Cappadoce, il eut de
nombreuses occasions de rencontrer saint
Basile.
L’avènement de l'empereur
Théodose le Grand lui permit de retrouver son trône patriarcal. Il joua un rôle
prépondérant au concile œcuménique de Constantinople en 381 pendant lequel il
mourut. Saint Grégoire de
Nysse prononça son éloge funèbre.
Commémoraison de saint
Mélèce, évêque d’Antioche, qui fut souvent exilé à cause de la foi de Nicée et
s’en alla vers le Seigneur en 381, alors qu’il présidait le premier Concile de
Constantinople. Saint Grégoire de Nysse et saint
Jean Chrysostome ont donné de magnifiques éloges à ses vertus.
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : http://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/623/Saint-Melece-d-Antioche.html
MÉLÈCE saint (310
env.-381)
Originaire de Mélitène,
dans la petite Arménie, Mélèce fut élu évêque de Sébaste vers 358. On ne sait
pas bien quelle fut alors sa position dans les controverses théologiques du
temps, mais il rencontra certainement des difficultés, puisqu'il était retiré à
Alep quand, en 360, il fut promu au très important siège épiscopal d'Antioche. Il
est probable qu'on avait confiance dans sa sagesse, car la communauté
chrétienne d'Antioche était très divisée et les esprits étaient surexcités. De
fait Mélèce évita de se servir du vocabulaire théologique controversé, mais
cette prudence ne suffit pas. Un discours sur la génération du Verbe, conforme
à la doctrine du concile de Nicée, lui valut la haine des ariens et une
sentence d'exil de la part de l'empereur Constance. Celui-ci mourut peu après
et son successeur Julien l'Apostat manifesta son mépris des querelles
chrétiennes en abolissant les sentences de son prédécesseur. Malheureusement,
quand Mélèce arriva à Antioche, il trouva sa place prise par un autre évêque,
Paulin, ordonné par l'évêque Lucifer de Cagliari au mépris de tout droit. La
communauté catholique d'Antioche se trouva divisée. Renseigné presque
exclusivement par des partisans de Paulin, parmi lesquels se trouvait saint
Jérôme, ordonné prêtre en 378 par Paulin, le pape Damase (366-384) se montra
hostile à Mélèce, qui eut pour soutiens Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de
Nazianze. Après de longues péripéties, Mélèce rentra dans la pleine possession
de ses droits, quand l'empereur Théodose le reconnut comme seul évêque
d'Antioche. Damase ne pouvait alors qu'accepter sa profession de foi, conforme
d'ailleurs aux décisions des conciles romains. Mélèce présidait le concile
réuni à Constantinople en 381, quand il mourut, probablement le 23 ou le
24 août 381.
Ses funérailles à
Constantinople furent triomphales, Grégoire
de Nysse prononça l'oraison funèbre. Sur l'ordre de Théodose, son
corps fut ramené à Antioche et, quelques années plus tard, Jean Chrysostome,
qui avait été baptisé et ordonné diacre par Mélèce, fit son panégyrique.
Cependant le schisme se prolongea et ne fut éteint qu'en 413. Mélèce fut vénéré
les 23 ou 24 août ainsi que le 12 février, jour où il est nommé au
martyrologe romain.
Jacques DUBOIS,
« MÉLÈCE saint (310 env.-381) », Encyclopædia
Universalis [en ligne], consulté le 12 février 2017. URL : http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/melece/
SOURCE : http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/melece/
Oriental
icon with Saint Meletius of Antiochia
Also
known as
Meletios
Melezio
Profile
Born to a wealthy and
prominent family. Bishop of Sebaste, Armenia (modern
Sivas, Turkey) in 358 following
the deposing of an Arian bishop.
The Arian priests revolted,
and forced Meletius into exile.
Chosen bishop of Antioch, Syria after
that city’s Arian bishop had
re-located to Constantinople. The Arians in
the diocese revolted,
and Meletius was exiled three
times, returning in 362, 367 and 378.
Supported by Saint Basil
of Caesarea while in exile.
In 379 he
called a council at Antioch to
formally install orthodox Nicene Christianity as
the proper profession of the faith. Baptized and ordained Saint John
Chrysostom; consecrated Saint Gregory
of Nazianus as bishop of Constantinople in 381.
Born
early 4th
century Melitene, Lower Armenia (modern
Malatya, Turkey)
381 at
Constantinople (modern Istanbul, Turkey) of natural causes
the funeral oration was
delivered by Saint Gregory
of Nyssa
buried in
Antioch beside Saint Babylas
Additional
Information
Book
of Saints, by the Monks of
Ramsgate
Lives
of the Saints, by Father Alban
Butler
Saints
of the Day, by Katherine Rabenstein
books
Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints
other
sites in english
images
audio
Funeral Oration on Meletius, by Saint Gregory
of Nyssa (audio book)
video
sitios
en español
Martirologio Romano, 2001 edición
fonti
in italiano
websites
in nederlandse
nettsteder
i norsk
MLA
Citation
“Saint Meletius of
Antioch“. CatholicSaints.Info. 8 February 2023. Web. 20 May 2025.
<https://catholicsaints.info/saint-meletius-of-antioch/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-meletius-of-antioch/
Book of
Saints – Meletius – 12 February
(Saint) Bishop (February
12) (4th
century) Born at Melitene in Armenia, he became Bishop of Sebaste in that
country; but was shortly afterwards elected to fill the great Patriarchal See
of Antioch, at a time (A.D. 360) when that Church was struggling in the throes
of a schism. This was done in the hope that his sincerity, virtues and kindly disposition
might effect the reconciliation of the contending parties. But within a month
the Emperor Constantius sent him into exile. Recalled for a brief space under
the Emperor Jovian, he was again banished, and not fully reinstated till
towards the end of A.D. 378, under Gratian. He held a Council of one hundred
and fifty Bishops, and was prominent in that of Constantinople (A.D. 381). He
enthroned Saint Gregory
Nazianzen as Bishop of the Imperial city. Saint Meletius
died during the sitting of the Council of Constantinople; but his body was
carried back to Antioch and laid beside that of Saint Babylas,
the Martyr- Patron of the city. Both Saint John
Chrysostom and Saint Gregory
of Nyssa preached Panegyrics of Saint Meletius;
and Saint John
Damascene gives him the title of Martyr.
MLA
Citation
Monks of Ramsgate.
“Meletius”. Book of Saints, 1921. CatholicSaints.Info.
5 May 2015. Web. 20 May 2025.
<https://catholicsaints.info/book-of-saints-meletius-12-february/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/book-of-saints-meletius-12-february/
Meletius of Antioch B
(RM)
Born at Melitene, Lower
Armenia; died in Constantinople in 381. Meletius was born into a distinguished
family and was appointed bishop of Sebastea about 358 but fled to the desert
and then to Beroea, Syria, when the appointment caused great dissension. In
361, a group of Arians and Catholics elected him archbishop of Antioch, a
church that had been oppressed by the Arians since the banishment of Saint
Eustathius in 331. He was a compromise candidate between the two groups, and
though confirmed by Emperor Constantius II, he was opposed by some Catholics
because Arians had participated in his election.
The Arian hope that he
would join them was dashed when he expounded the Catholic position before the
pro-Arian emperor. He and several other bishops were ordered to expound upon
the text of the Book of Proverbs: "The Lord has created me in the beginning
of His ways." First, George of Alexandria explained it in an Arian sense.
Then Acacius of Caesarea gave it a meaning bordering on the heretical, but
Meletius expounded it in the Catholic sense and connected it with the
Incarnation. This public testimony so angered the Arians that the Arian Bishop
Eudoxus of Constantinople was able to convince the emperor to exile Meletius to
Lower Armenia (only a month after he took possession of his see) and to appoint
Arian Euzoius, who had previously been excommunicated by Patriarch Saint
Alexander of Alexandria, to his episcopal chair. Thus began the famous Meletian
schism of Antioch, although it really started with the banishment of Saint
Eustathius.
On the death of the
emperor in 361, his successor, Julian, recalled Meletius, who found that in his
absence, a faction of the Catholic bishops, led by Lucifer Cagliari, had
elected Paulinus archbishop.
The Council of Alexandria
in 362 was unsuccessful in healing the breach, and an unfortunate rift between
Saint Athanasius and Meletius in 363 exacerbated the matter. During the next 15
years, Meletius was exiled (356-66 and 371-78) by Emperor Valens while the
conflict between the Arian and Catholic factions raged.
Gradually, Meletius's
influence in the East grew as more bishops supported him. By 379, the bishops
backing him numbered 150, in contrast to his 26 supporters in 363. The rift
between the contending Catholic factions, however, continued despite the
untiring efforts of Saint Basil, who was unswerving in his support of Meletius,
to resolve the matter.
In 374, the situation was
further complicated when Pope Damasus recognized Paulinus as archbishop,
appointed him papal legate in the East, and Saint Jerome allowed himself to be
ordained a priest by Paulinus. In 378, the death of the avidly pro-Arian Valens
led to the restoration of the banished bishops by Emperor Gratian, and Meletius
was reinstated. He was unable to reach an agreement with Paulinus before his
death in Constantinople in May while presiding at the third General Council of
Constantinople. His funeral was attended by all the fathers of the council and
the faithful of the city. Saint Gregory of Nyssa delivered his funeral
panegyric (Benedictines, Delaney, Encyclopedia, Walsh).
