Communion with Rome? Monothelites?

[ronyodish]

StRaphael,

As I posted earlier:

---

In order to convince me, someone show me a historic Maronite author saying something similar to the following: In the Incarnation, the human will was destroyed by the divine will, such that only the divine will remained in Christ.​

I don’t want what others said about the Maronites, but what the Maronites historically said about themselves. What did the Maronites historically mean by “one will”?

A. Is the “one will” divine only?
B. Is the “one will” human only?
C. Or is the “one will” a unity of the divine and human wills?

A and B are heresies, but C is not a heresy.

God bless,

Rony

 

[yeshua]

StRaphael,

As I posted earlier:

---

In order to convince me, someone show me a historic Maronite author saying something similar to the following: In the Incarnation, the human will was destroyed by the divine will, such that only the divine will remained in Christ.​

I don’t want what others said about the Maronites, but what the Maronites historically said about themselves. What did the Maronites historically mean by “one will”?

A. Is the “one will” divine only?
B. Is the “one will” human only?
C. Or is the “one will” a unity of the divine and human wills?

A and B are heresies, but C is not a heresy.

God bless,

Rony

Hello Rony,

The historically founded monothelitism of the Maronites was that which was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople, the one will of the divine. It is what every record either alludes to or says out right when either accounting for the Maronite Monothelitism or preaching against it.

What you ask is difficult to give, as I think you are being extremely unfair when you ask for how Maronites spoke about themselves. Ironically, that is one of the polemic arguments Maronites have used since the 15th century when prior history has shown their heresy; since theywere not Maronite, theydid not (past tense) have authority to comment on our beliefs. It is sheer historical fallacy.

Furthermore, most if not all records of the Maronite people prior to the 12-13th century, save the patriarchal lineage, have been lost. A variety of reasons have caused this, from patriarchs being “mobile” and migrating from place to place during the isolation, the Jesuit sacking after Trent, but mostly from the tribal system that developed out of the isolation: after Rome set up her Maronite college, priests would return and convince local chieftains of their “heresies” and region from region would have off-set traditions based on the leanings of each particular chieftain. In fact, the first Maronite to comprise a history of his people was one such priest, the first I mentioned in my first post, who stacked Maronite history and used the same “they were not Maronite” fallacies, for he had no historical basis for Maronites *not *being Monothelites. His Italian was known to be better than his Syriac.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[marlo]

Your explanation will also excuse Pope Honorius from the heretic condemnation, who used the word “One Will” to describe the good will of christ since christ does not have an evil will

Hi everyone,

When I think of Monothelitism, I see it the same way I see Monophysitism, that is, the swallowing up of the human nature/will by the divine nature/will such that only the divine nature/will remained in Christ during the Incarnation. This would be heretical.

However, can we say the same thing about the historic Maronite usage of “one will” as meaning the above? Could not the phrase “one will” be understood in an orthodox manner as follows:

During the incarnation, the human and divine wills united as “one united will”, without confusion, without change, without separation, and without division. The oneness here referring to the unity, and not the destruction of one will by the other. In other words, the human will and the divine will united in harmony as one, and were not in opposition.

What’s really funny about this “one will” discussion is that Mar Abdisho (aka Mar Awdisho, Mar Odisho), the great medieval canonist and theologian of the Church of the East, also speaks of “one will” in Christ. The humor I find in this is that historically the Church of the East was labeled “Nestorian” by the outside, since Nestorianism is the total opposite of Monophysitism and Monotheletism, and yet in the Book of Marganitha (the Pearl), we find the following statement made by Mar Abdisho:

--------------------------- Book III, Chapter IV ------------------------
The Third confession which professes in Christ two Natures, two Qnume, one will one sonship, one authority; is called Nestorian. As to the Easterners, however, because they would not change their true faith, but kept it as they received it from the Apostles, they were unjustly styled “Nestorians”, since Nestorius was not their Patriarch, neither did they understand his language; but when they heard that he taught the doctrine of the two Natures and two Qnume, one will, one Son of God, one CHRIST, and that he confessed the orthodox faith, they bore witness to him, because they themselves held the same faith. Nestorius, then, followed them, and not they him . . .​

If someone like Mar Abdisho, who’s Church represented a strong dyophysite (two nature) language, could say that there is “one will” in Christ, and yet no one, as far as I know, ever historically labeled the Church of the East as Monothelite (since everyone assumed that it was the total opposite), then what does this tells us about the understanding of the Maronites with regards the historic usage of “one will”? In other words, if the Church of the East could use this language and not be labeled Monothelite, is it then fair to label the Maronites as Monothelites on account of their historic usage of the “one will” language?

