J
jimmy
Guest
Being Roman is not who they are. The changes to the Maronite Church have been either forced upon them or taken up by them within the last couple centuries. It is not their tradition.
- Status
E
East_and_West
Guest
I didn’t say being Roman is what they are now. But things change over time. They are not the same as they always were but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Change happens. I wonder if trying to return to earlier practices might do more damage than good because many maronites have had these “latin” practices all of their lives.
Y
yeshua
Guest
The return to tradition has only been harmful to those who harbored resentment or disdain for our traditions, as well as those few Maronites who would rather see us as a Rite rather than a Church. Returning to tradition has been extremely healthy for Maronites. When people learn about what honestly happened in our histories they are encouraged for renewal. That is why in an interesting turn of things the United States only very recently is becoming the place for a Maronite renaissance of a fashion (encouraging correct liturgical reform, return to proper funeral practices etc.).
Change is a bad thing when it is not appropriate or wanted, as is most of our history. This is not the case now.
BTW, could we carry this debate (if there is anymore to discuss) to another thread? I would like to stick to the historical claims being discussed. Thanks!
Peace and God Bless!
Y
yeshua
Guest
The return to tradition has only been harmful to those who harbored resentment or disdain for our traditions, as well as those few Maronites who would rather see us as a Rite rather than a Church. Returning to tradition has been extremely healthy for Maronites. When people learn about what honestly happened in our histories they are encouraged for renewal. That is why in an interesting turn of things the United States only very recently is becoming the place for a Maronite renaissance of a fashion (encouraging correct liturgical reform, return to proper funeral practices etc.).
Change is a bad thing when it is not appropriate or wanted, as is most of our history. This is not the case now.
BTW, could we carry this debate (if there is anymore to discuss it) to another thread? I would like to stick to the historical claims being discussed. Thanks!
Peace and God Bless!
Change is a bad thing when it is not appropriate or wanted, as is most of our history. This is not the case now.
BTW, could we carry this debate (if there is anymore to discuss it) to another thread? I would like to stick to the historical claims being discussed. Thanks!
Peace and God Bless!
F
Formosus
Guest
VII calls for Eastern christians to return to their roots and shed these latinizations. In the old days, if I showed you a picture of a Maronite Qurbono, one might think it was a tridentine Mass with a handcross and a bearded priest. If current “latinizations” should not be abandoned because people grew up with it, then why drop the old baroque high altars and fiddlebacks? If we go by what people grew up with, and not the holy tradition of the Church, then we end up with the situation that plagues both the maronites and the latins here in the USA where you have Latins saying that women altar boys are part of the “custom” when it was an abuse that snuck in and has only been around 10 years (ish). Latinizations in the maronite church stifle it and keep her from expressing her own unique theology and spiritual heritage passed down to maronites today from their ancestors.
On the topic of this post, I do beleive the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia makes the claim that the maronites were monothelites at one time. Like I said, I find it a little odd that they would adopt a byzantine heresy, but I suppose stranger things have happened in the history of the Church. Either way, perpetual communion with Rome should not be an excuse to drop latinizations. If anything Maronites should take the lead and get rid of all the latinizations to prove to the Orthodox that communion with Rome does not mean being a latin-eastern hybrid.
On the topic of this post, I do beleive the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia makes the claim that the maronites were monothelites at one time. Like I said, I find it a little odd that they would adopt a byzantine heresy, but I suppose stranger things have happened in the history of the Church. Either way, perpetual communion with Rome should not be an excuse to drop latinizations. If anything Maronites should take the lead and get rid of all the latinizations to prove to the Orthodox that communion with Rome does not mean being a latin-eastern hybrid.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Beautifully spoken! I agree 110% percent. I had to, due to circumstances outside of my control, attend a Latin parish this weekend. I have been attending a Maronite parish for a good 7-8 months now, and have become so immersed in Eastern spirituality and liturgical praxis. This Latin parish seemed even more Protestant than when I had left it 8 months ago.
Sadly, many Eastern Catholics, particular Maronite Priests will not embrace their Traditions (big T and small t) and think that if they don’t do Latin practices they aren’t truly Catholic. It saddens me to see a Maronite Church refered to as “Such and Such Roman Catholic Church: Maronite Rite”
Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew
J
jimmy
Guest
You should remember that Monophysitism is a Syriac ‘heresy’(the west Syriacs are not monophysites, they are miaphysites). Monothelitism is a compromise between the Chalcedonian faith and the faith of the Oriental Orthodox ‘monophysites’. Like Chalcedon it says there are two natures but it unites them in one will as the Syriacs do. Heraclius proposed this idea to the Syriacs in order to bring them into communion with the Chalcedonians.
