Shlomo Lkhooklhoon,
Below are excepts from histories of Armenians, Syriacs, and Coptics. As can be seen, there is much bitterness concerning Byzantne relations with non-Byzantine Eastern Christians.

Therefore, as the Byzantine Churches have demanded an apology from Rome concerning their treatment at the hands of Roman Catholics, should now the Byzantine Church do the same for the non-Byzantine Churches?

THE MARONITES

By Tony D.Ghossain

The Maronites trace their origin to St.Maron, a Syrian hermit of the late 4th, and early 5th centuries. They became a fully independent people after they routed the invading Byzantine armies of Justinian the second at the battle of Amioune, under the leadership of St. John Maron, patriarch of Antioch in 685-707.

The hardy martial Maronites have always valiantly preserved their liberty, and traditions. Two Arab Umayyad Caliphs (661-750 AD) paid the Byzantine Emperor tribute to stop the Maronite Mardaites, called Jarajimah (they inhabited Jarjuma in the Amanus mountains in the modern Turkish province of Hatay, employed as soldiers by Byzantine
emperors, they occupied Lebanon, and northern Palestine), attacking their territories. Justinian II by agreement with the Umayyed Caliph
Abd al- Malik, resettled 12000 Mardaites in parts of Anatolia, and Greece 685 AD. The remaining Mardaites merged with their spiritual brothers, the mountain Phoenicians, and Aramaic people (Evangelised by the Maronite monk Ibraheem al- Qureshi, traditionally the first Maronite to set foot in Lebanon), the Christian Arabs, who fled the Muslim conquests, the Anbats (Arab farmers, and town dwellers of the Orontes valley), and run away slaves seeking refuge in the Lebanese
mountains, to form the present day Maronites.

In the spring of 694 the invading Byzantine army of Justinian II, attacked St. Maron's monastery on the Orontes river in Syria, which was the patriarchal see of st. John Maron, the first Patriarch of the Maronites, and massacred 500 Maronite monks. With the help of his nephew Muqaddam (commander) Ibrahime , and 12000 Maronite fighters, st. John Maron fled to Smar Jbail in Lebanon, and finally settled in
Kfir Hay in the Batroun district in Lebanon. When the Byzantine army reached Amioun in the Koura it was attacked, and routed by the Lebanese Maronites.

Aziz S. Atiya

Introduction

Occasionally, the Copts have been described as a schismatic eastern Christian minority, a lonely community in the land of their forebears. They have been forgotten since they chose living in
oblivion after the tragedy of Chalcedon (451 AD) which was followed by a new wave of persecution inflicted upon them by fellow Christians and Byzantine rulers. Though they were not unknown to mediaeval and early modern travelers from Europe, Western Christendom appears to have lost sight of the Copts until 1860 when a Presbyterian mission
came to convert them to Christianity, and the Coptic archbishop of Asiut asked them the rhetorical question: "We have been living with
Christ for more than 1800 years, how long have you been living with him?"

Oblivion and Rediscovery

One of the most disastrous events in Christian annals came to pass at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD Its condemnation of the Coptic patriarch Dioscorus I, and its interpretation of Saint Cyril the Great's formula of the "physis" or "hypostasis" of Christ contrary to the Coptic profession led to the irreparable cleavage of Christendom into two hostile camps, Eastern [better labeled as Oriental] and Western. To this day, Chalcedon is acrimoniously remembered by the
Coptic natives of Egypt and, for that matter, also by the Jacobite Syrians, the Ethiopians, and the Armenians, who followed the example of Egypt. The immediate outcome of Chalcedon, however, was more keenly felt in Egypt. The Byzantine Emperors who aimed at unity within the Church as the sole bearer of cohesion in the Empire stopped at nothing to impose that unity by brutal force on the Egyptian people. It was thus that a new wave of gruesome persecution was inaugurated to obliterate all vestiges of separatism in Egypt.
For effective action, the Emperor combined the civil, military, and ecclesiastical authority in the hands of one man, the perfect Apollinarius, who was the governor, army general and patriarch of Alexandria at one and the same time. This offered him immense powers to force the Chalcedonian profession of faith on the obstinate Copts who were adamant against the Greek dictates. In opposition to this military rule of the Church, the natives followed their own national Pope elected on the seat of Saint Mark, who was pursued by the legionaries of the Melkite patriarch while he moved in secret from monastery to monastery. Unbearably excessive taxation together with the most horrible torture and humiliation were inflicted upon the Egyptians throughout the period from 451 AD to 641 AD until the advent of the Arabs on the scene.