SOURCE : http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0212.shtml
Meletius of Antioch
Bishop, b. in Melitene,
Lesser Armenia;
d. at Antioch,
381. Before occupying the see of Antioch he
had been Bishop of Sebaste,
capital of Armenia Prima. Socrates supposes
a transfer from Sebaste to Beræa and
thence to Antioch; his elevation to Sebaste may date from the
year 358 or 359. His sojourn in that city was short and not free from vexations
owing to popular attachment to his predecessor Eustathius. Asia
Minor and Syria were
troubled at the time by theological disputes
of an Arian,
or semi-Arian character.
Under Eustathius (324-330) Antioch had been one of the
centres of Nicene orthodoxy.
This great man was set aside, and his
first successors, Paulinus and Eulalius held the see just a
short time (330-332). Others followed, most of them unequal to their task, and
the Church
of Antioch was rent in twain by schism.
The Eustathians remained an ardent and ungovernable minority in the orthodox camp,
but details of this division escape us until the election of
Leonatius (344-358). His sympathy for the Arian
heresy was open, and his disciple Ætius preached pure Arianism which
did not hinder his being ordained deacon.
This was too much for the patience of the orthodox under
the leadership of Flavius and Diodorus. Ætius had to be removed.
On the death of Leontius, Eudoxius of Germanicia,
one of the most influential Arians,
speedily repaired to Antioch,
and by intrigue secured his appointment to the vacant see. He held it
only a short time, was banished to Armenia,
and in 359 the Council of Seleucia appointed
a successor named Annanius, who was scarcely installed when he
was exiled. Eudoxius was restored to favour in 360, and made Bishop of Constantinople,
whereby the Antiochene episcopal succession was re-opened.
From all sides bishops assembled for the election. The Acacians were
the dominant party. Nevertheless the choice seems to have been a compromise.
Meletius, who had resigned his see of Sebaste and
who was a personal friend of Acacius, was elected. The choice was
generally satisfactory, for Meletius had made promises to both parties so that orthodox and Arians thought
him to be on their side.
Meletius
doubtless believed that truth lay
in delicate distinctions, but his formula was so indefinite that even today, it
is difficult to seize it with precision. He was neither a
thorough Nicene nor a decided Arian.
Meanwhile he passed alternately for an Anomean, an Homoiousian,
an Homoian, or a Neo-Nicene, seeking always to remain outside any
inflexible classification. It is possible that he was yet uncertain and that he
expected from the contemporary theological ferment
some new and ingenious doctrinal combination, satisfactory to
himself, but above all non-committal. Fortune had favoured him thus far; he was
absent from Antioch when elected, and had not been even sounded
concerning his doctrinal leanings. Men were
weary of interminable discussion, and the kindly, gentle temper of Meletius
seemed to promise the much- desired peace. He was no Athanasius,
nor did unheroic Antioch wish for a man of that stamp.
The qualities of Meletius were genuine; a simple life,
pure morals,
sincere piety and
affable manners. He had no transcendent merit, unless the even harmonious
balance of his Christian
virtues might appear transcendent. The new bishop held
the affection of the large and turbulent population he governed, and was
esteemed by such men as St.
John Chrysostom, St.
Gregory Nazianzen, St.
Gregory of Nyssa, St.
Basil, and even his adversary St.
Epiphanius. St.
Gregory Nazianzen tells us that he was a very pious man,
simple and without guile, full of godliness; peace shone on his countenance,
and those who saw him trusted and respected him. He was what he was called, and
his Greek name revealed it, for there was honey in his
disposition as well as his name. On his arrival at Antioch he was
greeted by an immense concourse of Christians and Jews;
every one wondered for which faction he would proclaim himself, and already the
report was spread abroad that he was simply a partisan of
the Necene Creed. Meletius took his own time. He began by
reforming certain notorious abuses
and instructing his people, in which latter work he might have aroused enmity
had he not avoided all questions in dispute. Emperor Constans, a militant Arian,
called a conference calculated to force from Meletius his inmost thought. The
emperor invited several bishops then
at Antioch to speak upon the chief test in the Arian controversy.
"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way" (Proverbs
8:22).
In the beginning Meletius
was somewhat long and tedious, but exhibited a great Scriptural knowledge.
He cautiously declared that Scripture does not contradict itself,
that all language is adequate when it is a question of explaining the nature
of God's only begotten Son. One does not get beyond an
approximation which permits us to understand to a certain extent, and which
brings us gently and progressively from visible things to hidden ones. Now,
to believe in Christ is
to believe that the Son is like unto the Father, His image,
Who is in everything, creator of all; and not an imperfect but an adequate
image, even as the effect corresponds to the cause. The generation of the
only begotten Son, anterior to all time, carries with it the concepts
of subsistence, stability, and exclusivism. Meletius then turned
to moral considerations, but he had satisfied his hearers, chiefly by
refraining from technical language and vain discussion. The orthodoxy of
the bishop was
fully established, and his profession of faith was
a severe blow for the Arian party. St.
Basil wrote the hesitating St.
Epiphanius that "Meletius was the first to speak freely in favour
of the truth and
to fight the good fight in the reign of Constans". As Meletius
ended his discourse his audience asked him for a summary of his teaching. He
extended three fingers towards the people, then closed two and said,
"Three Persons are conceived in the mind but it as
though we addressed one only". This gesture remained famous and became a
rallying sign. The Arians were
not slow to avenge themselves. On vague pretexts the emperor banished Meletius
to his native Armenia.
He had occupied his see less
than a month.
This exile was the
immediate cause of a long and deplorable schism between
the Catholics of Antioch,
henceforth divided into Meletians and Eustathians.
The churches remaining in the hands of the Arians, Paulinus governed
the Eustathians, while Flavius and Diodorus were the chiefs
of the Meletian flock. In every family one
child bore the name of Meletius, whose portrait was engraved
on rings, reliefs, cups, and the walls of apartments. Meletius went
into exile in the early part of the year 361. A few months later Emperor
Constans died suddenly, and one of the first measures of
his successor Julian was
to revoke his predecessor's decrees of banishment. Meletius
quite probably returned at once to Antioch,
but his position was a difficult one in presence of the Eustathians. The Council
of Alexandria (362) tried to re-establish harmony and put an
end to the schism,
but failed. Both parties were steadfast in their claims, while the vehemence
and injudiciousness of the orthodox mediator increased
the dissension, and ruined all prospects of peace. Though
the election of Meletius was beyond contestation, the
hot-headed Lucifer Cagliari yielded
to the solicitations of the opposing faction, and instead of temporizing and
awaiting Meletius's approaching return from exile, assisted by
two confessors he hastily consecrated as Bishop of Antioch the Eustathian leader, Paulinus.
This unwise measure was a great calamity, for it definitively established
the schism.
Meletius and his adherents were not responsible, and it is a peculiar injustice of history that
this division should be known as the Meletian schism when
the Eustathians or Paulinians were alone answerable for
it. Meletius's return soon followed, also the arrival of Eusebius
of Vercelli, but he could accomplish nothing under the circumstances.
The persecution of Emperor
Julian, whose chief residence was Antioch, brought new vexations. Both
factions of the orthodox party
were equally harassed and tormented, and both bore bravely their
trials.
An unexpected incident
made the Meletians prominent. An anti-Christian writing of Julian was
answered by the aforesaid Meletian Diodorus, whom the emperor had
coarsely reviled. "For many years", said the imperial apologist of
Hellenism, "his chest has been sunken, his limbs withered, his
cheeks flabby, his countenance livid".
So intent was Julian upon
describing the morbid symptoms of Diodorus that he seemed to forget
Bishop Meletius. The latter doubtless had no desire to draw attention and persecution upon
himself, aware that his flock was more likely to lose than to gain by it. He
and two of his chorepiscopi, we
are told, accompanied to the place of martyrdom two
officers, Bonosus and Maximilian. Meletius also is said to have
sent a convert from Antioch to Jerusalem. This, and a
mention of the flight of all Antiochene ecclesiastics,
led to the arbitrary supposition that the second banishment of Meletius came
during Julian's reign.
Be that as it may, the sudden end of the persecuting emperor
and Jovian's accession must have greatly shortened the exile of
Meletius. Jovian met Meletius at Antioch and showed him
great respect. Just then St.
Athanasius came to Antioch by order of the emperor, and
expressed to Meletius his wish of entering into communion with him.
Meletius, ill-advised, delayed answering him, and St. Athanasius went
away leaving with Paulinus, whom he had not yet recognized as bishop,
the declaration that he admitted him to his communion. Such blundering
resulted in sad consequences for the Meletian cause. The moderation
constantly shown by Athanasius,
who thoroughly believed in Meletius's orthodoxy,
was not found in his successor, Peter
of Alexandria, who did not conceal his belief that
Meletius was an heretic.
For a long time the position of Meletius was contested by the very ones who, it
seemed, should have established it more firmly. A council of 26 bishops at Antioch presided
over by Meletius was of more consequence, but a pamphlet ascribed
to Paulinus again raised doubts as
to the orthodoxy of
Meletius. Moreover, new and unsuspected difficulties soon arose.
