Communion with Rome? Monothelites?

[yeshua]

The Maronites are the Antiochian Christians that fled to the isolated mountains of Lebanon. Sadly, they fled due to thier ascription to the monothelite heresy. The Maronite fantasy of “always in Communion with Rome” is overexaggerated, not to mention a fine piece of histo-theological revisionism.

My fellow Maronites (or anyone at that, but give my brothers and sisters some room),

I would like the following:
(a) If you agree with the quoted statement, please explain (source books, upbringing, priests, oral tradition, what have you…).
(b) If you disagree with the quoted statement, please explain (same as above).
(c) If you have some opinion that is neither a or b, please explain (same as above).

I am very interested in the perspectives people have on Maronite history, with Maronites perspectives being my most immediate concern. Fellow Orientals and Easterners, by all means chime in, and Westerners too please have your say; with all parties I do hope there will be civility and honest discourse. Let me know if you need any clarification on my part.

For the record: the Maronite Church currently holds institutionally that it (a) never broke communion with Rome, and (b) never subscribed to the monothelite heresy.

Al Misah Qam to all my Julian Calendar brother and sisters!

P.S. Laka, you know me, and I am not broadcasting this quote as any offense to you. This is an issue the requires conversation, and I am happy someone has brought it up here. Thank you.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Haqqan Qam!

Yeshua,

One can be too hasty at times. One can also tend to exaggerate answers for a dramatic effect. Usually, one who is gruff and direct sacrifices eloquence.

I’d have to say I disagree with the quoted statement.
Why? It’s pulled out of context. The context was “Eastern Catholics come from the Orthodox”.

The counter to this was “Not the Maronites, Armenians, etc.”

The point was that Maronites and thier tradition in some way come from syriac/Antiochian Christians; that is from the Christians at Antioch.

You are asking for history, but I know of very little before, say the 12 century.

I believe American Eastern Catholics by Fr. Fred Saato mentions that there are some who believe the Maronites were separated and isolated for thier ascription to monothelitism.

Personally, I have no fixed opinion about this. I am not a Scholar of this aspect of the Catholic Communion. If the Maronites want to claim they never lost Communion with Rome, then fine. If the Chaldeans want to claim that they use the language of Jesus in thier Liturgy, fine. I’m okay with these things. Who am I?

But, I hope the context of my statement can beclearer. Especially since the topic was the furthest thing from the quote. Pretext might also help.

Finally, I am not aware of any ancient Maronite documents. Perhaps other Maronites might provide some.

 

[Formosus]

(b). I disagree with the above statement because I think many people mistake the maronite view of Christ’s wills as being monothelite when it is not at all. To my limited understanding, the Maronite Church teaches that Christ has two wills that are one, doubly. Which not the samething as monothelitism. I seriously have to question the maronites acceptance of a theological heresy that originated from the Roman Emperor Heraklios. The Maronites and the Empire were never on the best of terms so I can not see why they would accept a heresy that came straight from the mouth of the Emperor.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I am going to get smacked down (perhaps) for this…

But could it be possible that there is a distinctive third possibility?

Could it be possible that largely self-reliant and isolated Maronites cut off from communication with Rome retained communion with Rome as an ideal even when - during periods - there may have been daliances with problematic christologies?

From there would it be too bold to suggest that the ideal of communion with Rome was valued more greatly (for a number of possible reasons) than adherence to a theological school of thought which may or not have been problematic? And that given the choice between one or the other, it is very telling about the ideals and priorities that a mostly unanimous decision was made, rather than an experience of division between parties whose christologies (perhaps) may have otherwise lead to a conflict in ecclesiologies?

I am willing to possibly concede that problematic christologies may have been present (this is true even today with some poorly chatichized but well meaning folks) BUT at the end of the day, the ecclesiology clearly trumped attachment to what was then understood to be a problematic theology.

 

[jimmy]

a.) I agree with the above statement. From what I know, the 10th century ‘ktab al huda’(I think that’s the name but I don’t have my sources at hand) is a monothelite apologetic by the Maronite Tuma of Kfarthab.

I have been reading Matti Mossa’s book, The Maronites in History and I think it is very interesting. His theory is that the Maronites were Monophysites(a misnomer) and in communion with the Syrian Orthodox. When Heraclius began to persecute the Syrians -n the early 7th century trying to force them to accept his compromise between the Syriacs who taught ‘One incarnate nature of the divine logos’ and the chalcedonians who taught two natures some accepted the teaching of Heraclius and according to Moosa’s theory the Maronites were among these. This is based on a lot of speculation though and it takes (very) big leaps of logic.