Sorry to delete part of the paragraph but I didn’t have the room.
Very well said Formusus. It is almost as if our tradition is treated as if it is just some sort of personal devotion. But the fact is that the Maronite spirituality is a way of life, it is not simply a devotion that can be put aside and be replaced by another devotion. It is something we are to immerse ourselves within and live. Latins often say things like, ‘it is fine that Maronites pray the rosary’. Yes, it is fine but when itstifles our Maronite tradition then I don’t think it is healthy for our Church.
Maronites and other Eastern Catholics are in the state of an identity crisis. They are struggling to discover who they are. They fear to simply be who they are. And the truth is that the only way that our existence as Maronites has any meaning at all is if we hold to our tradition. Otherwise we might as well assimilate into the latin church. Here is what the Melkite Archbishop Joseph Tawill had to say on the issue.
Without doubt we must be totally devoted to our American national culture. We must have an American life-style. We must be fully American in all things and at the same time we must preserve this authentic form of Christianity which is ours and which is not the Latin form. We must know that we have something to give, otherwise we have no reason to be. We must develop and maintain a religious tradition we know capable of enriching American life. Otherwise we would be unfaithful to our vocation.
It is often easier to get lost in the crowd than to affirm one’s own personality. It takes more courage, character, and inner strength to lead our traditions to bear fruit than it takes to simply give them up. The obsession to be like everyone else pursues us to the innermost depths of our hearts. We recognize that our greatest temptation is always to slip into anonymity rather than to assume our responsibility within the Church. And so, while we opt for ethnic assimilation, we can never agree to spiritual assimilation.
One prime source of spiritual assimilation for Eastern Catholics has been the phenomenon known as ‘latinization’, the copying by Eastern Catholics of the theology, spiritual practices, and liturgical customs of the Latin Church. Latinization implies either the superiority of the Roman rite - the position denounced by Vatican II - or the desirability of the assimilation process, an opinion with which we cannot agree. Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin rite to manifest one’s Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church. As we have said above, to do this would be to betray our ecumenical mission and, in a real sense, to betray the Catholic Church. For this reason many parishes are attempting to return to the practice of Eastern traditions in all their purity. This has often entailed redecoration of the churches and elimination of certain devotions on which many of the people had been brought up. In some places, our priests, attempting to follow the decree of the Council in this matter have been opposed by some of their parishioners. Other priests have been reluctant to move in this direction, as they feared that division and conflict would result. We should all know in this regard that a latinized Eastern Church cannot bear anything but false witness, as it seems to be living proof that latinism and Catholicism are indeed one and the same thing. To be open to others, to be able to take our rightful place on the American Church scene, we must start by being fully ourselves. It is only in our distinctiveness that we can make any kind of contribution to the larger society. It is only by being what we are that we retain a reason for existence at allThe Courage To Be Ourselves].We should be proud of our heritage.
D
Deacon_Lance
Guest
Yeshua,
The Catholic Church is just coming to terms with the fact that those we have called Monophysites really aren’t and weren’t. They are and were Miaphysites using St. Cyril’s definition of: one (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate/μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη/mia physis tou theou logou sesarkōmenē.
I don’t think using the sparse evidence that exists it can just be proclaimed that the Maronites were Monothelites, considering this was a Byzantine political invention that never had an actual following other than that it already believed by the Miaphysites, although in that case it would Miathelitism. The fact that the Latins viewed the Maronites as heretics in need of conversion doesn;t mean much because the Latins though all the Easterners heretics in need of conversion. It also makes no sense from the historical/political view either, that the Maronites who defended Chalcedon so strongly against their Syriac brothers and also defended their own independence from the Byzantine Emperors, would accept a compromise heresy worked out by these two their biggest rivals.
The fact that early Maronites did not seek corporate union could just as easily be used as evidence they didn’t think there was any impairment in their communion. I think the fact they welcomed the Crusaders as brothers speaks volumes.
I would also site that the Maronites as heretics needing saved by Rome is as usable by Latinizers, perhaps more so than the “never seperated” belief.
Fr. Deacon Lance
The Catholic Church is just coming to terms with the fact that those we have called Monophysites really aren’t and weren’t. They are and were Miaphysites using St. Cyril’s definition of: one (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate/μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη/mia physis tou theou logou sesarkōmenē.