Jovian's death made Arianism again
triumphant and a violent persecution broke
out under Emperor
Valens. At the same time the quiet but persistent rivalry
between Alexandria and Antioch helped
the cause of Meletius. However illustrious an Egyptian patriarch might
be, the Christian episcopate of Syria and Asia
Minor was too national or racial, too self-centered, to seek or
accept his leadership. Athanasius,
indeed, remained an authoritative power in the East, but only a bishop of Antioch could
unite all three who were now ready to frankly accept the Nicene
Creed. In this way the rôle of Meletius became daily more prominent. While
in his own city a minority contested his right to the see and
questioned his orthodoxy,
his influence was spreading in the East, and from various parts of the
empire bishops accepted
his leadership. Chalcedon, Ancyra, Melitene,
Pergama, Cæsarea of Cappadocia, Bostra,
parts of Syria and
Palestine, looked to him for direction, and this movement grew rapidly. In 363
Meletius could count on 26 bishops,
in 379 more than 150 rallied around him. Theological unity was
at least restored in Syria and Asia
Minor. Meletius and his disciples, however, had not been spared by
the Arians.
While Paulinus and his party were seemingly neglected by them,
Meletius was again exiled (May, 365) to Armenia.
His followers expelled from the churches, sought meeting places
for worship wherever they could. This new exile, owing to a lull in
the persecution,
was of short duration, and probably in 367 Meletius took up again the
government of his see.
It was then that John, the future Chrysostom,
entered the ranks of the clergy.
The lull was soon over. In 371 persecution raged
anew in Antioch,
where Valens resided
almost to the time of his death. At this time St. Basil occupied
the see of Cæsarea (370)
and was a strong supporter of Meletius. With rare
insight Basil thoroughly understood the situation, which made
impossible the restoration of religious peace in the East. It
was clear that the antagonism between Athanasius and
Meletius protracted endlessly the conflict. Meletius, the
only legitimate Bishop of Antioch,
was the only acceptable one for the East; unfortunately he was going into
exile for the third time. In these circumstances Basil began
negotiations with Meletius and Athanasius for
the pacification of the East.
Aside from the inherent
difficulties of the situation, the slowness of communication was an added
hindrance. Not only did Basil's representative have to travel
from Cæsarea to Armenia,
and from Armenia to Alexandria,
he also had to go to Rome to
obtain the sanction of Pope
Damasus and the acquiescence of the West. Notwithstanding the
blunder committed at Antioch in 363, the
generous spirit of Athanasius gave hope of
success, his sudden death, however (May, 373), caused all efforts to
be abandoned. Even at Rome and
in the West, Basil and Meletius were to meet with
disappointment. While they wrought persistently to restore peace, a
new Antiochene community, declaring itself connected with Rome and Athanasius,
increased the number of dissidents, aggravated the rivalry, and renewed the
disputes. There were now three Antiochene churches that
formally adopted the Nicene
Creed. The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had
ended unfortunately, and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of
the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This
important conversion won over to the intruders St.
Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any
declaration concerning the schism,
the pope showed
a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop,
greeted him as brother, and considered him papal
legate in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and
his community, which in the absence of the natural leader was still
governed by Flavius and Diodorus, encouraged by the presence of
the monk Aphrates
and the support of St. Basil. Though disheartened, the latter did not
entirely give up hope of bringing the West, especially the pope,
to a fuller understanding of the situation of the Antiochene Church.
But the West did not grasp the complex interests and
personal issues, nor appreciate the violence of
the persecution against
which the orthodox parties
were struggling. In order to enlighten these well-intentioned men, closer relations were
needed and deputies of more heroic character; but the difficulties were
great and the "statu quo" remained.
After many disheartening
failures, there was finally a glimpse of hope. Two legates sent
to Rome,
Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, returned in the spring of 377, bringing with
them cordial declarations which St. Basil instantly proceeded to
publish everywhere. These declarations pronounced anathemas against Arius and
the heresy of Apollinaris then
spreading at Antioch,
condemnations all the more timely, as theological excitement
was then at its highest in Antioch,
and was gradually reaching Palestine. St.
Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without having a
thorough knowledge of
the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and Paulinus, he made a
direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but
which the pope did
not answer. Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch,
let himself be ordained presbyter by Paulinus,
and became the echo of Paulinist imputations against Meletius and his
following. In 378 Dorotheus and Sanctissimus returned from Rome,
bearers of a formal condemnation of the errors pointed
out by the Orientals; this decree definitively
united the two halves of the Christian
world. It seemed as though St. Basil was but waiting for this
object of all his efforts, for he died 1 Jan., 379. The cause he had
served so well seemed won, and Emperor
Valens's death five months earlier warranted
a hopeful outlook. One of the first measures of the new
emperor, Gratian, was the restoration of peace in the Church and
the recall of the banished bishops.
Meletius therefore was reinstated (end of 378), and his flock probably met
for worship in the "Palaia" or old church. It was a
heavy task for the aged bishop to
re-establish the shattered fortunes of the orthodox party.
The most urgent step was the ordination of bishops for
the sees which had become vacant during
the persecution.
In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in
order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in
the East, and published a profession of faith which
was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The
end of the schism was
near at hand. Since the two factions which divided
the Antiochene Church were orthodox there
remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death
of either bishop made
it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline.
This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace-
making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any
agreement or settlement. Meanwhile, a
great council of Eastern bishops was
convoked at Constantinople to appoint a bishop for
the imperial city and to settle other ecclesiastical affairs.
In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria,
the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch,
whom the Emperor
Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour
unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly.
It began by electing Gregory
of Nazianzus Bishop of Constantinople,
and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it
was Meletius who enthroned him.
The Council immediately proceeded
to confirm the Nicene faith,
but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his
end was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his
eagerness for unity and peace. The death of one whose firmness and
gentleness had kindled great
expectations caused universal sorrow. The obsequies, at
which Emperor
Theodosius was present, took place in the church of
the Apostles.
The funeral panegyrics were touching and magnificent. His death blasted
many hopes and justified grave forebodings. The body was
transferred from Constantinople to Antioch,
where, after a second and solemn funeral service, the body of the
aged bishop was
laid beside his predecessor St.
Babylas. But his name was to live after him, and long remained for
the Eastern faithful a rallying sign and a synonym of orthodoxy.
ALLARD, Julien
l'Apostat (Paris, 1903); HEFELE, Histoire des conciles, ed.
LECLERCQ, ii, 1; LOOFS in Realencyk. für prot. Theol. und Kirche, s.v.;
CAVALLERA, Le schisme d'Antioche au IV et V siècle (Paris, 1905).
Leclercq, Henri.
"Meletius of Antioch." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York:
Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 12 Feb. 2017
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm>.
Transcription. This
article was transcribed for New Advent by WGKofron. With thanks to Fr. John
Hilkert and St. Mary's Church, Akron, Ohio.
Ecclesiastical
approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Copyright © 2020 by Kevin
Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
SOURCE : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm
St. Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch,
Confessor
HE was of one of the best
families of Lesser Armenia, and born at Melitene, which Strabo and Pliny place
in Cappadocia; but Ptolemy and all succeeding writers in Lesser Armenia, of
which province it became the capital. The saint, in his youth, made fasting and
mortification his choice, in the midst of every thing that could flatter the
senses. His conduct was uniform and irreproachable, and the sweetness and
affability of his temper gained him the confidence and esteem both of the
Catholics and Arians: for he was a nobleman of charming simplicity and
sincerity, and a great lover of peace. Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, a
semi-Arian, being deposed by the Arians, in a council held at Constantinople,
in 360, Meletius was promoted to that see; but meeting with too violent
opposition, left it, and retired first into the desert, and afterwards to the
city of Beræa, in Syria, of which Socrates falsely supposes him to have been
bishop. The patriarchial church of Antioch had been oppressed by the Arians,
ever since the banishment of Eustathius, in 331. Several succeeding bishops,
who were intruded into that chair, were infamous abettors of that heresy.