I am simply not convinced that the usage of the Maronites of “one will” meant the same thing as what has historically been known as Monothelitism.

In order to convince me, someone show me a historic Maronite author saying something similar to the following: In the Incarnation, the human will was destroyed by the divine will, such that only the divine will remained in Christ.

God bless,

Rony

 

[ronyodish]

Hello Rony,

The historically founded monothelitism of the Maronites was that which was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople, the one will of the divine. It is what every record either alludes to or says out right when either accounting for the Maronite Monothelitism or preaching against it.

What you ask is difficult to give, as I think you are being extremely unfair when you ask for how Maronites spoke about themselves. Ironically, that is one of the polemic arguments Maronites have used since the 15th century when prior history has shown their heresy; since theywere not Maronite, theydid not (past tense) have authority to comment on our beliefs. It is sheer historical fallacy.

Furthermore, most if not all records of the Maronite people prior to the 12-13th century, save the patriarchal lineage, have been lost. A variety of reasons have caused this, from patriarchs being “mobile” and migrating from place to place during the isolation, the Jesuit sacking after Trent, but mostly from the tribal system that developed out of the isolation: after Rome set up her Maronite college, priests would return and convince local chieftains of their “heresies” and region from region would have off-set traditions based on the leanings of each particular chieftain. In fact, the first Maronite to comprise a history of his people was one such priest, the first I mentioned in my first post, who stacked Maronite history and used the same “they were not Maronite” fallacies, for he had no historical basis for Maronites not being Monothelites. His Italian was known to be better than his Syriac.

Peace and God Bless.

yeshua,

I see that you are convinced that your Maronite ancestors were truly Monothelites, and not Miathelites.

Do you consider the Oriental Orthodox, specifically the Syriac Orthodox, to be Monothelites or Miathelites?

Your explanation will also excuse Pope Honorius from the heretic condemnation, who used the word “One Will” to describe the good will of christ since christ does not have an evil will

marlo,

Would you say that Pope Honorius’ usage of “One Will” meant that he was a Monothelite, a Miathelite, or something else based on the description that you gave?

God bless,

Rony

 

[StRaphael]

Would you say that Pope Honorius’ usage of “One Will” meant that he was a Monothelite, a Miathelite, or something else based on the description that you gave?

God bless,

Rony

Rony, the bottom line is that Pope Honorius I was neither a Monothelite nor a Miathelite. His “one will” formula does not even touch on the Divine will (Monothelitism and Miathelitism both deal with the Divine will), but simply means that Christ has only one human will.

From an August 19 post of mine:

Pope Honorius I of Rome [r. 10/27/625-10/12/638] was truly a heretic and was indeed anathematized as such, but the weak pope was neither a Monothelite nor even a Miathelite; he did not adhere to the false and heretical doctrine that Christ has but one will altogether. Honorius said that Christ has but one human will rather than two contrary human wills, as is expressly confirmed by his secretary the abbot John, Pope John IV, and St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople. The successors of Honorius I implied that Honorius I was personally orthodox: Servinus, John IV, Theodore, Martin I, and Agatho; Agatho said that all of his predecessors, Honorius included, have resisted Monothelitism by silence if not by explicit condemnation. The ecumenical council in which Honorius I was anathematized did not number him among the people “minded contrary to our orthodox faith.” The council did not say that Honorius followed, i.e. agreed with, the Monothelitism of the pernicious Sergius (many people misunderstand the ambiguous Latin translation of “in all respects he followed his view”), but said, as is obvious from the original Greek of the acts, that “in all respects [Honorius] followed [Sergius’s] counsel,” i.e. the request for and recommendation of silence by that deceitful Sergius.

God bless you and yours,
Will R. Huysman

+JMJ

 

[jimmy]

Rony, the bottom line is that Pope Honorius I was neither a Monothelite nor a Miathelite. His “one will” formula does not even touch on the Divine will (Monothelitism and Miathelitism both deal with the Divine will), but simply means that Christ has only one human will.