 

[yeshua]

(b). I disagree with the above statement because I think many people mistake the maronite view of Christ’s wills as being monothelite when it is not at all. To my limited understanding, the Maronite Church teaches that Christ has two wills that are one, doubly. Which not the samething as monothelitism. I seriously have to question the maronites acceptance of a theological heresy that originated from the Roman Emperor Heraklios. The Maronites and the Empire were never on the best of terms so I can not see why they would accept a heresy that came straight from the mouth of the Emperor.

So it is your opinion then the Maronites both never broke communion with Rome and were never monothelites?

I recognize you are in a unique position in being Latin and considering going Maronite. How has your belief in the unbroken communion impacted your consideration (if I may ask, of course)? Has it been mentioned or made a point of by the Maronite priest/community you have possibly been visiting?

Peace and God Bless!

 

[yeshua]

I am going to get smacked down (perhaps) for this…

Smacked down? Not at all.

But could it be possible that there is a distinctive third possibility?

Could it be possible that largely self-reliant and isolated Maronites cut off from communication with Rome retained communion with Rome as an ideal even when - during periods - there may have been daliances with problematic christologies?

From there would it be too bold to suggest that the ideal of communion with Rome was valued more greatly (for a number of possible reasons) than adherence to a theological school of thought which may or not have been problematic? And that given the choice between one or the other, it is very telling about the ideals and priorities that a mostly unanimous decision was made, rather than an experience of division between parties whose christologies (perhaps) may have otherwise lead to a conflict in ecclesiologies?

The problem we have is trying to find a witness to this ideal, we don’t have any histories showing a value towards Rome over the christiological controversies. But this brings up an important point: Maronites are a peasant people, who are they to understand these diverse theological arguments? You bring up a very intriguing point. So, do you believe Maronites could have been monothelite but where none the wiser? (Note: this is not a criticism on the early Maronites, the fact is they were a peasant people which they are still proud of to this day. This is certainly not a judgement call on their intellectual capacity)

I am willing to possibly concede that problematic christologies may have been present (this is true even today with some poorly chatichized but well meaning folks) BUT at the end of the day, the ecclesiology clearly trumped attachment to what was then understood to be a problematic theology.

Eh, I’m not so sure. The histories we do have are ripe with the monothelite issue, if a contemporary Maronite will concede anything to history they very least they can say is that his ancestors struggled with the heresy in his community. Issues of ecclesiology only became a focus after a thorough Frankish influence, which brought about the Maronites “conversion” from monothelitism. This conversion is documented by the Crusaders (William of Tyre if you want a reference). You even have a Pope calling the Maronites heretics in the early twelve century prior to their union. It is here that we have our first Chalcedonian history of the Maronites, and the issue of ecclesiology.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[yeshua]

a.) I agree with the above statement. From what I know, the 10th century ‘ktab al huda’(I think that’s the name but I don’t have my sources at hand) is a monothelite apologetic by the Maronite Tuma of Kfarthab.

The Book of Direction is the earliest work we have, and it is also the basis for a lot of our contemporary liturgics. If the Kiab Al Huda really is monothelite it is no wonder why the Maronite Church has not been quick in restoring its most traditional work. Fascinating, Jimmy, I’d be most interested on where you sourced the Book of Direction as monothelite.

I have been reading Matti Mossa’s book, The Maronites in History and I think it is very interesting. His theory is that the Maronites were Monophysites(a misnomer) and in communion with the Syrian Orthodox. When Heraclius began to persecute the Syrians -n the early 7th century trying to force them to accept his compromise between the Syriacs who taught ‘One incarnate nature of the divine logos’ and the chalcedonians who taught two natures some accepted the teaching of Heraclius and according to Moosa’s theory the Maronites were among these. This is based on a lot of speculation though and it takes (very) big leaps of logic.

Moosa’s book while controversial and unsupported is at the end of the day as historically viable as the traditional Maronite histories (I’ll get to that later)…So far, what are your thoughts on Moosa’s claims? What sources/claims does he provide that you find questionable or appropriate?

Peace and God Bless!

 

[yeshua]

Haqqan Qam!

One can be too hasty at times…But, I hope the context of my statement can beclearer. Especially since the topic was the furthest thing from the quote. Pretext might also help.

Finally, I am not aware of any ancient Maronite documents. Perhaps other Maronites might provide some.

I certainly understand, but your quote does provide a basis for a discussion that the Maronites definitely need right now. No worries about the pretext, for this discussion the Catholic v. Orthodox debate is not needed, which is why I didn’t mention it. I will be sure to be more thorough next time.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[jimmy]

The Book of Direction is the earliest work we have, and it is also the basis for a lot of our contemporary liturgics. If the Kiab Al Huda really is monothelite it is no wonder why the Maronite Church has not been quick in restoring its most traditional work. Fascinating, Jimmy, I’d be most interested on where you sourced the Book of Direction as monothelite.