Eudoxus, the last of these, had been removed from the see of Germanicia tothat
of Antioch, upon the death of Leontius, an Arian like himself, but was soon
expelled by a party of Arians, in a sedition, and he shortly after usurped the
see of Constantinople. Both the Arians and several Catholics agreed to raise
St. Meletius to the patriarchal chair at Antioch, and the emperor ordered him
to be put in possession of that dignity in 361; but some among the Catholics
refused to acknowledge him, regarding his election as irregular, on account of
the share which the Arians had in it. The Arians hoped that he would declare
himself of their party, but were undeceived when the Emperor Constantius arriving
at Antioch, he was ordered, with certain other prelates, to explain in his
presence that text of the Proverbs, 1 concerning
the wisdom of God: The Lord hath created me in the beginning of his ways. George
of Laodicea first explained it in an Arian sense, next Acacius of Cæsarea, in a
sense bordering on that heresy: but the truth triumphed in the mouth of
Meletius, who, speaking the third, 2 showed
that this text is to be understood not of a strict creation, but of a new state
or being, which the Eternal Wisdom received in his incarnation. This public
testimony thunderstruck the Arians, and Eudoxus, then the bishop of
Constantinople, prevailed with the emperor to banish him into Lesser Armenia,
thirty days after his installation. The Arians intruded the impious Euzoius
into that see, who formerly being deacon at Alexandria, had been deposed and
expelled the church, with the priest and arch-heretic Arius, by St. Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria. From this time is dated the famous schism of Antioch, in
360, though it drew its origin from the banishment of St. Eustathius about
thirty years before. Many zealous Catholics always adhered to St. Eustathius,
being convinced that his faith was the only cause of his unjust expulsion. But
others, who were orthodox in their principles, made no scruple, at least for
some time, to join communion in the great church with the intruded patriarchs,
in which their conscience was more easily imposed upon, as, by the artifices of
the Arians, the cause of St. Eustathius appeared merely personal and secular,
or at least mixed; and his two first short-lived successors, Eulalius and
Euphronius, do not appear to have declared themselves Arians, otherwise than by
their intrusion. Placillus the Third joined in condemning Saint Athanasius in
the councils of Tyre, in 335, and of Antioch, in 341. His successors, Stephen
I., (who at Philippopolis opposed the council at Sardica,) Leontius, and
Eudoxus, appeared every where leagued with the heads of the Arians. But the
intrusion of the Euzoius, with the expulsion of St. Meletius, rendered the necessity
of an entire separation in communion more notorious; and many who were orthodox
in their faith, yet through weakness or ignorance of facts, had till then
communicated with the Arians in the great church, would have no communion with
Euzoius, or his adherents; but under the protection of Diodorus and Flavian,
then eminent and learned laymen, afterwards bishops, held their religious
assemblies with their own priests, in the church of the apostles without the
city, in a suburb called Palæa, that is, the old suburb or church. They
attempted in vain to unite themselves to the Eustathians, who for thirty years
past had held their separate assemblies; but these refused to admit them, or to
allow the election of Meletius, on account of the share the Arians had therein:
they therefore continued their private assemblies within the city. The Emperor
Constantius, in his return from the Persian war, with an intention to march
against his cousin Julian Cæsar, in the West, arrived at Antioch, and was
baptized by the Arian bishop Euzoius; but died soon after, in his march at
Mopsucrêne, in Cilicia, on the 3rd of November, 361. Julian, having allowed the
banished bishops to go to their respective churches, St. Meletius returned to
Antioch about the end of the year 362, but had the affliction to see the breach
made by the schism grow wider. The Eustathians not only refused still to
receive him, but proceeded to choose a bishop for themselves. This was
Paulinus, a person of great meekness and piety, who had been ordained priest by
St. Eustathius himself, and had constantly attended his zealous flock. Lucifer,
bishop of Cagliari, passing by Antioch in his return from exile, consecrated
Paulinus bishop, and by this precipitate action, riveted the schism which
divided this church near fourscore and five years, and in which the discussion
of the facts upon which the right of the claimants was founded, was so
intricate that the saints innocently took part on both sides. It was an
additional affliction to St. Meletius, to see Julian the apostate make Antioch
the seat of the superstitious abominations of idolatry, which he restored; and
the generous liberty with which he opposed them, provoked that emperor to
banish him a second time. But Jovian soon after succeeding that unhappy prince,
in 363, our saint returned to Antioch. Then it appeared that the Arians were
men entirely guided by ambition and interest, and that as nothing could be more
insolent than they had shown themselves when backed by the temporal power, so
nothing was more cringing and submissive, when they were deprived of that
protection. For the emperor warmly embracing the Nicene faith, following in all
ecclesiastical matters the advice of St. Athanasius, and expressing a
particular regard for St. Meletius, the moderate Arians, with Acasius of
Cæsarea, in Palestine, at their head, went to Antioch, where our saint held a
council of twenty-seven bishops, and there subscribed an orthodox profession of
faith.
Jovian dying, after a reign of eight
months, Valens became emperor of the East, who was at first very orthodox, but
afterwards, seduced by the persuasions of his wife, he espoused the Arian
heresy, and received baptism from Eudoxus, bishop of Constantinople, who made
him promise upon oath to promote the cause of that sect. The cruel persecution
which this prince raised against the church, and the favour which he showed not
only to the Arians, but also to Pagans, Jews, and all who were not Catholics,
deterred not St. Meletius from exerting his zeal in defence of the orthodox
faith. This prince coming from Cæsarea, where he had been vanquished by the
constancy of St. Basil, arrived at Antioch in April, 372, where he left nothing
unattempted to draw Meletius over to the interest of his sect; but meeting with
no success, ordered him a third time into banishment. The people rose
tumultuously to detain him amongst them, and threw stones at the governor, who
was carrying him off, so that he only escaped with his life by our saint’s
stepping between him and the mob, and covering him with his cloak. It is only
in this manner that the disciples of Jesus Christ revenge injuries, as St.
Chrysostom observes. 3 Hermant
and Fleury suppose this to have happened at his first banishment. By the order
of Valens, he was conducted into Lesser Armenia, where he made his own estate
at Getasus, near Nicocopolis, the place of his residence. His flock at Antioch,
by copying his humility, modesty, and patience, amidst the persecution which
fell upon them, showed themselves the worthy disciples of so great a master.
They were drove out of the city, and from the neighbouring mountains, and the
banks of the river, where they attempted to hold their assemblies; some expired
under torments, others were thrown into the Orontes. In the mean time, Valens
allowed the Pagans to renew their sacrifices, and to celebrate publicly the
feasts of Jupiter, Ceres, and Bacchus. 4 Sapor,
king of Persia, having invaded Armenia took by treachery king Arsaces, bound
him in silver chains, (according to the Persian custom of treating royal
prisoners,) and caused him to perish in prison. To check the progress of these
ancient enemies of the empire, Valens sent an army towards Armenia, and marched
himself to Edessa in Mesopotamia. Thus the persecution at Antioch was abated,
to which the death of Valens put an end, who was burnt by the Goths in a
cottage after his defeat near Adrianople, in 378. His nephew Gratian, who then
became master of the East, went in all haste to Constantinople, by his general,
Theodosius vanquished the Goths, and by several edicts recalled the Catholic
prelates, and restored the liberty of the church in the Eastern empire. St.
Meletius, upon his return, found that the schism had begun to engage distant
churches in the division. Most of the Western prelates adhered to the Election
of Paulinus. St. Athanasius communicated with him, as he had always done with
his friends the Eustathian Catholics, though, from the beginning, he
disapproved of the precipitation of Lucifer of Cagliari in ordaining him, and
he afterwards communicated also with St. Meletius. St. Basil, St. Amphilochius
of Iconium, St. Pelagius of Laodicea, St. Eusebius of Samosata, St. Cyril of
Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom, and
the general council of Constantinople, with almost the unanimous suffrage of
all the East, zealously supported the cause of St. Meletius. Theodosius having,
after his victory over the Goths, been associated by Gratian, and taken
possession of the Eastern empire, sent his general, Sapor, to Antioch, to
re-establish there the Catholic pastors. In an assembly which was held in his
presence, in 379, St. Meletius, Paulinus, and Vitalis, whom Apollinarius had
consecrated bishop of his party there, met, and St. Meletius addressing himself
to Paulinus, made the following proposal: 5 “Since
our sheep have but one religion, and the same faith, let it be our business to
unite them into one flock; let us drop all disputes for precedency, and agree
to feed them together. I am ready to share this see with you, and let the
survivor have the care of the whole flock.” After some demur the proposal was
accepted, and Sapor put St. Meletius in possession of the churches which he had
governed before his last banishment, and of those which were in the hands of
the Arians, and Paulinus was continued in his care of the Eustathians. St.
Meletius zealously reformed the disorders which heresy and divisions had
produced, and provided his church with excellent ministers. In 379 he presided
in a council at Antioch, in which the errors of Apollinarius were condemned
without any mention of his name. Theodosius, whom Gratian declared Augustus,
and his partner in the empire at Sirmich, on the 19th of January, soon after
his arrival at Constantinople, concurred zealously in assembling the second
general council which was opened at Constantinople, in the year 381. Only the
prelates of the Eastern empire assisted, so that we find no mention of legates
of Pope Damasus, and it was general, not in the celebration, but by the
acceptation of the universal church. St. Meletius presided as the first patriarch
that was present: in it one hundred and fifty Catholic bishops and thirty-six
of the Macedonian sect made their appearance; but all these latter chose rather
to withdraw than to retract their error, or confess the divinity of the Holy
Ghost. The council approved of the election of St. Gregory of Nazianzen to the
see of Constantinople, though he resigned it to satisfy the scruples and
complaints of some who, by mistake, thought it made against the Nicene canon,
which forbade translations of bishops; which could not be understood of him,
who had never been allowed to take possession of his former see. The council
then proceeded to condemn the Macedonian heresy, and to publish the Nicene
creed, with certain additions. In the second, among the seven canons of
discipline, the two oriental patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch were
acknowledged. In the third, the prerogative of honour, next to the see of Rome,
is given to that of Constantinople, which before was subject to the
metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace. This canon laid the foundation of the
patriarchal dignity to which that see was raised by the council of Chalcedon,
though not allowed for some time after in the West. St. Meletius died at
Constantinople whilst the council was sitting, to the inexpressible grief of
the fathers, and of the good emperor. By an evangelical meekness, which was his
characteristic, he had converted the various trials that he had gone through
into occasions of virtue, and had exceedingly endeared himself to all that had the
happiness of his acquaintance. St. Chrysostom assures us, that his name was so
venerable to his flock at Antioch, that they gave it their children, and
mentioned it with all possible respect. They cut his image upon their seals and
upon their plate, and carved it in their houses. His funeral was performed at
Constantinople with the utmost magnificence, and attended by the fathers of the
council, and all the Catholics of the city. One of the most eminent among the
prelates, probably Saint Amphilochius of Iconium, pronounced his panegyric in
the council. St. Gregory of Nyssa made his funeral oration in presence of the
emperor in the great church, in the end of which he says: “He now sees God face
to face, and prays for us, and for the ignorance of the people.” St. Meletius’s
body was deposited in the church of the apostles, till it was removed before
the end of the same year, with the utmost pomp, to Antioch, at the emperor’s
expense, and interred near the relics of Saint Babylas, in the church which he
had erected in honour of that holy martyr. Five years after, Saint Chrysostom,
whom our saint had ordained deacon, spoke his elegant panegyric on the 12th of
February, on which his name occurs in the Menæa, and was inserted by Baronius
in the Roman Martyrology; though it is uncertain whether this be the day of his
death, or of his translation to Antioch. On account of his three banishments
and great sufferings, he is styled a martyr by St. John Damascen. 6 His
panegyrics, by St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Chrysostom, are extant. See also
Socrates, l. 5. c. 5. p. 261. Sozom. l. 4. c. 28. p. 586. Thodoret, l. 3. c. 5.
p. 128. l. 2. c. 27. p. 634. Jos. Assem. in Cal. Univer. t. 6. p. 125.