From an August 19 post of mine:

God bless you and yours,
Will R. Huysman

+JMJ

Honorius said that Christ had one will, not one human will.

The council condemned him as a heretic. That specifically means that his faith was contrary to the orthodox faith and that he was numbered among those who were contrary to the orthodox faith. They specifically called him, ‘Honorius the heretic’.

 

[StRaphael]

Honorius said that Christ had one will, not one human will.

The council condemned him as a heretic. That specifically means that his faith was contrary to the orthodox faith and that he was numbered among those who were contrary to the orthodox faith. They specifically called him, ‘Honorius the heretic’.

Jimmy, Honorius was of course a heretic which I went out of my way to point out but in the above post of mine I clearly explained why he was not heterodox and that his contemporaries, the ecumenical council, and his successors did not view him as a Monothelite. Pope Honorius I said, “You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem].” This is to be read along with, “Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin,” which clarifies that Honorius is talking only about the human will of Christ. That is not Monothelitism. Monothelitism would be “You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine AND human actions in uirisque naturis divina et humana operantem],” i.e. “conjunctively and in a mixed manner, by one, sole operation, which was neither simply human nor simply divine, but always theandric - that is, compounded of divine and human.”{1}

God bless you and yours!

{1} Pacheco, John (11/1/2002). “The Unbreakable Piñata: Honorius and the Protestant Polemic.” The Catholic Legate. catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

 

[Claudius]

I ran across a quote similar to the one in the Original Post from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It was contained in an article that went to some great lengths to establish that Rome was the most faithful Church and that all the others, even the ones who are now back into communion with Rome, were at some point unfaithful.

I do not agree with the attitude of that aticle at all (and it was written over 100 years ago and is not official Catholic teaching). I was never myself looking to become Maronite but I have been trying to study as much about the Eastern Catholic Churches as I can just because I like to study. (yes I am the most boring person you will ever meet.) The history of the Maronite Church is very interesting, notably in the questions that remain a mystery with no answer.

By the 11th century there can be no question that the Maronite Church was its own entity and that entity was in Communion with Rome. However, before the 11th century there is great evidence of the Church’s existance and gradual seperation from the Melkite Church.

Yes, the historical evidence that I have seen with my own eyes and my limited knowledge of Syriac informs me that the Maronite Church seperated from the Melkite Church NOT the Syriac Church. The Maronites and the Syriacs also had great clashes with each other over the Monothelites issue even before the 11th century. All the evidence that I have been able to get tells a story of a minority population decended from the ancient Phoenicians. They became Christians and were part of the See of Antioch. When the Syriacs went into schism over the Monothelites issue, the population that became the Maronites stayed with Rome and defended Orthodoxy. They retained the Syriac language and liturgy (which still included unleavened bread at that time) but were politically dominated by the Greek Church (which also was in communion with Rome).

Eventually the schism between Rome and Constantinople was to take place and the Maronites sided with Rome and simply no longer followed the Greek leadership and looked directly to Rome. When that happened they didn’t have to change from Greek back to Syriac because even when they were dominated by the Greeks, they retained the Syriac language.

So, even though the Greeks eventually switched to all leavened bread and even that the Syriac Monothelites switched to leavened bread the Maronites retained the original form of worship, unleavened bread, and communion with Rome and the Language of Lord Jesus. There are many Latinization in the Maronite Church but these are freely adopted as the Maronites and Latin learn from each other and can be reverted if the Maronites wish to do so.

When we look today at the middle east we see that the Maronite Church is greatly blessed. We Latins should not be looking to deminish their faithfulness in order to show ourselves as the better Church. That is madness. We should also remember that the original Mass in the middle east was the Syriac Mass as still performed by the Maronite Church.

The Syriac Mass was brought to Greece by St. Paul and to Rome by St. Peter. As far as the Roman Rite’s actual history goes, we were Syriac and then in A.D. 189 Pope Victor I (from Africa) allowed the Mass to be said in Latin. This lead to the full scale abandonment of the Syriac language in Rome in favor of Latin within the city of Rome and Greek in the south of Italy. I am not sure when the Greeks allowed Greek to be used instead of Syriac but it was probably sometime earlier. A key note though is that according to all the currently avaliable historical evidence (not speculation) Mass was never celebrated in Rome in the Greek language. The Roman Rite is a translation from the Syriac and is as plain as day when the three are compared to each other.

