Communion with Rome? Monothelites?

[Isa_Almisry]

I think St. Paul’s first language was Syriac

.
His native city, Tarsus, was thoroughly Hellenized by the time of his birth.

This is evident in this writtings.

As…?

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.

Such as? In the speech in Acts at Athens he switched to pure Attic, if I recall correctly.

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.

Many scholars (and many of the ECF) doubt St. Paul wrote Hebrews.

The vocabulary, style and grammar are all very different and much more advanced. This shows us that Paul was better at Syriac than Greek

Because his vocubulary, style and grammar were allegedly more advanced in a translation from Syriac?

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.

You mean polyglott?

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.)

Nothing was Latin in the Divine Liturgy at Rome until Pope St. Victor (c. 180). None other than St. Jerome states so. There is some discussion about when it was incorporated in the West.

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.

In Rome, in particular in Christian, and Jewish, inscriptions Greek is overwhelmingly used.
We had a thread that had a lot on this, but I believe it has been pulled.
The Greek influence on Latin and Roman society at this time is well documented. Cicero speaks of the effect of it on Latin phonology. The “Y” called “Greek i” is a testiment to this, and the Z (existed in Greek, but not in Latin at the time).

You bring up a very good point. But was the Liturgy said in Greek for the Hellens or not. We don’t really know.

The use of the Septuagint in the Early Church, and the attitude of the Church Fathers to it tell us.

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.

For whom? No one spoke Syriac in Rome.

And why did he write his epistles from Rome in Greek.

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.

This would be pure speculation.

The is not solid evidence that the Maronites ever taught Monotheletism and Rome certainly NEVER did.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome over this.
The documents of the Council of Florence says the Maronites taught Monotheletism, which they had to renounce, and they 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.

The Syriac Orthodox were never Monotheletes.

 

[Claudius]

Many scholars (and many of the ECF) doubt St. Paul wrote Hebrews.

However, the Church, the ground and foundation of the Truth says that he did write Hebrews.

Because his vocubulary, style and grammar were allegedly more advanced in a translation from Syriac?

Yes, take a look at it. learn some Syriac and compare. Hebrews is fully grounded in the Syriac language and the marks of translation are clear as day on the document.

You mean polyglott?

No, that word just means that you speak more than three languages (actual meaning is all langauges but that would be impossible except for Christ)

In linguistics we refer to existance of someone’s personality changing when they change from speaking one language to another. This happens a lot to business people who frequently travel from one country to another or to expats who work in one language but deal with their families in another. It has lead to some phycological problems in people as they begin to fear that they have multiple personalities. I knew of one case where a man was able to argue with himself, one side in one language (Russian) and the other in English.

There is also assimilating to the customs and culture of the language you are using. In one language you say Thank You but in another you express sorrow for the exact same set of circumstances. I read the New Testament and I see St. Paul altering his personality when he addresses people who speak different languages.

Nothing was Latin in the Divine Liturgy at Rome until Pope St. Victor (c. 180). None other than St. Jerome states so. There is some discussion about when it was incorporated in the West.

Some Latin was used before Victor I but it was rare to be sure. By the time of Constantine, Latin was the language of the liturgy in Rome and the surrounding cities.

In Rome, in particular in Christian, and Jewish, inscriptions Greek is overwhelmingly used.

There are inscriptions in Greek from a later time, usually bible quotes, but the earliest inscriptions we have are not in Greek. The Necropolis is a notable exception.

For whom? No one spoke Syriac in Rome.

Mass is our worship going up to GOD. GOD speaks Syriac. The man who made Peter the First Pope spoke Syriac and when we have Mass we are communicating with HIM.

And why did he write his epistles from Rome in Greek.

Good question, another is why do his letters contains the marks of translation.

This would be pure speculation.

I agree, I have no way to know.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome over this.

Not because he taught it, for it was never taught in Rome, but because he didn’t denounce it. Read the document please.

The documents of the Council of Florence says the Maronites taught Monotheletism, which they had to renounce, and they did.

Again, read the document please. Maronites were in Communion with Rome before the council of Florence. Insidentlitly they were also asked to denounce the heresy that Liturgy could ONLY be valid using Leven bread. Should we infer that this means that the Maronites used Leaven bread? No, because they were not using leaven bread (and they didn’t call it holy leaven in their liturgy at that time either.)