Note 1. Prov. viii. 22. [back]
Note
2. S. Epiph. hær. 73.
n. 29. [back]
Note 3. Hom. in St. Melet. t. 2. [back]
Note
4. Theod. l. 4. c. 23, 24. Sozom. l. 6.
c. 17. [back]
Note 5. Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Sozom. l. 7. c. 3.
Theodoret, l. 5. c. 23. [back]
Note
6. Or. 2. de Imagin. [back]
Rev. Alban Butler
(1711–73). Volume I: January. The Lives of the Saints. 1866.
San Melezio di Antiochia Vescovo
m. Antiochia, 381
San Melezio, vescovo di
Antiochia, ripetutamente cacciato in esilio per la fede nicena e morto mentre
presiedeva il Primo Concilio Ecumenico di Costantinopoli. Ricevette gli elogi
di San Gregorio di Nissa e san Giovanni Crisostomo.
Martirologio Romano:
Commemorazione di san Melezio, vescovo di Antiochia, che per la sua fede nicena
fu ripetutamente mandato dall’esilio e poi, mentre presiedeva il Concilio
Ecumenico Costantinopolitano I, passò al Signore; di lui san Gregorio di Nissa
e san Giovanni Crisostomo celebrarono le virtù con somme lodi.
Per meglio comprendere la drammatica situazione che Melezio dovette affrontare al suo arrivo ad Antiochia, nel 360, occorrerebbe riprendere la movimentata storia della Chiesa di questa città dal momento in cui, nel 330, ad appena cinque anni dal concilio di Nicea, gli Ariani ottennero dall'imperatore Costantino la deposizione dell'arcivescovo ortodosso sant'Eustazio.
Un tale panorama storico, tuttavia, esce dal quadro di questa trattazione; sarà pertanto sufficiente rimandare il lettore alla fondamentale opera di F. Cavallera, Le schiume d’Antioche, Parigi 1905. É. Amann fornisce un chiaro riassunto di tutta la questione, mettendo in evidente rilievo la personalità di Melezio. Quest’ultimo studio sarà utilizzato piuttosto largamente in questa sede, unitamente al precedente, e si potrà far riferimento ad entrambi per le fonti utilizzate.
Melezio nacque in data sconosciuta a Melitene nell’Armenia II e compare nella
storia della Chiesa solo nel 358, quando fu eletto vescovo di Sebaste, dopo la
deposizione di Eustazio (da non confondere con l’omonimo arcivescovo di
Antiochia di cui si è parlato e si parlerà ancora). Ma le difficoltà furono per
lui tali da costringerlo ad abbandonare subito la sua città episcopale per
rifugiarsi a Berea (Aleppo).
È questione controversa se Melezio partecipò o meno al concilio di Seleucia
(359) e se firmò la formula omeiana (dal nome della frazione ariana che
opponendosi al consustanziale, di Nicea, si limitava a dire che il Verbo è
simile al Padre). Ad ogni modo, Epifanio non cita Melezio tra i firmatari di
Seleucia, pur considerandolo come un omeiano strettamente legato ad Acacio di
Cesarea, ed opposto alla fazione semi-ariana degli omeusiani i cui principali
esponenti erano Basilio di Ancira, Giorgio di Laodicea ed Eustazio di Sebaste.
Nel 360, infatti, l’elezione di Eudossio, ariano, alla sede, ancora soltanto episcopale, di Costantinopoli, aveva reso vacante quella di Antiochia, ed Acacio di Cesarea vi aveva fatto eleggere Melezio allo scopo di ristabilire l’unità e la pace religiosa. Questa aperta protezione di un personaggio fortemente impegnato nella linea ariana non doveva essere utile al nuovo vescovo presso il gruppo rimasto fedele, dopo trent’anni, alla memoria di Eustazio e legato alla formula di fede di Nicea. Un discorso da lui pronunciato dopo il suo insediamento, a commento del testo dei Proverbi, fu per lui occasione di affermare ufficialmente la sua dottrina sulla «generazione del Verbo» e di dichiararsi in favore della fede tradizionale. Senza agitare alcuno dei problemi che opponevano i teologi delle diverse correnti, Melezio dimostrò di aderire in effetti al Credo di Nicea, respingendo ogni formula ambigua.
Gli ariani colsero l’occasione per chiedere all’imperatore Costanzo, che
assisteva al discorso, di allontanare immediatamente il nuovo arcivescovo.
Melezio riprese la strada di Melitene sua patria e l’ariano Euzoio fu
installato al suo posto. I fedeli di Melezio si guardarono bene dall’entrare in
comunione con quest’ultimo, rifiutando anche di unirsi al gruppo degli
eustaziani che avevano a capo il prete Paolino; essi costituirono così quello
che fu impropriamente chiamato «lo scisma di Melezio», mentre il vero «scisma
di Antiochia» durava già dal 330.
All’avvento di Giuliano l’Apostata, i vescovi esiliati furono richiamati e nel
362 Melezio poté ritornare alla sede di Antiochia. Atanasio di Alessandria,
rientrato anch’egli dall’esilio, tentò di ricostituire ad Antiochia l’unione
tra meleziani ed eustaziani, ma l’accordo fu reso impossibile da un grave
errore di Lucifero di Cagliari il quale, di passaggio per la città, consacrò
vescovo Paolino, il capo degli eustaziani. Venivano così a coesistere tre
vescovi: Melezio, Paolino ed Euzoio.
Nel 363 Atanasio, convocato ad Antiochia dall’imperatore, cercò di attirare Melezio e farlo entrare in comunione con lui, ma questi, mal consigliato, secondo san Basilio, rifiutò di rispondere all’appello dell’arcivescovo di Alessandria. E fece male, poiché fu Paolino ad entrare in comunione con Atanasio ed a profittare dell’influenza che costui godeva a Roma.
Se Atanasio (morto nel 373) trattò sempre Melezio abbastanza nobilmente, non
altrettanto può dirsi del suo successore e ciò spiega le grandi riserve che su
di lui ebbe più tardi il papa Damaso (366-386) al quale Melezio era stato
denunciato come eretico.
Tuttavia, mentre Atanasio era ancora ad Antiochia, nel 363, Melezio vi convocò
un concilio per tentare di promuovere una riconciliazione. Purtroppo la formula
di fede che ne uscì, pur volendo contentare tutte le tendenze, non soddisfece
né gli eustaziani né gli omeiani. Questi ultimi, anzi, ottennero, nel 365, un
nuovo mandato d’esilio contro Melezio (esilio che durerà per lui sino al 367).
La situazione in cui Melezio si trovava nel 366, gli impedì dunque di unirsi al
gruppo dei vescovi orientali che si riconciliarono con il papa Liberio.
L’azione di Melezio durante questo periodo è piuttosto oscura, tanto più che nel 371, prenderà per la terza volta la via dell’esilio. A partire da questo momento, tuttavia, san Basilio, vescovo di Cesarea di Cappadocia dal 370, divenne il maggior protettore di Melezio in cui vedeva — e la posizione dottrinale di Basilio, ortodossa sino allo scrupolo, non può essere messa in dubbio — un fermo sostegno della fede di Nicea ed il solo capace di ricostituire intorno a sé l’unità nella capitale d’Oriente.
Così Basilio, e ne fa fede la sua corrispondenza, moltiplicò gli interventi a
favore di Melezio presso Atanasio prima, e presso papa Damaso poi. Ma, come si
è detto prima, quest’ultimo era informato in senso contrario da Pietro di
Alessandria, il successore di Atanasio. I ripetuti passi di Basilio non ebbero
quindi alcun effetto sino al giorno in cui, dopo la morte di Valente (378),
Graziano, appena giunto al potere imperiale, mise definitivamente termine alla
persecuzione ariana.
Alla fine del 378 Melezio ritornò ad Antiochia, dove la situazione migliorò per
lui nettamente poiché il delegato imperiale incaricato di far restituire agli
ortodossi le chiese e gli altri beni confiscati dagli ariani, si pronunciò in
suo favore a scapito di Paolino che, d’altronde, aveva qualche tempo prima
rifiutato la riconciliazione che questi gli aveva proposto. Non rimaneva quindi
a Melezio che ottenere la comunione con papa Damaso. Nel 379 riunì quindi un
concilio che redasse una professione di fede conforme a quella di Nicea e che
teneva anche conto delle decisioni del recente sinodo romano. La formula
antiochena di fede del 379 doveva anche essere approvata dal concilio di
Costantinopoli II ecumenico, del 381.
Teodosio, infatti, volendo risolvere diverse questioni, ed in particolare
quella del trasferimento a Costantinopoli di Gregorio di Nazianzo, riunì in
questa città un concilio (maggio 381) affidandone la presidenza allo stesso
Melezio; infatti il papa Damaso l’aveva finalmente ammesso alla sua comunione.