It is notable that in Egypt the Mass was originally in Syriac, then changed to Greek before it changed again to Coptic and this history is cited many times to try show that the same happened in Rome but it did not. The evidence just is not there. Also, just because the Greeks dominated the Maronites does not mean that they Maronites ever used Greek, they did not. They represent the part of the Syriac speaking people who remained faithful while other Syriac speakers went into schism.

If we look even closer, we see that most Semitic speaking Christians in the world, in the whole world, are Catholic and Maronites make up over half of that. What a beautiful gift for all us Catholic that the Maronites have always been there to defend the faith and often times die for the faith at the hands of muslims.

One last note (yes I know I have bored you all alread) the attitude of Rome is pure and the other Churches rely on us for everything is just bad and is very unchristian. The Maronited died at the hands of other Syriacs, then at the hand of Greeks, then at the hands of muslims to keep faith with us, the least we could do is recongnize that. How arrogant is it to go around with the Rome only attitude. Similar statements could also be said of the Church in India but even more so for the Maronites.

And even when we do look at the fellow Catholics whose Churches were formally in heresy and schism, They are Catholic NOW. The Syriac Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church (which has a very interesting history) and the Melkite Catholic Church are good and faithful and holy Churches. They keep the Catholic faith and are made to suffer for it by the “orthodox” who constantly attack them as loosing their faith because they were able to overcome the anti Rome prejudice and come back to the full communion. These Churches should be honored not treated as step children. They are the example that churches still in schism MUST one day follow.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I ran across a quote similar to the one in the Original Post from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It was contained in an article that went to some great lengths to establish that Rome was the most faithful Church and that all the others, even the ones who are now back into communion with Rome, were at some point unfaithful.

I do not agree with the attitude of that aticle at all (and it was written over 100 years ago and is not official Catholic teaching). I was never myself looking to become Maronite but I have been trying to study as much about the Eastern Catholic Churches as I can just because I like to study. (yes I am the most boring person you will ever meet.) The history of the Maronite Church is very interesting, notably in the questions that remain a mystery with no answer.

By the 11th century there can be no question that the Maronite Church was its own entity and that entity was in Communion with Rome. However, before the 11th century there is great evidence of the Church’s existance and gradual seperation from the Melkite Church.

What happened in the 11th century that changed things?

Yes, the historical evidence that I have seen with my own eyes and my limited knowledge of Syriac informs me that the Maronite Church seperated from the Melkite Church NOT the Syriac Church. The Maronites and the Syriacs also had great clashes with each other over the Monothelites issue even before the 11th century. All the evidence that I have been able to get tells a story of a minority population decended from the ancient Phoenicians. They became Christians and were part of the See of Antioch. When the Syriacs went into schism over the Monothelites issue, the population that became the Maronites stayed with Rome and defended Orthodoxy. They retained the Syriac language and liturgy (which still included unleavened bread at that time)

Actually, no. Unleavened bread wasn’t used at all at the time (except perhaps by the Armenias).

but were politically dominated by the Greek Church (which also was in communion with Rome).

Eventually the schism between Rome and Constantinople was to take place and the Maronites sided with Rome and simply no longer followed the Greek leadership and looked directly to Rome. When that happened they didn’t have to change from Greek back to Syriac because even when they were dominated by the Greeks, they retained the Syriac language.

So, even though the Greeks eventually switched to all leavened bread

Leavened bread (artos) is the original practice, not unleavened (azymes). The Eastern Syriacs, who have been isolated from us since Ephesus (431), the Holy Leaven for the Eucharist is elevated to a sacrament in and of itself.

and even that the Syriac Monothelites switched to leavened bread the Maronites retained the original form of worship, unleavened bread,

Actually, its a later Latinization.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

and communion with Rome and the Language of Lord Jesus. There are many Latinization in the Maronite Church but these are freely adopted as the Maronites and Latin learn from each other and can be reverted if the Maronites wish to do so.