I don’t think using the sparse evidence that exists it can just be proclaimed that the Maronites were Monothelites, considering this was a Byzantine political invention that never had an actual following other than that it already believed by the Miaphysites, although in that case it would Miathelitism. The fact that the Latins viewed the Maronites as heretics in need of conversion doesn;t mean much because the Latins though all the Easterners heretics in need of conversion. It also makes no sense from the historical/political view either, that the Maronites who defended Chalcedon so strongly against their Syriac brothers and also defended their own independence from the Byzantine Emperors, would accept a compromise heresy worked out by these two their biggest rivals.
The fact that early Maronites did not seek corporate union could just as easily be used as evidence they didn’t think there was any impairment in their communion. I think the fact they welcomed the Crusaders as brothers speaks volumes.
I would also site that the Maronites as heretics needing saved by Rome is as usable by Latinizers, perhaps more so than the “never seperated” belief.
Fr. Deacon Lance
Y
yeshua
Guest
I am sorry, but this is incorrect. There is ample evidence of Maronite monothelitism. Perhaps a review of Maronite history is in order. The first Maronite historian who decided to create a comprehensive view of Maronite history was from the 15th century (Jibral Ibn Al-Qilai), trained and lived in Rome most of his life. He wrote the history of Lebanon and the Maronite people in what we would call an Arabic poetic form, though he attempted to write them in Syriac; his knowledge of the language was terrible, which his sucessors would eventually (and thankfully) correct. His own inability to master the language in fact led to mistakes in dates and personal accounts. Jibral’s work is the basis for the following:
- The every lasting communion with Rome
- The orthodoxy of Rome
- The orthodoxy of the Maronites from monothelitism
- The orthodoxy of the Maronites as staunch defenders of Chalcedon
What these historians did in response to the ample evidence on the Monothelitism of the Maronites is on the borderline of propaganda, which is understandable considering their attempt was one at nation building. In Jibrail’s poems he either (a) denounced a historical figure’s arguments by means of his background i.e. William of Tyre was not an accurate historian because he is not Maronite or (b) utilize the instances where there was havoc in a particular Monothelite Maronite community as an example of God’s disapproval of this “minor outbreak” of heresy.
What Jibral and his successors fail to account for are the external sources of history that robustly show a disconnect from not only Rome but mainstream Christianity itself. These would be Jacobite, Melkite (yes, Melkite), Crusader, and non-Christian sources discussing the theological disconnect that the Maronites faced. Also, it is important to note that there was missionary activity by the very near Jacobite (monophysite) communities, for the Maronite Patriarchate did not have a historical rule of the tribal Maronite chieftains. The religiosity of the chieftains would dictate the theological outcomes of his community. It was for this reason that the Maronites were so slow to formal communion, until unification under the patriarchate was secured.
Continued…
Y
yeshua
Guest
There are few things that need clearing up. First, your point about the Crusader bias would be valid had not William of Tyre specifically mentioned the Monothelitism of the Maronites in his letter, and his correspondences back in Europe.
It does make sense the the Maronites would adhere to the heresy when taken into accound that (a) they were NOT staunch defenders of Chalcedon as only one monastery submitted too: this letter to the Pope is the ONLY account of Maronite Chalcedonism, all other sources cite a Monothelitism en masse, outside of the medieval Maronite historians who attempted to take advantage of this claim. The legend that the 350 Maronites died defending Chalcedon is an exaggeration by Jibral, especially when TWO of his successors noted that the martyers were indeed not so because of Chalcedon; it was in fact an effort to protect the Maronite people from Byzantine control, cited by both Maronite historians and non-Maronite historians. And (b) I refer you to Jimmy’s mentioning of Heraclius proposing the heresy to the Syriacs in an attempt to bridge them to Chalcedonian theory. There are accounts of Jacobites participating in Monothelitsm, though these are normally cited as Maronite influences.
Again, I have to refer to history. We have accounts of Maronite protests to the potential union with Rome and in the interference of the Frankish Crusaders in their tradition, with some chieftains joining the Jacobites. Jibrail actually used a story of the massacre of ones of these communities to prove that God punished them for their adherences. These communities were eventually assumed into the “converted” Maronite Church (who was now Chalcedonian) over time, but the fact there was great resistance from the time of the Crusaders to formal union in the 12th century speaks loudly that the Maronites certainly did see an impairment.
The accounts of welcoming the Crusaders varies, even in the account of William of Tyre’s. In fact, the citation often used to reference the Maronites welcoming them as brothers only refers to a “people of the Mountains” and never the Maronites themselves who would sometimes come down and bring food and water for passing visitors. Maronite historians would later claim they took up arms with the Crusaders beginning at this point, a claim which never did fit with the historical numbers cited by Jibral.