Dopo tante avversità e lotte, Melezio poteva finalmente vedere riconosciuti
tutti i suoi diritti. Ma questo periodo di calma non doveva durare poiché,
ancor prima della fine del concilio, morì improvvisamente a Costantinopoli poco
dopo aver intronizzato alla sede di questa città Gregorio. La sua morte non
doveva tuttavia mettere fine alle divisioni in seno alla Chiesa di Antiochia
perché, non tenendo conto delle istanze di Gregorio di Nazianzo a che non gli
si nominasse un successore, riconoscendo Paolino alla sede di Antiochia, i
vescovi nominarono Flaviano, e la divisione doveva continuare fino al 415, dopo
un lungo scisma durato ottantacinque anni.
A Costantinopoli si fecero a Melezio funerali grandiosi e fu incaricato
Gregorio di Nissa di pronunciarne l’orazione funebre. Poi, per ordine di
Teodosio, le sue spoglie furono trasportate ad Antiochia, dove riposarono
presso quelle di san Babila. Circa sei anni dopo la morte di Melezio, Giovanni
Crisostomo pronunciò l’elogio del vescovo che lo aveva battezzato e poi
ordinato lettore e diacono. Gregorio di Nazianzo nel Carmen de Vita sua lo
ricorda in termini commossi ed elogiativi.
Queste testimonianze di personaggi celebri quali Gregorio di Nissa, Giovanni Crisostomo e Gregorio di Nazianzo, pur opponendosi a certe incertezze nel pensiero di Melezio prima del suo episcopato, danno una ben ferma garanzia della sua ortodossia dal momento in cui fu rivestito di una carica ufficiale nella Chiesa.
Non fa inoltre meraviglia che il suo culto si sia imposto nella Chiesa bizantina. I sinassari lo commemorano al 12 febbraio e al 23 o 24 agosto. Queste due ultime date, conservate in particolare dai sinassari H, P e N, corrispondono più del 12 febbraio al dies natali, giorno conservato anche dal Calendario Palestino-georgiano del Sinaiticus 34.
Sebbene ciò possa sorprendere, il culto di Melezio passò anche nella Chiesa giacobita e alcuni dei calendari siriaci pubblicati da F. Nau lo commemorano in date diverse: 22 o 23 settembre e 11 dicembre. Quest’ultima data è attestata anche dal Martirologio di Rabban Sliba. Il Sinassario Alessandrino di Michele, vescovo di Atrib e Malig, non ha una memoria speciale per Melezio, ma ne fa menzione al 1° amsir (= 26 gennaio) nella commemorazione del concilio di Costantinopoli del 381.
Sconosciuto ai martirologi medievali occidentali, Melezio fu tuttavia introdotto da C. Baronio quale si riferisce alle fonti eortologiche bizantine) nel Martirologio Romano al 12 febbraio come, d’altra parte, aveva fatto già P. Galesini, alla stessa data nel suo Martirologio.
Autore: Joseph-Marie Sauget
SOURCE : http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/92499
Den hellige Meletius av
Antiokia (d. 381)
Minnedag:
12. februar
Den hellige Meletius (gr:
Meletios, Μελέτιος) ble født tidlig på 300-tallet i Melitene i Nedre Armenia, i
dag Malatya i Tyrkia. Han kom fra en av de rikeste og mest fremtredende
familiene der, men vi vet så å si ingenting om hans tidlige liv. Vi hører om
ham første gang rundt 357 som en tilhenger av biskop Akakios av Caesarea i
Palestina (d. 366).
Det første økumeniske
konsil i Nikea i Frygia (i dag Iznik i Tyrkia) i 325 hadde vedtatt med 301 mot
70 stemmer at det er Kirkens lære at Sønnen er sann Gud, av samme vesen som
Faderen, født og ikke skapt. Konsilet vedtok betegnelsen homoousios (gr.=
av samme vesen eller substans), et teologisk uttrykk for å forklare forholdet
mellom Faderen og Sønnen. Dette er det berømte uttrykket for ortodoks tro som
kalles den nikenske trosbekjennelse (Symbolum Nicaenum) og som
fortsatt brukes av Kirken med et tillegg om Den Hellige Ånd fra konsilet i
Konstantinopel i 381. Konsilet fordømte ettertrykkelig og endelig heresiarken (erkekjetteren)
Arius' lære som sa at Sønnen var underordnet Faderen som en guddom av mindre
rang, at han var skapt av Faderen at det dermed fantes en tid da han ikke
eksisterte, og at hans natur var i stand til både ondt og godt. Men
uttrykket homoousios og dets implikasjoner ble akseptert mer formelt
enn reelt, og splittelsen fortsatte de følgende tiårene.
Semi-arianerne, som ble
ledet av den hellige Basilios av Ancyra og
Georg av Laodicea, utgjorde en «sentrumsfløy» i den arianske striden, og de
forsøkte å finne en formulering som alle kunne godta. I stedet for homoousios (gr.=
av samme vesen/substans) foreslo de homoiousios, «av lignende
vesen/substans». Men Den fjerde synoden i Sirmium i 358 vedtok en enda vagere
formulering som unngikk Basilios' forslag og i stedet ganske enkelt slo fast at
Sønnen var homoios («lik») Faderen. Dermed fantes det nå minst fire
fløyer: Arianerne, de strengt ortodokse nikenerne (homoousianerne),
semi-arianerne (homoiousianerne) og kompromissfløyen rundt keiser
Konstantius II (homoios-partiet).
Biskop Akakios av
Caesarea var lederen for homoios-partiet, og Meletius gjør dermed sin
entré på den kirkepolitiske arena som medlem av hoff-partiet. Som et resultat
av dette ble han i 358 utnevnt til biskop av Sebasteia (Sebaste), hovedstaden
i Armenia Prima (i dag Sivas i tyrkisk Anatolia), for å erstatte
Eustathius (356-ca 377), som var avsatt av en synode i Melitene. Men
utnevnelsen av Meletius skapte stor splid blant presteskapet, så da flyktet han
ut i ørkenen og deretter til Beroea i Syria. Kirkehistorikeren Sokrates (Socrates
Scholasticus) hevder at han var biskop der og at han deltok på synoden i
Seleukia høsten 359 og der undertegnet vedtaket som sa at Sønnen var homoios («lik»)
Faderen.
Antiokia ved Orontes i
Syria (i dag Antakya i Sørøst-Tyrkia) var et av de originale patriarkatene i
den tidlige Kirken, og patriarken der presiderte over biskopene i Syria,
Palestina, Armenia og Mesopotamia. Men Kirken der var på den tiden dypt
splittet av det arianske kjetteri. Den hellige patriark Eustathios (324-30)
var en fast motstander av arianismen, og hans motstand mot kjetteriet brakte
ham i konflikt med den berømte kirkehistorikeren og biskopen Eusebius av Caesarea (ca
260-340), som overhodet ikke nevner Eustathios i sin Kirkehistorie (Historia
ecclesiastica). Eustathios beskyldte ham for å forvrenge den nikenske
trosbekjennelsen.
Dette fremprovoserte en
storm blant biskoper som fortsatt støttet arianismen, som da fikk ny støtte fra
keiserhoffet, iherdig dyrket av Eusebius. På en synode i Antiokia i 331 ble
Eustathios avsatt av det arianske flertallet, som ble ledet av Eusebius av
Caesarea og Eusebius av Nikomedia i Bitynia i Lilleasia (i dag Izmit i Tyrkia),
etter falske anklager om sabellianisme, ukyskhet, grusomhet og andre
forbrytelser. Keiser Konstantin trodde på de skandaløse ryktene om Eustathios,
som ble forvist til Trakia på Balkan, omtrent det nåværende Bulgaria.
Folket i Antiokia, som
elsket og æret sin fromme og lærde patriark, var rasende over behandlingen han
fikk og var villige til å gripe til våpen for å forsvare ham. Men Eustathios
fikk stagget dem, formante dem til å være trofaste mot den ortodokse tro og dro
ydmykt av sted til sitt eksil, fulgt av en stor del av presteskapet. Eusebius
av Caesarea ble tilbudt patriarksetet året etter, men han avslo. Eustathios'
tilhengere i Antiokia ville ikke følge hans etterfølger som patriark, så de
dannet sitt eget lille samfunn, «eustathianerne». Disse tilhengerne av den
nikenske trosbekjennelsen betraktet ham som sin rettmessige biskop til han døde
i sitt eksil i Trajanopolis i Trakia (eller i Illyria?) rundt 338 (noen kilder
sier rundt 360).
Flere etterfølgende
biskoper støttet det arianske kjetteri. Paulinus (330) satt på bispesetet i
seks måneder, han var semi-arianer og en venn av Eusebius av Caesarea. Deretter
kom Eulalius (331-32), som også satt i svært kort tid. De neste biskopene,
Eufronius (332-33), Flacillus (333-342) og Stefan I (342-44) var knapt verdige
biskoper. Stefan ble avsatt i 344 og erstattet av Leontius evnukken (344-58).
Hans sympati for det arianske kjetteri var åpen, og hans disippel Aetius
forkynte ren arianisme, noe som ikke stanset ham fra å bli diakonviet. Men
dette ble for mye for de ortodokse under ledelse av Flavius and Diodorus, og
Aetius måtte fjernes. Da Leontius døde i 358, skyndte en av de mest
innflytelsesrike arianerne, biskop Eudoxius av Germanicia Caesarea (Marash i
det sørøstre Tyrkia – fra 1973 Kahramanmarash), seg til Antiokia, og ved hjelp
av intriger klarte han å bli utnevnt til det vakante patriarksetet. Han var den
siste av de arianske patriarkene og holdt setet bare en kort periode (358-59)
før han ble forvist av en gruppe opprørske arianere til tross for at han selv var
semi-arianer. I 359 utnevnte synoden i Seleukia en etterfølger ved navn
Annanios (359), men han var knapt installert før han ble avsatt og forvist.