But only if unanimous: the Maronite hiearchy wanted to return to the Apostolic practice of married priests, but because a SINGLE bishop objected, the pope of Rome JP II wouldn’t allow it.

When we look today at the middle east we see that the Maronite Church is greatly blessed. We Latins should not be looking to deminish their faithfulness in order to show ourselves as the better Church. That is madness. We should also remember that the original Mass in the middle east was the Syriac Mass as still performed by the Maronite Church.

The Syriac Mass was brought to Greece by St. Paul and to Rome by St. Peter.

It was Greek, St. Paul’s first language.

As far as the Roman Rite’s actual history goes, we were Syriac

No, Greek. Kyrie eleison.
Most of Rome, at Christian and Jewish Rome, was Greek speaking for centuries.

and then in A.D. 189 Pope Victor I (from Africa) allowed the Mass to be said in Latin.

This is accurate.

This lead to the full scale abandonment of the Syriac language in Rome in favor of Latin within the city of Rome and Greek in the south of Italy. I am not sure when the Greeks allowed Greek to be used instead of Syriac

The first century. Look at the references to the Hellenists in the book of Acts.

but it was probably sometime earlier. A key note though is that according to all the currently avaliable historical evidence (not speculation) Mass was never celebrated in Rome in the Greek language.

I’d like to see this “evidence.” The Latin mass still has parts in Greek. There is plenty of evidence besides this that it was in Greek, e.g. Hippolytus.

The Roman Rite is a translation from the Syriac and is as plain as day when the three are compared to each other.

Do so, please.

It is notable that in Egypt the Mass was originally in Syriac, then changed to Greek before it changed again to Coptic and this history is cited many times to try show that the same happened in Rome but it did not. The evidence just is not there. Also, just because the Greeks dominated the Maronites does not mean that they Maronites ever used Greek, they did not. They represent the part of the Syriac speaking people who remained faithful while other Syriac speakers went into schism.

The Maronites were is “schism” as soon as Rome stopped teaching Monotheletis and the Maronites continued to do so.

If we look even closer, we see that most Semitic speaking Christians in the world, in the whole world, are Catholic and Maronites make up over half of that.

Most Semitic speaking Christians are Orthodox.
The Copts themselves, the largest, are several times the number of Maronites.

What a beautiful gift for all us Catholic that the Maronites have always been there to defend the faith and often times die for the faith at the hands of muslims.

Yes.

One last note (yes I know I have bored you all alread) the attitude of Rome is pure and the other Churches rely on us for everything is just bad and is very unchristian. The Maronited died at the hands of other Syriacs, then at the hand of Greeks, then at the hands of muslims to keep faith with us, the least we could do is recongnize that. How arrogant is it to go around with the Rome only attitude. Similar statements could also be said of the Church in India but even more so for the Maronites.

And even when we do look at the fellow Catholics whose Churches were formally in heresy and schism, They are Catholic NOW. The Syriac Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church (which has a very interesting history) and the Melkite Catholic Church are good and faithful and holy Churches. They keep the Catholic faith and are made to suffer for it by the “orthodox” who constantly attack them as loosing their faith because they were able to overcome the anti Rome prejudice and come back to the full communion

.
Often with political/military help.

These Churches should be honored not treated as step children. They are the example that churches still in schism MUST one day follow.

 

[Harpazo]

Shlom lokh Isa,

Where is this damning proof that the Maronites accepted Monothelitism as a whole? You seem to cling to the idea, and I have yet to see anything to suggest that they all did.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Shlom lokh Isa,

Where is this damning proof that the Maronites accepted Monothelitism as a whole? You seem to cling to the idea, and I have yet to see anything to suggest that they all did.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

I have to look up, but somewhere here I posted the Maronite portion of the council of Florence that discusses it.

I think I also posted somewhere about a Maronite manuscript that claims to be the life of “the impious Maximus whose blaspheming toungue was cut out”.

I seem to recall also Early Islamic polemics that distinguishes between the Nestorians, the Melkites, Miaphysites and the Maronites. I don’t completely remember the details. I think one of them was Ibn Warraq’s “Against the Trinity.”

I came across a work that devoted a good portion to this question, but the name escapes me. I’m going downtown this afternoon. in shaa al-Rabb, I’ll try to get it.

