After reading several more excerpts from the Google books preview, it appears he is of the opinion that the Maronites were originally monophysite. In an earlier post, I assumed he was Maronite, but I think perhaps he is Syrian Orthodox. Reading his version of Maronite history makes me believe that those who deny that Maronites had not always been in communion with Rome base their “evidence” primarily (if not only) on a LACK of evidence- an argument from silence. I mentioned this in my previous post to brother Hesychios.
Having not only read Moosa’s book, but studied this issue extensively, I thought I should comment. I would like to preface that this very issue has caused me more emotional pain than any other I have dealt with in regards to my people. Bearing this in mind, I am not looking to push polemics or be an apologetic. I am trained as a historian (admittedly neither erudite nor brilliant), and it was as a historian that I went into the history of my people. No one ever wants to discover that their people were at one time heretics, no one ever wants to have to openly discuss the fact with pride. So, despite previous insinuations in the past, I am not here advocating the previous Monothelitism of the Maronites out of condescension or a desire to see my people as less than they are. My intentions are for an honest Maronite historiography, for both the past and the current. Malphono has spoken much (and rightly so) about the mutilated nature of our contemporary qorbono, and I believe it is the same attempt at dishonesty that he has properly shown to have crippled the Maronites currently that has hurt us as much in the past. We (as Maronites) need to start being honest about our entire history if we are to reclaim what is ours in future times. I don’t believe we will ever be faithful to ourselves or the decrees of Vatican II (properly, this time around) without sitting through our pride and admitting where we come from, what happened, and how we can grow from it.
First, the author of
Maronites in History. Moosa was indeed a Maronite, trained at Colombia University, and spent some time practicing law in the Syrian Orthodox Religious Court in Mosul; whether or not he became Syriac Orthodox is unknown to me. I will be the first to admit that one of Moosa’s main tools is inference to come to some of his conclusions. Most of the time, however, he simply allows the historical documents that have been purposefully assumed throughout Maronite history to speak for themselves, as opposed to their previous dishonest treatment by the first Maronites historians (of these I am not necessarily speaking of Patriarch Douaihy). Moosa was one of the first authors to actually address the source material from which Maronite historiography has been created. Personally, I believe that Kamal Salibi in
Maronite Historians of Medieval Lebanon provides a much more thorough, and less intense, account of the source material that bases the Maronite’s claim to perpetual orthodoxy with Rome, but nonetheless, it would simply be a cop out to demean Mr. Moosa’s attempts simply because of his veracity, current ecclesiastical affiliation, or level of academic rigor. Aziz Atiya, Professor of History at the University of Utah, himself a Copt and erudite historian on the Eastern Churches, provided us in 1968 a wonderful survey of the Eastern Churches (entitled
A History of Eastern Christianity), including an account of the Maronite Church’s history, culture, and hierarchy. He speaks about the Maronites courteously, reverently, though entirely with honesty. It would be an appeal to an authority to simply write off his scholarship despite the brotherly love with which he expresses it simply because he is Coptic. This sort of attack has been a polemical tool utilized by Maronite historians themselves in creating their argument of perpetual orthodoxy by demeaning historical figures because they were not Maronite or that their simply existence countered the concept of perpetual orthodoxy. In fact, the majority of proponents against the perpetual orthodoxy have been
Latins, as seen all the way up to the publication of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1914. The complete change of heart by the Latins is relatively new, despite the views of a small amount of Popes after the thirteenth century. Even after then, one Pope is still quoted as calling the Maronites “heretics” in need of proper theology (and by that, Latin).
continued
I’ll hang in. That item will be an interesting read.
I have always found your viewpoints honest and scholarly, despite some of our differences in opinion on the nature of ecumenism. I think this would be a GREAT topic to discuss - IN ANOTHER THREAD. I am thoroughly interested. Perhaps you can provide a link or post relevant excerpts in a thread to start the discussion.