Kort etter bemektiget Eudoxius seg bispesetet i Konstantinopel (360), og setet
i Antiokia var igjen vakant. Nå var Eustathios også med sikkerhet død i sitt
eksil.
Biskoper fra alle fløyer
samlet seg nå for å velge ny patriark. Akakios av Caesareas tilhengere
(akakianerne) var det dominerende partiet, men likevel ser det ut til at
Meletius ble brakt inn som en kompromisskandidat mellom de to gruppene
arianerne og eustathianerne. Tidlig i 360 ble han valgt til erkebiskop av
Antiokia (360-81). Han var en personlig venn av Akakios, men valget var
akseptabelt for mange, for Meletius hadde avlagt løfter til begge sider slik at
både de ortodokse og arianerne trodde at han var på deres side. Han var så
heldig at han ikke var til stede i Antiokia da han ble valgt, slik at han
unngikk nærgående spørsmål om sin ortodoksi.
For det er ikke lett å
plassere ham nøyaktig. Han var verken en gjennomført nikener eller en
overbevist arianer, og i mellomtiden ble han vekselvis regnet både som homoiousianer,
homoianer, anomeaner og neo-nikener, idet han forsøkte å holde seg
utenfor enhver uomtvistelig klassifikasjon. Det er mulig at han rett og slett
ikke var helt sikker på sitt syn, men ventet på at teologene skulle finne en
endelig definisjon. Anomeanerne, som også ble kalt heterousianere,
aetianere eller eunomianere, var en ariansk sekt som hevdet at Jesus
av Nasaret (Sønnen) var av en forskjellig natur og på ingen måter lik Gud
(Faderen).
Hele Meletius' tid på
erkebispestolen var preget av arianismen og andre vanskeligheter. Selv om
keiser Konstantius II (337-61) godkjente valget, ville ikke eustathianerne
anerkjenne ham fordi ikke bare katolikker, men også arianere hadde deltatt i
valget av ham. Det hjalp ikke at han etter valget fra ambo høytidelig
proklamerte sin ortodokse tro.
Arianerne håpet at
Meletius ville slutte seg til dem. Men ifølge en gammel tradisjon, støttet av
bevis hentet fra de hellige Epifanios av
Salamis (ca 315-403) og Johannes
Krysostomos (ca 347-407), ble dette håpet gjort til skamme da den
pro-arianske keiseren kom til Antiokia. Meletius ble sammen med flere andre
biskoper som da var i Antiokia, pålagt å tolke teksten i Ordspråkene som
handler om Guds visdom: «Jeg var den første Herren skapte, hans første verk i
fordums tid» (Ordsp 8,22). Først forklarte Georg av Laodicea det på en ariansk
måte (de betraktet Sønnen som skapt av Faderen, altså at «det fantes en tid da
Sønnen ikke var»), så ga Akakios av Caesarea teksten en mening som grenset til
det kjetterske, men Meletius utla den i katolsk forstand og knyttet den til
Inkarnasjonen.1 Dette
offentlige vitnesbyrdet for homoousios (nikensk ortodoksi) gjorde
arianerne rasende, og biskop Eudoxius av Konstantinopel overtalte keiseren til
å forvise Meletius til Nedre Armenia bare en måned etter at han var innsatt på
erkebispesetet.
Denne forklaringen
avvises imidlertid av den tyske protestantiske kirkehistorikeren Friedrich
Loofs (1858-1928), for Meletius' preken inneholder ikke noe som er i strid med
det akakianske synet som var støttet av hoff-partiet. På den andre side finnes
det bevis på konflikter blant presteskapet som ikke hadde noe med spørsmålet om
ortodoksi å gjøre, og dette kan ha ført til at biskopen ble avsatt.
Meletius dro i eksil
tidlig i 361. Arianerne ga hans bispesete til arianeren Euzoius (361-78), som
den hellige erkebiskop Alexander av
Alexandria tidligere hadde utstøtt fra Kirken sammen med erkekjetteren
Arius. Dermed startet det som er blitt kjent som Det meletianske skisma i
Antiokia, men som i realiteten startet tretti år tidligere med utvisningen av
Eustathios. Meletius hadde fortsatt tilhengere i Antiokia (meletianerne), og de
fortsatte å feire egne messer i Apostelkirken i gamlebyen. De ble ledet av
Flavius og Diodorus, mens Paulinus (Paulinos) ledet eustathianerne. I alle
familier fikk en sønn navnet Meletius, og hans portrett ble inngravert på
ringer, relieffer, kopper og vegger.
Da keiser Konstantius II
døde den 3. november 361, overtok hans fetter Julian den Frafalne (Apostaten)
(361-63) som keiser. Han hadde falt fra kristendommen og vendt tilbake til den
hedenske tro (derav tilnavnet), og han brydde seg ikke om de ulike kristne
fraksjonenes krangler om doktrine. Han lot derfor i 362 alle de forviste
biskopene få vende tilbake til sine byer, enten de var arianere eller nikenere
eller noen av avskygningene midt imellom. Meletius dro tilbake til Antiokia i
januar 362.
Den hellige biskop Lucifer av Calaris (Cagliari)
på Sardinia hadde også vært forvist, men han dro ikke tilbake til sin hjemby. I
stedet dro han til Antiokia, hvor han straks blandet seg inn i de stridighetene
som splittet det katolske partiet mellom eustathianere og meletianere. Han
avviste enhver omgang med arianske biskoper og var ute av stand til å vise
takt, så han irriterte dissenterne i stedet for å behandle dem forsiktig for å
vinne dem over. Han viste spesiell strenghet mot de katolikkene som hadde
vaklet i sin fastholdelse av den nikenske trosbekjennelsen.
Sent på våren eller
sommeren 362 ble det holdt en synode i Alexandria presidert over av byens
hellige patriark Athanasius av
Alexandria (ca 296-373), som akkurat da var tilbake i byen mellom to
av sine perioder i eksil, og den hellige Eusebius av
Vercelli, som i likhet med Lucifer av Calaris hadde vært forvist fra sitt
bispesete. Denne synoden kalles «bekjennerkonferansen». Fra det eneste bevarte
dokumentet synoden vedtok, Tomus ad Antiochenos, ser vi at ved siden av å
erklære Den Hellige Ånds guddom og den ortodokse læren om Treenigheten, gikk
synoden med på å skjelne mellom de biskopene som støttet homoios av
overbevisning og de som hadde undertegnet trosbekjennelsen og som nå angret.
Denne siste kategorien av biskoper skulle behandles mildt, og de skulle tilgis
etter å ha erklært sin troskap til den nikenske tro. Synoden la derimot strenge
straffer på lederne av flere av de arianske fraksjonene. Eusebius fikk i
oppdrag av synoden å spre dens beslutninger i dette spørsmålet i vesten.
Lucifer hadde ikke vært villig til å dra til synoden i Alexandria i 362, men sendte
to diakoner.
Synoden i Alexandria
hadde ønsket at Eusebius skulle forsone Meletius og eustathianerne ved å ordne
opp i det som måtte ha vært irregulært ved Meletius' valg til biskop. Etter
synoden dro Eusebius derfor til Antiokia for å gjøre et forsøk på å ordne
kirkelige problemene der. Men da han kom til Antiokia, fant han at Lucifer av
Cagliari hadde komplisert situasjonen ytterligere og forlenget og forbitret
splittelsen ved å konsekrere en tredje biskop til setet i Antiokia ved siden av
Meletius og arianeren Euzoius, nemlig presten Paulinus (362-88), lederen for de
reaksjonære og lite representative eustathianerne.
Dermed hadde Lucifer uten
å vite det forpurret den fredelige løsningen som var planlagt i Alexandria.
Lucifer nektet å bøye seg for synodens dekret og protesterte mot den
lemfeldigheten den hadde vist, og han gikk så langt som å bannlyse sin
tidligere venn Eusebius av Vercelli ved å avbryte kommunionen med ham og med
alle dem som i tråd med synoden i Alexandria mottok de tidligere arianske
biskopene. Dermed begynte det såkalte «luciferianske» skisma. Eustathianernes
stivsinn førte til at det oppsto to fraksjoner blant de ortodokse i Antiokia,
det såkalte meletianske skisma, som varte til 410-tallet. I lys av denne
utviklingen var ikke Eusebius i stand til å oppnå noe i Antiokia, så han reiste
hjem. Det er en av historiens uretter at skismaet skulle bli kjent som det
meletianske, siden Meletius og hans tilhengere ikke hadde noen skyld i det –
ansvaret tilhørte utelukkende eustathianerne eller paulinianerne.
Meletius befant seg nå
mellom to stoler. En uheldig strid mellom ham og patriark Athanasius av
Alexandria i 363 forverret situasjonen, og Athanasius anerkjente Paulinus to
ganger i 365 og i 371 eller 372 som den rettmessige patriark av Antiokia som
Alexandria var i kommunion med. Meletius ble i mai 365 igjen forvist av keiser
Valens (364-78), og han dro til sin eiendom i Getasa i Armenia, men eksilet var
kortvarig og han var tilbake igjen i 366/67. Men i 371 brøt forfølgelsene ut på
nytt, og Meletius måtte dra i sitt tredje eksil (371-78) mens konflikten mellom
de arianske og katolske fraksjonene herjet. Som om ikke dette var komplisert
nok, oppsto det også en fjerde gruppe, apollinarianerne, etter at den heretiske
biskopen Apollinaris av Laodicea i 376 hadde bispeviet presten Vitalis (376-?),
en tidligere tilhenger av Meletius.