I don’t know of any evidence that between the Sixth Ecumenical Council until the Crusades, that shows that the Maronites were in union with Rome.

 

[Formosus]

But only if unanimous: the Maronite hiearchy wanted to return to the Apostolic practice of married priests, but because a SINGLE bishop objected, the pope of Rome JP II wouldn’t allow it.

I do beleive that the maronite church does indeed allow married priests. Infact the majority of their clergy in Liban is married. Perhaps I am missing an important part of the conversation here?

 

[yeshua]

I do beleive that the maronite church does indeed allow married priests. Infact the majority of their clergy in Liban is married. Perhaps I am missing an important part of the conversation here?

A delegation of Maronite priests went to the Vatican to petition the Pope to allow married priests in the diaspora (one of my previous priests was part of the delegation) prior to the CCEC. HH said he would only allow for it if there was unanimous agreement among the Maronite bishops. Two bishops (sorry Isa) dissented, both from the diaspora and trained in Western institutions. It took two bishops to overrule sacred tradition, not to mention patriarchal authority.

Also, the ratio between married vs. celibate priests back home is about 50:50.

 

[Hesychios]

… It took two bishops to overrule sacred tradition, not to mention patriarchal authority…

Even more sadly, it wasn’t the power of two bishops at all, but the rank arbitrariness of another.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I do beleive that the maronite church does indeed allow married priests. Infact the majority of their clergy in Liban is married. Perhaps I am missing an important part of the conversation here?

The clergy in Ameica, I understand, is not allowed to marry. It is a big issue I understand with all Eastern clergy outside of the East with the Vatican.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

A delegation of Maronite priests went to the Vatican to petition the Pope to allow married priests in the diaspora (one of my previous priests was part of the delegation) prior to the CCEC. HH said he would only allow for it if there was unanimous agreement among the Maronite bishops. Two bishops (sorry Isa)

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Claudius]

As you are a Copt I honor you but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on some things. I do not do so to agrue but to state what I believe to be true based on the fact that I have avaliable to me which included documents in Latin Greek Syriac and Coptic.

What happened in the 11th century that changed things?

From what I can see there were several arguements between the Melkites and the Maronites before the 11th century (which was not about heresy but about who was the real Patriarch) but it was in the 11th Century, during the Crusades that the Maronites stopped looking to Constantinople to guide them and they looked to Rome. Rome then gave them their own Patriarch. The history around this event is why I do not believe that the Legal Patriarch of Antioch resided with the Maronite Church but with the Melkite Church which itself is now also fully in communion with Rome.

Actually, no. Unleavened bread wasn’t used at all at the time (except perhaps by the Armenias).

Actually NO, Unleavened bread is what was used by the Maronites before the 11th Century and after. I have not seen any evidence to show me that they ever at any time used leavened bread as a universal practice though it was allowed. Unleavened bread was used by the Assyrians at first but then later they allowed both and today they use both. The Syriacs at the time of the schism used Unleavened bread but later for some reason or another changed to leavened bread. The Maronites argued fercly with the Syriacs over this at one point.

Leavened bread (artos) is the original practice, not unleavened (azymes). The Eastern Syriacs, who have been isolated from us since Ephesus (431), the Holy Leaven for the Eucharist is elevated to a sacrament in and of itself.

I really do not think that St.Peter and St. John were using leavened bread to hold the Mass. I don’t believe that Lord Jesus used it either.

Actually, its a later Latinization.

Not according to all the evidence in the Syriac Language.

But only if unanimous: the Maronite hiearchy wanted to return to the Apostolic practice of married priests, but because a SINGLE bishop objected, the pope of Rome JP II wouldn’t allow it.

I am not sure of the rules for this but you are refering to a rather recent issue from what it looks like. Maronites have adopted and discarded several Latinization over the years. One need only think back to the issue of the Icon Cross or white wax candles versus red wax candles. Yet for any of the Western things that come in and out of their practices, they are decidedly Maronite as a whole. A Latin Catholic at a Maronite Mass would find it very eastern and unfamiliar if not instructed in what was happening.

It was Greek, St. Paul’s first language.

