Always in union with Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas48
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomas48

Guest
Have any of the Eastern Catholic Churches always been in union with Rome or did these unions only occur later on in their histories? I know many split off from their mother Orthodox Churches and some had forceful unions.
 
I believe the Maronites have always been in union with Rome.
 
Thomas48 said:
Have any of the Eastern Catholic Churches always been in union with Rome or did these unions only occur later on in their histories? I know many split off from their mother Orthodox Churches and some had forceful unions.
Click to expand...
Yes. The Maronite Catholics & Italo–Albanian Catholics both were never seperated from Rome.

Please see this site at EWTN.

God Bless.
 
Most eastern rites were seperated from st peter at one point or another. However no church was ever forced to unity, as force makes the unity declarations void.
 
coptsoldier said:
Most eastern rites were seperated from st peter at one point or another. However no church was ever forced to unity, as force makes the unity declarations void.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the replies, one correction tho, the Syro Malabar Church was indeed forced into unity. Originally the Malabar Christians were members of the Church of the East, then the Portuguese arrived in India and imposed Latin Catholicism. The Latin Bishops with-held Eastern Bishops from arriving in India and took full control of the Malabar Christians.
 
The Maronites are an interesting bunch.

Their split may have been more organic, rather than political (or dare I say theological).
 
I certianly understand that pressure was exerted. However, they had the option to resist. Some did, and formed the syriac malankara church under the orientals. Rome has done bad in the past, and asked for forgiveness. But I personally believe alot of the clergy welcomed jnity with rome openly, otherwise they would of resisted and never communed with rome.
 
coptsoldier said:
I certianly understand that pressure was exerted. However, they had the option to resist. Some did, and formed the syriac malankara church under the orientals. Rome has done bad in the past, and asked for forgiveness. But I personally believe alot of the clergy welcomed jnity with rome openly, otherwise they would of resisted and never communed with rome.
Click to expand...
The Malabar Christians (East Syriac) did not have much choice in the matter, on one side the new (West Syriac) Malabar Christians introduce an unfamiliar liturgy and ordain a bishop without consent of any hierarchy, while the Latin Bishops on the other hand are pressuring the (East Syriac) Malabar Christians that this newly elected bishop was not ordained with legitimacy and that Rome will continue to let you use the Syriac Language and some of the East Syriac Qurbana. With no more East Syrian Hierarchy arriving in Kerala and without other option besides communing with Rome to preserve their elder liturgical rite, it can be understood that the Malabar Christians did not have another alternative.
 
It depends what constitutes “unity.” Maronites were geographically isolated for centuries, so I doubt they were commemorating a hierarch thousands of miles away that they didn’t even know who filled the See at the time. I dare to say that Maronites were also dreaded “monophysites” at one time, and the narrative of us being the Syriacs who were massacred by Monophysites is as revisionist as how we innovated all the defining characteristics (solely vernacular, versus populum, etc.) of the novus ordo by the 8th century.
shlomo3amrooh said:
The Maronites are an interesting bunch.

Their split may have been more organic, rather than political (or dare I say theological).
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to agree with shlomo3amrooh. Our split from the Syriac Orthodox was probably more related to logistics, as opposed to any of the number of revisionist stories that have been crafted in the modern era and are continuing to be taught, despite lack of evidence.
 
MorEphrem said:
It depends what constitutes “unity.” Maronites were geographically isolated for centuries, so I doubt they were commemorating a hierarch thousands of miles away that they didn’t even know who filled the See at the time. I dare to say that Maronites were also dreaded “monophysites” at one time, and the narrative of us being the Syriacs who were massacred by Monophysites is as revisionist as how we innovated all the defining characteristics (solely vernacular, versus populum, etc.) of the novus ordo by the 8th century.

I’m inclined to agree with shlomo3amrooh. Our split from the Syriac Orthodox was probably more related to logistics, as opposed to any of the number of revisionist stories that have been crafted in the modern era and are continuing to be taught, despite lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
Have you read of the faith debate in 459 A.D. in the presence of Muawiya, between two Miaphysite bishops and the Maronites? Chonica Minora II, ed. E. W. Brooks, ser 3. vol 4. (Paris 1904), 70.
archive.org/details/ChronicaMinoraIi
 
Dear brother Thomas48,

I’m not sure I understand what part of the Syro-Malabar union was forced. From my understanding of your Church’s history, it goes something like this:
  • The first several decades after the Portuguese came was peaceful co-existence, with some Malabar Christians willfully becoming Latin Christians
  • After several decades, some Latin missionaries wanted to enforce Latinizations everywhere.
  • This caused a formal split among the Malabar Christians into a Latin group, and the Traditional East Syrian group.
  • Later, the majority of East Syrians willfully joined the Latin jurisdiction, while a smaller group maintained their East Syrian identity.
  • A few years later, a Syriac Orthodox bishop came (West Syrian), and one part of the remaining East Syrian group willfully became West Syrian, while the other part willfully joined the Catholic communion while maintaining their East Syrian Tradition. This latter group was the origin of your particular Church.
Is there some part of that history that you feel is incorrect? Again, I’m not sure where the formation of your Church was forced.