Striden mellom de
rivaliserende katolske grupperingene fortsatte også. I 374 ble situasjonen
ytterligere komplisert da den hellige pave Damasus I (366-84)
anerkjente Paulinus som erkebiskop og utnevnte ham til pavelig legat i øst.
Dessuten lot den hellige Hieronymus seg
i 378 eller 379 vie til prest av Paulinus i Antiokia, selv om det var mot hans
uttrykkelige ønske, og han leste faktisk aldri noen messe og utøvde aldri
prestegjerning, som han anså for uforenelig med sitt eget kall. Han tok
stilling for Paulinus i det meletianske skisma, og han fordømte skismaet i
avhandlingen Altercatio luciferiani et orthodoxi.
I mellomtiden gjorde
Meletius' situasjon at han nærmet seg mer og mer de ortodokse nikenernes syn.
Den hellige Basilios
den store trakk tilbake sin støtte til eustathianerne og ga den i
stedet til Meletius. I 378 døde den pro-arianske keiser Valens, og det førte
til at den nye keiser Gratian gjeninnsatte de forviste biskopene, inkludert
Meletius. Han vendte i triumf tilbake til Antiokia, men han var ikke i stand
til å komme til en ordning med Paulinus før han døde. I januar 379 døde
Basilios den store, og Meletius ble nå lederen for den ortodokse fraksjonen.
Gradvis vokste hans innflytelse i Østkirken etter hvert som flere og flere
biskoper støttet ham.
Han innkalte en synode i
Antiokia i oktober 379, hvor 152 biskoper støttet ham. Til sammenligning var
det i 363 bare 26 som støttet ham. Synoden erklærte enhet i troen med Roma, og
dermed var enheten mellom øst og vest gjenopprettet. Dette var nå også
keiserlig politikk, og i 380 utstedte vestkeiseren Gratian et edikt som støttet
den katolske tro og avviste arianismen. I 381 ble den hellige Johannes
Krysostomos diakonviet i Antiokia av Meletius. Han bidro også til å
innsette den hellige Gregor av Nazianz den
yngre på bispestolen i Konstantinopel.
Tanken om et nytt
økumenisk konsil vokste etter keiser Valens' (364-78) død (det første var holdt
i Nikea i 325). Østkeiseren Theodosios I innkalte til slutt konsilet til
Konstantinopel i 381. Meletius var blitt en så fremtredende skikkelse blant
Østens biskoper han i patriarken av Alexandrias fravær ble valgt til å
presidere over konsilet, og den nylig døpte keiser Theodosios ønsket ham
hjertelig velkommen til keiserbyen. Det andre økumeniske konsil i
Konstantinopel (I) pågikk fra mai til juli 381. Under konsilet ble Gregor av
Nazianz utnevnt til erkebiskop av Konstantinopel av keiser Theodosios, og han
ble innsatt i embetet i basilikaen St. Sofia av patriark Meletius av Antiokia.
Men Meletius døde uventet
den 10. juni (eller i mai?) 381, midt under konsilet. Den hellige Gregor av Nyssa holdt
prekenen i hans begravelse, med alle konsilfedrene og de troende i byen til
stede.2 Keiseren
ga ordre om at hans legeme skulle føres til Antiokia og gis en helgenbegravelse
der, og han ble gravlagt ved siden av sin hellige forgjenger Babylas (d.
ca 250). En ny lovtale ble holdt av Johannes Krysostomos på femårsdagen for
hans død.3 Teksten
til begge talene er bevart, og det nye Martyrologium Romanum nevner en tredje
av Gregor av Nazianz.
Gregor av Nazianz og
Kirken i vest rådet nå Kirken i Antiokia til å samle seg og anerkjenne Paulinus
som deres biskop, men dette ble avvist av meletianerne, som valgte Flavian I
(381-404) til Meletius' etterfølger. Pave Damasus nektet å inngå
kirkefellesskap med Flavian, så striden fortsatte.
Arianernes biskop Euzoius
(361-78), støttet av keiser Valens, hadde i 378 blitt etterfulgt av Dorotheos
(378-81), som imidlertid ble den siste arianeren. Da Paulinus (362-88) døde i
388, valgte eustathianerne Evagrius (388-93) til hans etterfølger, men etter
hans død i 393 valgte eustathianerne ingen ny biskop. De mistet også
anerkjennelsen fra Alexandria og Roma, som anerkjente Flavian som rettmessig
biskop av Antiokia, Theofilos av Alexandria i 394 og pave Anastasius I
(399-402) i 399, men eustathianerne forble i skisma til 415. Flavian ble
etterfulgt av Porfyros (404-12) og Alexander (Alexandros) I (412-17), som endte
skismaet med eustathianerne i 415.
Meletius var en hellig
mann, og hans asketiske liv var bemerkelsesverdig hans store private rikdom
tatt i betraktning. Han var også en mann av lærdom og kultur, og han var høyt
aktet for sin rettskafne og vennlige karakter. Han æres som helgen og bekjenner
både i Den katolske Kirke og i de ortodokse østkirkene. Hans minnedag er 12.
februar.
1
Epifanios av Salamis, Panarion seu adversus LXXX haereses, LXXIII, 29-33
2
J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Graeca (PG) 46, 851-864
Kilder:
Attwater/Cumming, Butler, Butler (II), Benedictines, Delaney, Bunson, KIR, CE,
CSO, Infocatho, Bautz, Heiligenlexikon, santiebeati.it, en.wikipedia.org,
Stadler, britannica.com, 1911encyclopedia.org, ewtn.com, ccel.org, oca.org,
orthodoxinfo.com, goarch.org, Eusebius av Vercellis biografi - Kompilasjon
og oversettelse: p. Per
Einar Odden - Opprettet: 2000-02-01 21:34 - -
Sist oppdatert: 2008-06-21 14:02
Linken er kopiert til
utklippstavlen!
SOURCE : https://www.katolsk.no/biografier/historisk/mantioki
Meletius van Antiochië,
Syrië; patriarch; † 381.
Feest 12 februari.
Hij was afkomstig uit de
Armeense hoofdstad Melitene. Als jongeman viel hij reeds op door zijn
voorliefde voor studie en godsdienst en door zijn vredelievende gezindheid. Hij
wekte sympathie bij de immer met elkaar overhoop liggende orthodoxen en arianen.
Zijn vriendelijkheid
zorgde ervoor dat hij in 358 werd gekozen tot bisschop van Sebaste. Maar nu
bleek dat hij in de ogen van de arianen toch veel te
orthodox was. In het geharrewar dat doordoor ontstond trok Meletius zich terug
en deed afstand van zijn zetel.
Twee jaar later werd hij
gekozen tot de veel verhevener functie van patriarch van Antiochië. Ook hier
ontstond allerlei tumult. Na een maand al werd hij door de ariaanse keizer
Constantius (337-361) in ballingschap gestuurd. Hij nam zijn toevlucht tot zijn
land van herkomst, Armenië. Toen Julianus (361-363) het jaar daarop als keizer
aantrad, kon hij weer terugkeren. Maar Julianus, die niet voor niets de
geschiedenis is ingegaan als ‘de Afvallige’, wilde de aloude Romeinse
godsdienst weer invoeren en zijn onderdanen dwingen die goden te vereren.
Meletius verzette zich uit alle macht. Dat kwam hem wederom op ballingschap te
staan. Na Julianus’ dood kon hij weer terugkeren. Intussen was er echter een
ander in zijn plaats benoemd, Paulinus. Meletius stelde voor de zetel met
Paulinus te delen. Ook dat gaf weer veel gedoe.
Uiteindelijk kon hij pas
in 378 definitief terugkeren naar zijn wettige zetel. Het jaar daarop zat hij
het Concilie van Antiochië voor. Nu stond hij in hoog aanzien. Hij was het die
twee jaar later het Tweede Oecumenische Concilie te Constantinopel van 381
(feest 22 mei) voorzat. Bij die gelegenheid stierf hij.
Verering & Cultuur
Er gaan over hem
dramatische verhalen. Eens preekte hij over het mysterie van de Drie-eenheid.
Eén van zijn eigen diakens die de leer van de arianen was toegedaan,
kon het niet langer aanhoren, snelde op het spreekgestoelte af en belette zijn
bisschop het spreken door zijn hand tegen diens mond te drukken. Niet in staat
nog een woord uit te brengen hief de bisschop zijn armen in de lucht, en
spreidde voor de ogen van zijn toehoorders drie vingers duidelijk uiteen; toen
maakte hij van zijn hand een vuist en toonde die aan de aanwezigen.
Iets soortgelijks wordt
ook later van hem verteld. Toen Meletius op het Concilie van Constantinopel aan
de aanwezige arianen het
mysterie van de Drie-eenheid uiteenzette, stak hij drie vingers omhoog, haalde
ze uit elkaar en bracht ze vervolgens samen tot één vuist. Op dat moment – ze
vertelt de overlevering – schoot er - tot verbijstering van de toeschouwers -
een bliksemschicht uit zijn hand.
Zijn relieken werden
overgebracht naar Antochië.
[Adr.---/2; Lin.1999; Vmc.1985/1; Dries van den Akker s.j./2008.12.08]
© A. van den Akker
s.j. / A.W. Gerritsen
SOURCE : https://heiligen-3s.nl/heiligen/02/12/02-12-0381-meletius.php