I think St. Paul’s first language was Syriac. This is evident in this writtings. Greek was certainly a second language for St. Paul and the code switching that he does in his letters give us a huge hint to that. Also, just look at the great difference between his other letters and the letter to the Hebrews, which many scholars believe is a translation from a Syriac original. The vocabulary, style and grammar are all very different and much more advanced. This shows us that Paul was better at Syriac than Greek but it also shows us that he, like many bilingual people, had developed in himself his Greek personality and his Syriac personality. I myself speak 5 languages and I can tell you, my personality and demenor are slightly different when I use each one. In linguistics there is of course a big fancy term that describes this but I will not bore you with it just now.

No, Greek. Kyrie eleison.
Most of Rome, at Christian and Jewish Rome, was Greek speaking for centuries.

The Kyrie Eleison was a later edition to the Mass that did not exist as part of the Roman Ritual before the 5th century, which as everyone will agree, saw Latin as the almost exclusive language of the Mass. (not that I don’t like the Kyrie, I think it is great for many reasons.)

Greek was part of the Church, a major part of the Church and I do not intend to deminish Greek to lift up Latin or Syriac. Greek gave the Church a huge amount of Christian only vocabulary that is used always by our Church Fathers and current leadership but facts are facts. The evidence of Greek in the Mass in Rome just is not there. Even in Pompei where they uncovered an ancient Christian worship place (a Church if you will) there were inscriptions in Latin and in Hebrew Letters (really Aramaic letters) but no Greek letters or words.

The first century. Look at the references to the Hellenists in the book of Acts.

You bring up a very good point. But was the Liturgy said in Greek for the Hellens or not. We don’t really know. I have nothing against Greek and if the Liturgy was allowed in Greek even from this very early time I am glad for it. We must also remember that while the Apostles were ministering to the Syriac speaking population, the Greeks felt left out, so the Apostles gave them ministers. We see that St. Peter was saying Mass in Syriac and that is the language he most definitly brought to Rome. Now St.Peter had the gift of tounges so he could probably speak Greek and even Latin so it may well be that Peter said Mass in Latin when in Rome but Syriac makes more sense to me.

The Maronites were is “schism” as soon as Rome stopped teaching Monotheletis and the Maronites continued to do so.

The is not solid evidence that the Maronites ever taught Monotheletism and Rome certainly NEVER did. Why would the Maronites fight with the Syriac Orthodox Church over it if they agreed with each other? They wouldn’t. I have to take you to task for this.

 

[Claudius]

Most Semitic speaking Christians are Orthodox.
The Copts themselves, the largest, are several times the number of Maronites.

Coptic is not a Semitic language so unless you are talking about Arabic I don’t see how you could be correct. Even Arabic is only Semitic by a thin line on the linguistic scale. Most Coptics are not in communion with Rome but a tiny minority are. The hope exist to reestablish communion in the future but that is not the reality right now. When I say Semitic I refer to Hebrew and Syriac. If you take the wider view to include Arabic then you also need to include Ge’ez, and you must then look to ALL Arabic speaking peoples. In this case, the Catholic Church still represents the Majority of Christians, well over half. That is even with 35 million Ethiopian Orthodox not in communion with us.

Often with political/military help

I do have to wonder at this. This brings up so many other issues than what we are talking about and begins to make me feel like you are not discussing with us in good faith.

There is this string of feeling, not thought, that runs through the churches not in communion with Rome that is very insulting. These emotions come up in comments like this. I hear these kinds of lies all the time. “Orthodox” will say that the only reason this or that Eastern Church is with Rome is because they were bribed, or threatened or were forced through military action. This is all just not true in objective reality. What we see more often is the fact that SCHISM was caused by bribes, threats and military action, usually by Muslims trying to divide the body of Christ. So the Muslims try to get Christians to attach each other so that we do not see Satan on the rise and the Muslims can then kill us all off.

Are their differences that need to be worked out in our Churches before real, full communion can take place, yes but we should not pander to the Muslim interest and not come back into communion simply to please them.

I see something else in the comments above too. There is often this thing that I see from eastern Churches not in communion with the Catholic Church that since Eastern Catholic Churches have Mass and Prayer life in a similar fashion to the not in communion churches, that somehow proves that they should go into schism and Hate Latins and Burn the Pope in effegy. That is a completely UnChristian atitude. Just because a Church uses Coptic in its Liturgy does not mean that they are doomed to be in Schism and are simply “not allowed” to be part of the Catholic Church.