I do have a question however - when did contact with the ACOE end? Are there any definite historical records on that (as opposed to mere assumptions or deductions from the historical record)? I mean, before the formation of the Syro-Malabar Church, there seems to have always been a group that resisted Latinizations. I assume that group maintained contact with the ACOE throughout those years?

Blessings,
Marduk
Thomas48 said:
The Malabar Christians (East Syriac) did not have much choice in the matter, on one side the new (West Syriac) Malabar Christians introduce an unfamiliar liturgy and ordain a bishop without consent of any hierarchy, while the Latin Bishops on the other hand are pressuring the (East Syriac) Malabar Christians that this newly elected bishop was not ordained with legitimacy and that Rome will continue to let you use the Syriac Language and some of the East Syriac Qurbana. With no more East Syrian Hierarchy arriving in Kerala and without other option besides communing with Rome to preserve their elder liturgical rite, it can be understood that the Malabar Christians did not have another alternative.
Click to expand...
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I believe the Maronites have always been in union with Rome.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The Maronites never broke communion with rome, but were out of contact for several centuries.

The Italo-Greek byzantines were suppressed by an anti-pope for a few years, but have always been in communion with Rome otherwise.
 
Vico said:
Have you read of the faith debate in 459 A.D. in the presence of Muawiya, between two Miaphysite bishops and the Maronites? Chonica Minora II, ed. E. W. Brooks, ser 3. vol 4. (Paris 1904), 70.
archive.org/details/ChronicaMinoraIi
Click to expand...
I have heard of many debates of the time. Anecdotal debates happened at the time - there wasn’t homogeneity of the expression of Christology in Churches - even the villainized archetype of “monophysites,” Severus, couldn’t make up his mind. Plus, to be honest I don’t have the time or interest to read an entire debate on Christology in Syriac.

Additionally, Muawiya sounds like an Arab name - so I would assume Arabs and Maronites were interacting only after the Islamic invasions.
 
Good discussion. 👍

One thing that perhaps goes without saying is that these matters cannot be understood in the same terms as Greek Catholicism and the “uniatism” of the 17th century. Even the word “uniatism” would be out of place if applied to the events surrounding Ephesus and Chalcedon, and related events in the following centuries in the region of Syria. For that matter, the term “Mother Church” would be difficult to apply in Syriac Christianity (with a couple exceptions: it seems quite clear that the Syriac Orthodox Church is the “Mother Church” of the SCC, and that the Malankara Orthodox Church is the “Mother Church” to the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church).
 
Italo-Albanians (before this name was given Italo-Greeks) were something like “Pope’s Greeks” and they were in full communion by definition.

Maronites are considered to be. There is dicussion if they were not flirting with monothelitism and if how much seriously but official acceptance of monothelitism is definitely missing. (By the way, Edessa was never really nestorian, they were discussing with them and were listening their opinions, not accepting them as true ones and making them their own doctrine.)
Not being in contact does not cease communion. When there is isolated church, it does not break communion. And if let’s say church which has to have permission does not have real chance to reach Apostolic See, they could do this in communion. As preparation for communism period in Europe there were special faculties which allowed ordaining bishops without Pope informed and they were “legal” bishops. One of them is e. g. later Cardinal (I mentioned him here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=853978).

I have also noticed opinion that Malabar church was in communion, it had just bishops not in communion. Maybe something like many Catholics in China who are themselves in communion but often with schismatic bishops. They are allowed to go to “state churches” if there are no “papal churches” but with intention to be in communion and just using only service available.
 