The defeat of the Greeks and the surrender of Cyrus, the last perfect-patriarch, to the Arab conquerors on Good Friday, 6 April 641, has often been ascribed to Coptic connivance with the invader against their oppressor. But this is not true. The Copts merely took a neutral position between the contestants. They had nothing to lose by changing masters. On the contrary, whereas the Byzantines inflicted servitude on the Copts both religiously and politically, the Arabs promised religious freedom to all the people "of the Book" (ahl al- Zimmah), i.e., the Christians and the Jews. In fact, after the downfall of the last Greek bastion of Alexandria, Amr invited the
fugitive Coptic Patriarch Benjamin II out of his concealment and offered him an honorable safe-conduct and the Melkite churches which were vacated by the Greeks.

From Armenia.com

The anarchy was ruled in our country after the exile of Gagik II. The Armenian people, enemy of the Byzantines, were subdued to their domination with curse and hatred. The selfish Byzantines transformed the city of Ani into a very common country village. The wealthy city was looted, antagonist religious men dishon-oured the Armenian
clerical hierarchy, and left deserted the magnificent churches. And finally they obligated the Catholicos Bedros Keda-tarz to cancel the
catholicos' dignity in Armenia.

From the Syriac Orthodox Website

The Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 brought about the separation of the Syriac Orthodox Church along with the Coptic Orthodox Church from the Byzantine and Roman Christians. Polemically mislabelled as monophysites, the Oriental Orthodox Christians including the Syriac Christians were considered heretics by other Christians and were subject to political persecution in the Byzantine empire as a result.
The advent of Islam in the seventh century and its growing political clout was in fact a respite for the Syriac Church which viewed it as a deviant Christian sect but a liberating force from the oppression of the Byzantines.

Dear Yuhannon,

The problem might be that there is no "Byzantine Church" today (except in the U.S., of course) that could speak with one voice on these matters.

The various Churches of the Byzantine tradition are not "Byzantines" in the national sense - would the Greeks consider themselves to be perhaps?

The Ukrainian Church is of the "Byzantine" family, but was on very good terms with the Miaphysites, especially the Armenians and the Copts. Ukraine was once home to all sorts of Eastern Churches and Western sects.

The bread was good and no one bothered anyone about anything.

Until the Ukrainians came to North America, and then it was, "Get up and go to Ukrainian school! Don't forget Ukrainian Church tomorrow! Learn to speak better Ukrainian, you lazy . . ."

Then the Ukies underwent a metamorphosis . . .

Alex

Shlomo Yuhannon,
If we were to apply the same standards equally all round, I'd say yes, the Byzantine church owes an apology. I believe that it would be appropriate and I am glad that you posted this eye opener. The Byzantine church was an organ of the state at the time of the atrocities committed against the oriental churches. Its complicity was similar to the role the ROC played under Stalin. I suppose one could say a similar situation existed under the Turks, except for the fact that the Byzantine church suffered a great deal along with the others.

And of course, the East Roman Empire is gone. It would be nice to pin the whole thing on them!

There really is no one hierarch to speak for the Byzantine churches. The church is too fragmented and it is a given that the Ecumenical Patriarchate today has no real authority in the sense that we might think of in the past, it seems to have been shorn of all responsibility for it's own daughter churches. If the EP were to release a statement or apology, would anyone consider it meaningful?

Michael