Let us look at this a little closer. The Greeks also were asked to renounce Monothelitism, but they never taught it. They were aske to renounce Arianism and they never taught that either.

The Syriac Orthodox were never Monotheletes.

Oh yes they were and still are.

 

[Claudius]

One other small, tiny really, thing that I will bring up is when I use the word Coptic I do speak in a Ritual sense but also in an Ethnic sense. To me, Coptics are Egyptians. No offense to any one intended but I do consider the Arabs living in Egypt as Arabs living in Egypt and not as Coptics so sorry if I made a mistake. At any rate, Christianity is for all peoples, all nations. We must stand up to the muslims who preach that all Arabs must belong to islam.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Coptic is not a Semitic language so unless you are talking about Arabic I don’t see how you could be correct.

Coptic is not a Semitic language but is related (like English and Russian).
Unfortunately, most Copts do not speak Coptic, but only Arabic.

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.

Those are the Northwestern Semitic languages. Limiting Semetic to them is like saying Germanic is the only IndoEuropean languages.

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.

And linguists do.

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.

I think you lost count somewhere. Where are you getting your numbers, and what are they?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Just stating a fact. The union of the Maronites took place almost a century after the establishment of the Crusaders states in their homeland.

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.

“Lies”?
Can an Orthodox truly come to believe for sincere religious reasons that the pope is the head of the Church. Yes, but that doesn’t erase the fact than more mundane reasons have existed.

“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.

I always love when the Muslims are blamed for this. Russia firmly booted Isidore out when he tried to impliment a union with the Vatican, with no Muslim threat.

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.

I’d like to blame the Muslims for it, but I can’t.

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.

Opposition to the Muslims isn’t enough to compromise the Faith either. Pleasing Muslims plays no part in our thinking on this matter: they are irrelevant.

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.

?
I think you are confusing us with the Anglicans. They used to do that for Guy Fawkes Night (calle Pope’s Day in Colonial America). Some places they still do I am told.

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.

Phylatism is a sin.
And there’s no reason, for instance, that a Pole can’t be Orthodox (there is an autocephalous Orthodox Church of Poland), and why anyone in the West can’t be Western Rite Orthodox.

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.

Isidore of Kiev was the Metropolitan of Moscow, whose deposition led to the autocephalacy of Moscow. The metropolia of the Rus included Moscow and the Ukraine.

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.

Follow me? That would be a mistake.
I’m one who questions whether those of your “Eastern Catholic Churches” who embraced Orthodoxy with St. Alexis Toth were returning to Orthodoxy or converting to it.

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

The book I was thinking of was the Matti Moosa “The Maronites in History.” He points out that William of Tyre records 40,000 Maronites renouncing monotheletism and submitting to the Vatican, which is odd if they never taught it and were already in union with the Vatican.

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.

As an Arab my ancestors worshipped rocks, so I’m not a phylatist.

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.

The Orietnal Orthodox never taught Monotheletism, which can not be said of Rome, Constantinople or Antioch.

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.

Which changing a word.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Amen.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

However, the Church, the ground and foundation of the Truth says that he did write Hebrews.

Yes, take a look at it. learn some Syriac and compare.

Part of my Doctorate exams at the University of Chicago were in Syriac. I got an A.

Hebrews is fully grounded in the Syriac language and the marks of translation are clear as day on the document.

Given its audience, that would make sense. I don’t know how improved Greek shows a Syriac vorlage, or that St. Paul’s mother tongue was Aramaic.

There are inscriptions in Greek from a later time, usually bible quotes, but the earliest inscriptions we have are not in Greek. The Necropolis is a notable exception.

The only Latin inscriptions you get are state inscriptions (Latin was still the language of the Senate, law, etc.).

Mass is our worship going up to GOD. GOD speaks Syriac. The man who made Peter the First Pope spoke Syriac and when we have Mass we are communicating with HIM.

And how does this prove Syriac was the language of the DL in Rome?
St. Peter spoke Aramaic, not Syriac (close, but not the same).
Since they all didn’t speak Syriac at Pentacost, I think God speaks quite a few languages.

Good question, another is why do his letters contains the marks of translation.

Because in the case of St. Peter, his first languages was Aramaic, with a Galilean accent.