In the case of Malabar, it is even more complicated by the Chaldean situation. The Chaldeans kept going into and out of Communion with Rome. Ultimately, the actual ACOE Patriarchates (there were two competing) came into full union with Rome, while the Catholic line actually became non-Catholic. So the Patriarch that was overseeing the Malabar jurisdiction, was he in union with Rome or against at the time the Portuguese were attempting their takeover with Portuguese monarch appointed bishops? Turns out the Patriarch was in union with Rome, that the Pope gave papers recognizing the Patriarch’s jurisdiction in Malabar and that these were ignored by the Latin bishop and Portuguese authorities and the Patriarch was expelled back to Rome by ship, on route he subsequently died (the Indians thought he was drowned by the Portuguese).
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Thomas48,

I’m not sure I understand what part of the Syro-Malabar union was forced. From my understanding of your Church’s history, it goes something like this:
  • The first several decades after the Portuguese came was peaceful co-existence, with some Malabar Christians willfully becoming Latin Christians
  • After several decades, some Latin missionaries wanted to enforce Latinizations everywhere.
  • This caused a formal split among the Malabar Christians into a Latin group, and the Traditional East Syrian group.
  • Later, the majority of East Syrians willfully joined the Latin jurisdiction, while a smaller group maintained their East Syrian identity.
  • A few years later, a Syriac Orthodox bishop came (West Syrian), and one part of the remaining East Syrian group willfully became West Syrian, while the other part willfully joined the Catholic communion while maintaining their East Syrian Tradition. This latter group was the origin of your particular Church.
Is there some part of that history that you feel is incorrect? Again, I’m not sure where the formation of your Church was forced.

I do have a question however - when did contact with the ACOE end? Are there any definite historical records on that (as opposed to mere assumptions or deductions from the historical record)? I mean, before the formation of the Syro-Malabar Church, there seems to have always been a group that resisted Latinizations. I assume that group maintained contact with the ACOE throughout those years?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
The majority of what you posted is accurate Mardukm but my reasoning for seeing the union of the Malabar Christians as forceful is due to the fact that it was not at all as “peaceful” as it seemed. The Portuguese did many cruelties against the Malabar Christians a good example being that they burned the majority of all East Syrian manuscripts and texts that gave these Christians a sense of liturgical understanding. The imposition of the Latin liturgy also included the removal of a large portion of the Malabar Christians religious traditions, which the Portuguese clergy deemed to “heretical”. Latin custom, for those whom wanted to remain faithful to the hierarch (Portuguese), was the only choice.
SyroMalankara said:
In the case of Malabar, it is even more complicated by the Chaldean situation. The Chaldeans kept going into and out of Communion with Rome. Ultimately, the actual ACOE Patriarchates (there were two competing) came into full union with Rome, while the Catholic line actually became non-Catholic. So the Patriarch that was overseeing the Malabar jurisdiction, was he in union with Rome or against at the time the Portuguese were attempting their takeover with Portuguese monarch appointed bishops? Turns out the Patriarch was in union with Rome, that the Pope gave papers recognizing the Patriarch’s jurisdiction in Malabar and that these were ignored by the Latin bishop and Portuguese authorities and the Patriarch was expelled back to Rome by ship, on route he subsequently died (the Indians thought he was drowned by the Portuguese).
Click to expand...
An interesting point you make about the Patriarch being in communion, is this a new finding? I have never heard of this factor till today.
 
Thanks for the extra info brother Thomas48. I can see the case for the Latin Catholic Malabar Church, but I still do not see it for the Syro-Malabar Church, who were always faithful to their East Syrian Tradition and came into union with Rome insisting on the preservation of that Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk
Thomas48 said:
The majority of what you posted is accurate Mardukm but my reasoning for seeing the union of the Malabar Christians as forceful is due to the fact that it was not at all as “peaceful” as it seemed. The Portuguese did many cruelties against the Malabar Christians a good example being that they burned the majority of all East Syrian manuscripts and texts that gave these Christians a sense of liturgical understanding. The imposition of the Latin liturgy also included the removal of a large portion of the Malabar Christians religious traditions, which the Portuguese clergy deemed to “heretical”. Latin custom, for those whom wanted to remain faithful to the hierarch (Portuguese), was the only choice.

An interesting point you make about the Patriarch being in communion, is this a new finding? I have never heard of this factor till today.
Click to expand...
 
mardukm said:
Thanks for the extra info brother Thomas48. I can see the case for the Latin Catholic Malabar Church, but I still do not see it for the Syro-Malabar Church, who were always faithful to their East Syrian Tradition and came into union with Rome insisting on the preservation of that Tradition.
Click to expand...
But marduk, I think that’s the point: The Portuguese did quite a number on the Syro-Malabars and it wasn’t something locals particularly wanted or appreciated. Remember that the heavy-handed latin approach ultimately led to the Coonan Cross Oath. Even so, IIRC, it was several centuries later that the Syro-Malabars were allowed their own hierarchy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top