The Pope calling Maronites heretics endangered my people of Latinization (which is inevitably what happened), but it doesn’t change his words or views. The fact that a pope considered them heretics prior to formal union speaks volumes. (I know you would like a citation, I forget which Pope and when but will acquire my materials shortly. If you have time I suggest finding The Romanization of the Maronites Rite by Father El-Hayek, for that is where the citation originates)
Please let me know if I can clarify anything.
Peace and God Bless!
J
jimmy
Guest
Pope Innocent III was the first to write to the Maronites and he mentions the changes that must occur within the Maronites including; the filioque, the profession of two wills, and the Trisagion without the words 'who was crucified for us’ among other things.
R
ronyodish
Guest
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 ------------------------
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
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
J
jimmy
Guest
But whether it can be interpreted in conformity with the western view or not it is still monothelitism. The Oriental Orthodox were labeled as monophysites but their theology does not say that the human nature is swallowed up by the divine nature of Christ. But at the same time they would not accept the diophysite/diothelite theology because they see it basically as Nestorianism.
P.S., how did you do in school this semester Rony?
R
ronyodish
Guest
jimmy,
I consider the Oriental Orthodox as Miaphysite and Miathelite, and do not think it necessary for them to adopt a Diophysite/Diothelite Christology in order to be orthodox. As you know the recent Christological agreements have been tremendously helpful in ending past misconceptions, and clearing the way for a future full communion. One such agreement puts it very strongly that the differences in terminology and emphasis can “co-exist in the same communion”.
Do you think that looking back at the history of your Church, that perhaps it should not be spoken of as Monothelitism but as Miathelitism? Do you see a difference between the two?
I see a difference between the two. Here is how I understand them:
Monothelitism - One will in Christ: Divine.
Miathelitism - One united will in Christ: Divine-Human.
I see Monothelitism as heresy, but I do not consider Miathelitism as heresy.
Therefore, I am not convinced that the Maronite Church was Monothelite, unless I see clear evidence for it, though I can understand they may very likely have been Miathelite and mistaken by the outside as Monothelite.
What do you think?
I did pretty good, but I haven’t gotten my grades yet except for one class so far, which was a Historical Foundations class with Dr. Hildebrand. The interesting thing about this class is that the grading was based on two things, a paper worth 50% of the grade and a final worth 50%, and both were due within two days of each other at the end of the semester
So basically, I went through the whole semester without a grade until the end, and so I pulled an A - 
God bless,
Rony
J
jimmy
Guest
You are correct most likely. Miathelite would probably be more accurate but would the concept of one united divine-human will have been acceptable to the Greek and latin fathers? I don’t know if it would. That said, chances are that there was opposition between the Maronites and the Greeks and Latins. Due to their profession, the Maronites were most likely under the anathemas of the sixth council, Constantinople III.
That’s good. What did you write your paper about? Did it have any relation to Eastern Christianity?I did pretty good, but I haven’t gotten my grades yet except for one class so far, which was a Historical Foundations class with Dr. Hildebrand. The interesting thing about this class is that the grading was based on two things, a paper worth 50% of the grade and a final worth 50%, and both were due within two days of each other at the end of the semester
God bless,
Rony
R
ronyodish
Guest
I’m not sure how to answer this Jimmy, so I defer to you in also saying that I do not know if it would. Maybe another poster can contribute here.
Of course!
I wrote it on:The History of the Church of the East - The Foundation
God bless,
Rony
F
Formosus
Guest
Well if the Latin Church is willing to accept Miaphysitism today then I do not see why miathelitism would be out of the question. The maronite teaching today, from what I have heard, is that Christ has two wills, that are one, doubly (If I remember the wording correctly) which sounds kind of miathelite anyways.
S
StRaphael
Guest
The Wikipedia article “Maronite Church” states:
I cannot obtain a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia any time soon. Would anyone with access to a copy care to, in accordance with fair use, quote the specific passages of the New Catholic Encyclopedia which vindicate the Maronites of the accusation of having succumbed to Monothelitism? This would go a long way towards solving this puzzle. Thanks and God bless!
S
StRaphael
Guest
N.B. the old Catholic Encyclopedia “Maronites”{1} cites ample testimony by diverse sources that the Maronites were Monothelites:
(1) Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Michael I the Great of Syria (1126-1199), who also cites Dionysius of Tell-Mahré, says in his Chronicle that Maronites were the staunchest defenders of the Monothelite Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius, and that in 727 orthodox Chalcedonian Maximists (followers of our anti-Monothelite father among the saints Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople) disputed with the Chalcedonian heterodox Maronites, who were Monothelites.