Not because he taught it, for it was never taught in Rome, but because he didn’t denounce it. Read the document please.

Qui tacit consentit (speaking of Latin ).

Again, read the document please. Maronites were in Communion with Rome before the council of Florence. Insidentlitly they were also asked to denounce the heresy that Liturgy could ONLY be valid using Leven bread. Should we infer that this means that the Maronites used Leaven bread? No, because they were not using leaven bread (and they didn’t call it holy leaven in their liturgy at that time either.)

The only thing I see on the Eucharist was that they were not to add oil.

The documents say:
Indeed, after the union of the eastern church with the western church in the ecumenical council of Florence, and after the return of the Armenians, the Jacobites and the people of Mesopotamia, we despatched our venerable brother Andrew, archbishop of Kalocsa, to eastern lands and the island of Cyprus. He was…to try to bring back to the truth of the faith, using our warnings and exhortations, whoever else he might find there to be strangers to the truth of faith in other sects, whether they are followers of Nestorius or of Macarius.
He pursued this task with vigour, thanks to the wisdom and other virtues with which the Lord, the giver of graces, has enriched him. He finally eliminated from their hearts, after many discussions…that of the most impious Macarius of Antioch who, although he confessed that Christ is true God and man, asserted that there is in him only the divine will and principle of action, thereby diminishing his humanity.
Bishop Elias of the Maronites sent an envoy, to make to us a solemn profession of the faith of the Roman church, which by the providence of the Lord and the aid of blessed Peter and the apostle has always remained immaculate…Then our beloved son in Christ Isaac, envoy of our venerable brother Elias, bishop of the Maronites, on his behalf and in his name, rejecting the heresy of Macarius about one will in Christ, made with great veneration a profession that was similar in all details.

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM17.HTM#8

Let us look at this a little closer. The Greeks also were asked to renounce Monothelitism, but they never taught it. They were aske to renounce Arianism and they never taught that either.

Quotes?

Oh yes they were and still are.

I think you are confusing Monophysite with Monothelyte. And no, the Syriacs are not Monophysites either.

 

[jimmy]

The evidence indicates that the Maronites were once atleast Monothelites which would mean that they were heretics according to Rome. The book by Matti Moosa, mentioned above, postulates that the Maronites were at one time Monophysites but followed the emperor Heraclides’ proposal of monothelitism as a compromise with the Chalcedonians. There is not a shred of evidence that shows the Maronites(and I am one) were always in communion with Rome. This is a myth that was propagated by 16th and 17th century Maronites to show their undying loyalty to Rome. We are still suffering the effects from this mentality and it must be broken with. We must recognize who we are so that we can be who we are rather than simply submit to every thought process of western tradition.

Just one example of the Monothelitism of the Maronites is the book of ten treatises by Thomas of Kfartab which mentions Christ having one will. From what I recall the ktab al huda says this as well.

 

[jimmy]

Here is just one quote from The Maronites in History, by Matti Moosa which indicate the Monothelitism of the Maronites. This quote is from a manuscript of a Maronite ritual book. It is from the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops.

Be united in the true faith with Jesus Christ who has made you worthy to serve in this office. It is the faith of our saints and fathers the Apostles as well as the faith affirmed by the Councils, and the canons which contain their true teaching that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is one person, one Son, one Christ, and one will. For this reason He said, “I have come not to do my will but the will of Him who sent. me.” God forbid that He has two wills, and that after their union the Trinity be called a QuaternityThe Maronites in History, Matti Moosa p207].
The Maronites in History, Matti Moosa. Gorgias Press, New Jersey 2005 .

Just to make a correction in my above post. The emperor who tried to reconcile the ‘monophysites’ and the Chalcedonians was Heraclius.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Here is just one quote from The Maronites in History, by Matti Moosa which indicate the Monothelitism of the Maronites. This quote is from a manuscript of a Maronite ritual book. It is from the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops.

Be united in the true faith with Jesus Christ who has made you worthy to serve in this office. It is the faith of our saints and fathers the Apostles as well as the faith affirmed by the Councils, and the canons which contain their true teaching that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is one person, one Son, one Christ, and one will. For this reason He said, “I have come not to do my will but the will of Him who sent. me.” God forbid that He has two wills, and that after their union the Trinity be called a QuaternityThe Maronites in History, Matti Moosa p207].
The Maronites in History, Matti Moosa. Gorgias Press, New Jersey 2005 .