I see this all the time, so much so that I really get sick of it. Eastern Orthodox will try to say that the Ukranian Catholic Church should break with Rome and return to the Moscow Patriarch. That is silly, they were never under the Moscow Patriarch to begin with. You can’t make a claim on our Eastern Catholic Churches. They are with us. You can’t have them. Pointing out this or that similarity does not mean that they have to now go off and follow you.

The Maronite Church was never part of Oriental Orthodoxy. There were never in schism from Rome and never taught the One Nature of Jesus.

What I see you doing is that you are trying to claim them as part of Oriental Orthodoxy so that you can influence members of that Church to leave Communion with Rome and go into Schism. You want to say, “See, we are what your ancetors Really believed” but in this case it just is not true.

Even in the case of the Melkites, who really were in schism with Rome (though not a very deep one) it is unreasonable to tell them that they are locked into a schism. The Church accepts them back and only ask that they keep the faith as they always have.

The interesting thing is that whenever these Eastern Catholic Churches come to Rome to see about ending the Schism, there isn’t usually much to do. Most of the theological arguements have been worked out centuries ago. I am almost surpirsed that anyone even still mentions Monothelitism anymore. No one teaches this anymore, and no one believes this anymore. The Monothelitism that was denounced as a heresy is not what the Churches in Oriental Orthodoxy teach. When Catholics actually take a look at what they teach in their current churches, it isn’t what we denounced as heresy. It is in fact very much like what we teach, but in different langauge. We can’t blow over it but when theologians actually look at it, it isn’t such a big deal. This is why we have Eastern Catholic Churches that returned from schism.

May the true faith that was given to us by Lord Jesus always and everywhere be proclaimed and protected by his One Holy Catholic Apostalic Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As you are a Copt

I love the Copts (I almost married one, and still might), the Copts wanted me. I am Egyptian, lived in Egypt, and know Coptic, but no. I’m an Arab, not a Copt.

I honor you but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on some things. I do not do so to agrue but to state what I believe to be true based on the fact that I have avaliable to me which included documents in Latin Greek Syriac and Coptic.

From what I can see there were several arguements between the Melkites and the Maronites before the 11th century (which was not about heresy but about who was the real Patriarch) but it was in the 11th Century, during the Crusades that the Maronites stopped looking to Constantinople to guide them and they looked to Rome. Rome then gave them their own Patriarch. The history around this event is why I do not believe that the Legal Patriarch of Antioch resided with the Maronite Church but with the Melkite Church which itself is now also fully in communion with Rome.

If the Maronites were in union with the Vatican, why did the Crusaders set up the Latin patriarchate of Antioch?

Actually NO, Unleavened bread is what was used by the Maronites before the 11th Century and after. I have not seen any evidence to show me that they ever at any time used leavened bread as a universal practice though it was allowed. Unleavened bread was used by the Assyrians at first but then later they allowed both and today they use both.

I don’t believe they use both, but it wouldn’t have occured to me to ask, as they speak of the Holy Leaven used to make the Eucharist.

The Syriacs at the time of the schism used Unleavened bread but later for some reason or another changed to leavened bread. The Maronites argued fercly with the Syriacs over this at one point.

Argued when?

I really do not think that St.Peter and St. John were using leavened bread to hold the Mass. I don’t believe that Lord Jesus used it either.

The evidence says otherwise. Besides the use of the word artos which means leavened bread the Last/Mystical Supper took place when the old law had that you had to use up and remove the last of the leaven, sort of like Shrove Tuesday in old pre-Vatican II practice.

Not according to all the evidence in the Syriac Language.

Which is?

I am not sure of the rules for this but you are refering to a rather recent issue from what it looks like. Maronites have adopted and discarded several Latinization over the years. One need only think back to the issue of the Icon Cross or white wax candles versus red wax candles. Yet for any of the Western things that come in and out of their practices, they are decidedly Maronite as a whole. A Latin Catholic at a Maronite Mass would find it very eastern and unfamiliar if not instructed in what was happening.

Not that it is terribly important, but all the Maronite Churches I saw (I never went to a DL, until I went to one in Chicago) reminded me of Italian parishes in the US and Italy.