Actually it is the other book from the 10th century, The Ten Treatises (I can’t recall the Syriac name which Beggiani mentions) which is Monothelite. Moosa mentions this in his book on page 6. Although I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of what Moosa says I trust that he can see the overall subject of the treatise.

Moosa’s book while controversial and unsupported is at the end of the day as historically viable as the traditional Maronite histories (I’ll get to that later)…So far, what are your thoughts on Moosa’s claims? What sources/claims does he provide that you find questionable or appropriate?

Peace and God Bless!

I am only about 100 pages in so far but to me it seems that he has a presupposition that all sources which the Maronites claim are apocryphal and his rejection of the sources are automatically based on this. He assumes a lot. Plus it seems that he contradicts himself. For example he says that the monastery of Marun did not exist in the 5th century but then he will turn around and say there were several monasteries with that name. I am not too impressed with his logic. I don’t really mind if he claims that we were monophysites up until 628 and then became monothelites under the pressure of the emperor but I don’t think his logic is necessarily great.

I do enjoy the discussions of historical events though like Severus and the Council of Constantinople in 536 or the events of Heraclius. This stuff is all interesting.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

. So, do you believe Maronites could have been monothelite but where none the wiser? (Note: this is not a criticism on the early Maronites, the fact is they were a peasant people which they are still proud of to this day. This is certainly not a judgement call on their intellectual capacity)

Yes, I do believe it possible that the Maronites could have come under the sway of wrong thinking.

Should God will it the world goes on another 10 centuries, 200-300 years from now, looking back on some of the things bishops approved for publication in the Catholic Church in Europe and America, the question may come up*** “Did they fall under ***ism?” *Well, certainly some did! But they did not go into schism over it… Not overtly anyway! When some of them were compelled to choose between Rome and ****ism, most dropped ****ism - whatever it was.

 

[jimmy]

yeshua, Moosa actually makes quite a good case for the monothelitism of the Maronites. I just read chapters 12-14 and thought they were pretty convincing. He used the Ten Treatises by Thomas of Kfartab and Dionysius Tal Mahri. He discusses largely controvercies between the Melkites and Maronites and he discusses a controvercy the Maronites had with St. Maximus. These are not as speculative though as most of the rest of the book. He makes long quotes of Tal Mahri who speaks of the Maronites holding to the doctrine of ‘one will’ and getting into big controvercies with Maximus and the Melkites who upheld the two will doctrine.

 

[Formosus]

So it is your opinion then the Maronites both never broke communion with Rome and were never monothelites?

I recognize you are in a unique position in being Latin and considering going Maronite. How has your belief in the unbroken communion impacted your consideration (if I may ask, of course)? Has it been mentioned or made a point of by the Maronite priest/community you have possibly been visiting?

Peace and God Bless!

I have never spoken on this subject with a maronite priest nor has it came up in any of the communities I have visited. The view of unbroken communion has not affected my view. The unbroken communion is a nice tidbit but it would not affect my choice of becomming a maronite or not since thats is about discerning God’s will for me and not my own anyways.

I recognize that history is not very clear in that time period and many times Latin theologians of the middle ages did not have a very good grasp of what Eastern christians actually beleived. An odd wording for a beleif in two wills could plausibly be mistaken for monothelitism by Latins. I just do not see why Maronites would accept a view formed by an Empire they felt was hostile to them.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

I believe some works contained the idea that Christ’s two wills operated as one will, but they never denied he had a human will. The Maronites didn’t get along with the Syrians or the Byzantines so it makes little sense they would adopt a heresy meant as a compromise between the two parties.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[Deacon_Ed]

With regard to the Maronites and communion with Rome my research when I was writing my book on the Eastern Catholic Churches suggests that they never broke communion with Rome in the sense of a formal separation. Rather, they retreated into the mountains where, by virtue of isolation, they neither broke nor retained communion with Rome. When they were “rediscovered” they claimed that they had never broken communion (a true statement, if somewhat misleading). Patriarch Jeremiah restored “communication” if not communion and attended the Lateran Council in 1215.

Deacon Ed

 

[yeshua]

I believe some works contained the idea that Christ’s two wills operated as one will, but they never denied he had a human will. The Maronites didn’t get along with the Syrians or the Byzantines so it makes little sense they would adopt a heresy meant as a compromise between the two parties.

Yes, this is an important issue of whether Maronites did accept the heresy. The author that Jimmy references, Matti Moosa, in his work does articulate how the heresy could have been adopted. I encourage you to read Jimmy’s above posts. Another author, Kamil Salibi, offers some explanation which I will cite later when I have access to his work.

There are accounts from Jacobites, Melkites, and later on Crusaders who talk about particular Maronite chieftains and their monothelitism; these are those that are left, that is. The accounts of Maronite partriarchs being monothelite are ignored or simply cited as wrong by Maronite scholars, a tradition that began when a first comprehensive Maronite history in the 15th century…more on this interesting fact later.