Just to make a correction in my above post. The emperor who tried to reconcile the ‘monophysites’ and the Chalcedonians was Heraclius.

I trust this has been corrected and removed from the present day ritual.

 

[Ghosty]

One thing to keep in mind in all of this is that the expression “one will” is not itself heretical. St. Maximos the Confessor, the greatest opponent of Monothelitism, used the expression “one will” many times prior to its heretical adoption. For example, when writng about Christ in his treatise on the “Our Father”:

“…destroying the hostile forces which fill up the middle space between heaven and earth, He showed that there was only one gathering of earthly and heavenly powers for the distribution of divine gifts which sings with joy the glory of God with one and the same will with the powers on high.”

So there is an orthodox tradition of speaking of Christ having “one will”, refering to the fact that His human will and Divine will were perfectly united and willed the same thing. When this was spoken of, the equivalent of terms like “monothelos” was used in order to oppose those who believed that the human will of Christ was contrary to the Divine Will.

Simply pointing to a text that says “one will” does not make it a Monothelite text, or else St. Maximos the Confessor would be condemned as being a Monothelite (which is absurd on the face, since he was a Martyr against Monothelitism). To prove monothelitism, one would have to demonstrate that the belief was that the human will was swallowed up and obliviated by the Divine Will, such that the human nature was incomplete and partially “swallowed” by the Divine. The Maronite text above doesn’t seem, on the face, to be saying that, and (though not directly related to this topic, but certainly relevent to this context) neither does the writing of Pope Honorius, who was nonetheless rightly condemned for allowing heresy to prosper.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Ghosty, that quote does not seem to be talking about Christ having one will. It really doesn’t seem to even be speaking of Christology.

That said, within the book mentioned above there are some quotes concerning St. Maximus and his enemies being the monks of a monastery called Marun. Maybe I can find them.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, that quote does not seem to be talking about Christ having one will. It really doesn’t seem to even be speaking of Christology.

That said, within the book mentioned above there are some quotes concerning St. Maximus and his enemies being the monks of a monastery called Marun. Maybe I can find them.

The quote says that Christ’s dispensation was with “one and the same will” as the power’s on high. I agree that it’s not refering to Christology, and that’s my point: St. Maximos was not a monothelite, but prior to the heresy broke into major controversy he used the same terminology as the monothelites did.

The term “monothelos” is not the mark of heresy, and neither is speaking of Christ having a single will (as St. Maximos does here and in other places). The mark of heresy is denying that Christ’s human nature had the power of will, that it lacked the natural human energies. St. Maximos, even while using terms like, or related to, “monothelos”, did not affirm that Christ lacked the fullness of human nature, even though a cursory reading of his works would indicate that he used the same words and terms as heretics. Likewise, showing that someone else, or some other group, used “monothelos” doesn’t prove that they were Monothelites in the heretical sense; it just proves that they used language that might be ambiguos. We need to see some clear indications of belief in the notion that the natural powers of the human nature were utterly supressed and eliminated by the Hypostatic Union, as that’s what the Monothelite Heresy was about.

The same is true of people like Pope Shenouda, Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts, who supports the term Monophysite, while confessing the same belief as the Chalcedonian Churches.

Peace and God bless!

 

[murtad]

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’.

Yes, what you say is true and “Honorius the heretic” is the first of the infallible Popes to be anathemised (ex-communicated) posthumously for endorsing the Maronite heresy of Monothelitism. This proves a Pope can be ex-communicated if he misleads the Catholic Church.

Please bear in mind that the reason why the Maronites accepted Emperor Heraclius’ heresy was because it had papal sanction, meaning, the infallible Pope had given it his endorsement.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, what you say is true and “Honorius the heretic” is the first of the infallible Popes to be anathemised (ex-communicated) posthumously for endorsing the Maronite heresy of Monothelitism. This proves a Pope can be ex-communicated if he misleads the Catholic Church.

Please bear in mind that the reason why the Maronites accepted Emperor Heraclius’ heresy was because it had papal sanction, meaning, the infallible Pope had given it his endorsement.

Papal Infallibility has nothing to do with the case of Pope Honorius, whether or not he was guilty of heresy.

Peace and God bless!