(2) Catholic St. Germanus of Constantinople (735): De Haeresibus et Synodis: “There are some heretics who, rejecting the Fifth and Sixth Councils, nevertheless contend against the Jacobites. The latter treat them as men without sense, because, while accepting the Fourth Council, they try to reject the next two. Such are the Maronites, whose monastery is situated in the very mountains of Syria.”
(3) Catholic Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption; 676-12/5/749): “De Hymno Trisagio” ch. v: “We shall be following Maro, if we join the Crucifixion to our Trisagion.”
(4) Melkite controversialist Theodore Abukara (d. 820).
(5) Nestorian Patriarch Timotheus (Timothy) I (727-823) faults the Maronites for denying more than one will and one energy in Christ.
(6) Jacobite theologian Habib Abu-Raïta of Takrit (d. 828).
(7) Priest Timotheus, “De Receptione Hareticorum” Patrologia Graeca 86, 65.
(8) Dionysius of Tell-Mahré (d. 845) says that the Maronites were Monothelites.
(9) William of Tyre, De Bello Sacro: XX, viii: 40,000 Maronites were converted from Monothelitism to Catholicism (1182): “After they [the nation that had been converted, in the vicinity of Byblos] had for five hundred years adhered to the false teaching of an heresiarch named Maro, so that they took from him the name of Maronites, and, being separated from the true Church had been following their own peculiar liturgy ab ecclesia fidelium sequestrati seorsim sacramenta conficerent sua], they came to the Patriarch of Antioch, Aymery, the third of the Latin patriarchs, and, having abjured their error, were, with their patriarch and some bishops, reunited to the true Church. They declared themselves ready to accept and observe the prescriptions of the Roman Church. There were more than 40,000 of them, occupying the whole region of the Lebanon, and they were of great use to the Latins in the war against the Saracens. The error of Maro and his adherents is and was, as may be read in the Sixth Council, that in Jesus Christ there was, and had been since the beginning only one will and one energy. And after their separation they had embraced still other pernicious doctrines.”
(11) Catholic Pope Pius II of Rome (1451), Letter to Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror.
The Labourt OCE article adds that all Maronite patriarchs have been strictly orthodox since Patriarch James of Hadat (1438-1454).
The point is, this testimony is so abundant and reliable that, unless the New Catholic Encyclopedia has dug up new information abrogating the incriminating testimony in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, the Maronite claim that the Maronite Church has always been Catholic (i.e. doctrinally orthodox and thus in communion with the Holy See) must, unfortunately, be regarded as a myth. It is hard to believe that men like St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus (Doctor), and Pope Pius II of Rome mistook Maronite Miathelitism for Maronite Monothelitism; if the Maronites were Miathelites they would not act as they did according to Michael I the Great of Syria, St. Germanus of Constantinople, etc. I’m sure the wonderworking St. John Maro and the most holy wonderworking hieromonk St. Maro himself, friend of the Doctor and greatest of Christian preachers, Archbishop St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople, were Christologically orthodox. St. John Chrysostom never reproached St. Maro for his doctrine, but poured into a letter his great love and respect for the wonderworker and asked him to pray for him. But unfortunately, unless we want to be “historical revisionists” or say that these diverse witnesses were all mistaken (some Maronites say that the Maronite Church and individual Maronites were not condemned for Monothelitism at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, but this observation may not be as weighty as it first appears), we must accept the fact that the Maronites fell into error and the Monothelite heresy after the time of St. John Maro, before they returned to the Catholic Church and restored their dignity and original status as the Maronite Catholic Church.
Catholic Encyclopedia reference {1} in next post…
S
StRaphael
Guest
{1} Labourt, Jérôme. “Maronites.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Jul. 2008 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09683c.htm. This article gives a very balanced and fair treatment of Maronite history, as is clear from the section “the Maronite position” which summarizes, without interrupting to issue rebuttals (the rebuttals come later), the Maronite argument to the effect that (1) the disciples and spiritual children of St. Maro always remained faithful to Catholic orthodoxy and broke away from Emperor Heraclius when he succumbed to Monothelitism; (2) the 1182 conversion of 40,000 Maronites from Monothelitism to Catholicism is either the libel that William of Tyre uncritically copied from the Annals of Eutychius, an Egyptian Melkite, or the 40,000 Maronites were ignorant uncritical followers of propagandist Monothelite bishop Thomas of Kfar-tas and not representative of mainstream Maronite beliefs; (3) there is an unbroken line of Maronite patriarchs from St. John Maro through the time of Pope Innocent III of Rome and all these patriarchs were of irreproachable Christological orthodoxy and never committed the most grievous sin of schism; etc.
- Status