As Maronite historiography has been put under the lens of scholars, a lot of fallacious history has been revealed, with of course some sort of reaction by the Maronites themselves. This is a quote from a 1986 text entitled The Maronites. It has a cover letter by the current Patriarch approving it’s content. It says the following:

Whom we follow in this digression, belongs to a series of Maronite scholars…who admit that their church had held to a moral Monothelitism, a moral union of Two Wills…when becoming aware that the Two Physical Wills had become the official doctrine of the church, they embraced it willingly, confessing in the open what they had always believed implicitly.

This is the first confession in print that the Maronites held to monothelitism. Notice a distinction, however, that they held a “moral monothelitism” but that they had always believed implicitly the Chalcedonian doctrine. How does one back a claim like this up? Unfortunately for he authors, you can not, which is why this is the end of the discussion in the book.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Yes, this is an important issue of whether Maronites did accept the heresy.

I am sorry, I am a little obtuse… Please bear with me on this one, but I am not sure I see how it is all that important, except in a historical sense of having a better understandinf of “WHAT was WHO teaching WHEN” other than that…

Well sans a finding of a formal declaration of excommunication or tacit repudiation of communion, it stands to reason that the Maronites went through a period of where problematic theology held sway… But we don’t demand theological impeccability in history to accept that folks were in communion. The French struggled mightily with Gallicanism and Jansenism - some today will one day be written about as laboring under modernism.

I am not sure what conclusive evidence of Maronite monothelitism would be said to “prove”.

 

[yeshua]

I am sorry, I am a little obtuse… Please bear with me on this one, but I am not sure I see how it is all that important, except in a historical sense of having a better understandinf of “WHAT was WHO teaching WHEN” other than that…

Not a problem, I will do my best to clarify.

Well sans a finding of a formal declaration of excommunication or tacit repudiation of communion, it stands to reason that the Maronites went through a period of where problematic theology held sway… But we don’t demand theological impeccability in history to accept that folks were in communion. The French struggled mightily with Gallicanism and Jansenism - some today will one day be written about as laboring under modernism.

It would shed light on why a pope in the 12th century called Maronites heretics, or why the Crusaders referred to the Maronites discovery as one in need of a “conversion.” Maronite historians never offered alternatives, they just dismissed the claims as rhetoric. There was no discussion on whether the Crusaders were simply not educated or that particular Pope was not as well, and offered actual evidence to support, just denunciation of ones credentials, more often than not relying on the fact that their accounts are not from a Maronite, and therefore inarguable (a fallacy by any standards). The fact is, the histories traditionally used as argument for the continual communion of the Maronites are fraudulent, a fact that the Maronite church is slowly coming to terms with (hence the quote I provided above).

Bear also in mind that Rome herself referred to the Maronites as a “discovery” of welcoming Christians, not Catholics, which is why the Crusaders were encouraged to facilitate their conversion, not reconversion. Furthermore, there was a formal declaration of conversion by the Maronites in the 12th century, up until that point there was no movement en masse towards being in communion with the Roman Church. Maronite chieftans would ally themselves to one party or another (Jacobite, Crusader etc.) until the patriarchate was strong enough to unify under one whole.

Is this enough evidence? Being labeled by the papacy as heretics, a formal conversion that occurred far later than their original discovery, historical accounts of their isolated Christianity?

I am not sure what conclusive evidence of Maronite monothelitism would be said to “prove”.

What it would be said to “prove” is that our history is not as idealistic as we want it to be. The Maronites need a period of honesty, it’s the only way we can sit down and address the plaguing issues on our church. Dishonesty never accomplished anything, in fact it’s what made us susceptible to Latinization, Americanization, and the liturgical fight we have today. We have to abandon these fraudulent concepts of the past and fully work towards returning to our roots. That’s not an endorsement of Monothelitism, but recognizing that “yes, we were Monothelities, what else can we learn about our past?” could help allow us get over our pride, and actually work towards recovering what was once ours.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[jimmy]

I will try to post some quotes a little later from the book mentioned above by Matti Moosa that confirm the monothelitism of the Maronites.

I have to agree with yeshua. The Maronites claiming to have this perfect record and always being in communion with Rome has been fuel for latinization. It is like they need to be as much like Rome as possible in order to prove how close and loyal they are to Rome. So they say the liturgy facing the people and they use the filioque in the creed and etc. Instead they should simply be worrying about being who they are and following their tradition.

 

[East_and_West]

So they say the liturgy facing the people and they use the filioque in the creed and etc. Instead they should simply be worrying about being who they are and following their tradition.

Who they have become, is that not who they are now?