Differences between Latin rite and Maronite Church

[truthseeker32]

I have long been attracted to Eastern Christianity and recently found out that there is a Maronite parish nearby.

What are the main differences between Maronites and Latin Catholics? Are there any theological differences? How do Maronite Catholics understand things like the papacy, the immaculate conception, purgatory, and original sin?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Generally, most Maronites see all those the same as Latins do.

Traditionally, Maronite Liturgy would have looked like the Syro-Malankara Catholics, or their Orthodox counterparts, but due to isolation from the Orthodox and heavy French Latin influence, they are very latinized.

The Liturgy is today versus populam, like the Latins, and most differences are minor at most - Aramaic is the liturgical language of the Maronites, so you will hear more of this than in a Latin rite Church.

 

[malphono]

Generally, most Maronites see all those the same as Latins do.

Sad, but true.

Traditionally, Maronite Liturgy would have looked like the Syro-Malankara Catholics, or their Orthodox counterparts

Yes, quite so.

but due to isolation from the Orthodox and heavy French Latin influence, they are very latinized.

The latinizations, even the 16th variety, really have little to do with either of those factors. and of course the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization which are choking the life out of us, are all home-grown.

The Liturgy is today versus populam, like the Latins, and most differences are minor at most - Aramaic is the liturgical language of the Maronites, so you will hear more of this than in a Latin rite Church.

With very rare exceptions, one will hear little Aramaic in a Maronite church. Beyond the three things that the Synod has mandated, most Maronite churches are essentially Syriac-free zones. (Perhaps they should put of a sign to that effect, you know next to the no-cellphones one to warn the unsuspecting …).

 

[dzheremi]

As a Syriac Orthodox friend once put it (jokingly, I assumed), the Latins are French who live in France, but the Maronites are French who live in Lebanon.

A little inter-Syriac humor for you…

(Seriously though, it’s sad.)

 

[VanSensei]

There’s a very strong Maronite presence in Lebanon, so in a parish, you’d hear a lot of Arabic and maybe French. Depends on the population.

 

[malphono]

There’s a very strong Maronite presence in Lebanon, so in a parish, you’d hear a lot of Arabic and maybe French. Depends on the population.

In the diaspora, the amount of Arabic used will vary from place to place. French? Well, maybe in Québec.

 

[MorEphrem]

There’s a difference between the Latin rite and the Maronite rite?

 

[truthseeker32]

There’s a difference between the Latin rite and the Maronite rite?

Perhaps not. I have just talked to Eastern Catholics in the past who said they have a different understanding of original sin and papal primacy than Latin Catholics. Perhaps they were heretics.

 

[MorEphrem]

Perhaps not. I have just talked to Eastern Catholics in the past who said they have a different understanding of original sin and papal primacy than Latin Catholics. Perhaps they were heretics.

I was being facetious, although I guess badly so since it wasn’t very obvious to the external observer. You are correct in observing difference. I was just making a joke since the Maronite church is considered to be the Eastern Church that sustains the largest amount of latinizations (or inorganic adoptions of Latin ritual and theology).

Ideally, the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches all have the same orthodox theology but express it differently. However, the Maronite Church has had a history of trying to appease the Latin Church by essentially latinizing to the point where now a Maronite mass is almost equivalent to the Latin Novus Ordo, for the most part, in Arabic. Anyone who says our liturgical language is Syriac (Aramaic) is probably just reading that from Wikipedia; in fact in our last liturgical text translation the Syriac normative text was replaced with Arabic, so the idea that our liturgical language is Syriac is nothing more than a novelty introduced to say “we use the language of Jesus” (which in itself is inaccurate because Jesus didn’t speak the Syriac dialect, no matter how intelligible it would’ve been to Him).

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

Generally, most Maronites see all those the same as Latins do.

Traditionally, Maronite Liturgy would have looked like the Syro-Malankara Catholics, or their Orthodox counterparts, but due to isolation from the Orthodox and heavy French Latin influence, they are very latinized.

The Liturgy is today versus populam, like the Latins, and most differences are minor at most - Aramaic is the liturgical language of the Maronites, so you will hear more of this than in a Latin rite Church.

I wouldn’t say that it would have looked like the Syro-Malankara Catholics but had similarities.

The Syro-Malankara and Syriac Orthodox and Indian Orthodox have many things that weren’t in the original tradition.

EG:
*Eparchs wearing icons around their necks (this is a Hellenization on both the SOC and Indian Church’s side check this, this, this out for SOC Patriarch of Antioch and here for the Leaders in the Indian Church, no icons around necks)

*the use of the colour red and pink for vestments(this may be tradition in India but not in the middle east…Although i like those Red and Pink heavily embroiled vestments that Mor Baselios and other middle east Eparchs wear)

*the Maronite pronounciation of Syriac would be exactly like the old Christians, this is not the case for Syro-Malankara whom have a very poor pronunciation of the Syriac language.

BTW do you have any good resources on the Indian Church? I am very interested in everything to do with it

 

[JMJ_coder]

Sad, but true.

Be careful here. In the essentials of the faith there is, and must be, complete unity between all the Catholic Churches. Essentials include the papacy, the existence of purgatory, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, etc. Now, keep in mind that there can be and are different expressions of the same truth among the Churches, but the foundational truth is the same for all.

Note, this does not concern non-essential teaching or liturgical discipline and praxis.

 

[BVMFatima]

I was being facetious, although I guess badly so since it wasn’t very obvious to the external observer. You are correct in observing difference. I was just making a joke since the Maronite church is considered to be the Eastern Church that sustains the largest amount of latinizations (or inorganic adoptions of Latin ritual and theology).

Ideally, the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches all have the same orthodox theology but express it differently. However, the Maronite Church has had a history of trying to appease the Latin Church by essentially latinizing to the point where now a Maronite mass is almost equivalent to the Latin Novus Ordo, for the most part, in Arabic. Anyone who says our liturgical language is Syriac (Aramaic) is probably just reading that from Wikipedia; in fact in our last liturgical text translation the Syriac normative text was replaced with Arabic, so the idea that our liturgical language is Syriac is nothing more than a novelty introduced to say “we use the language of Jesus” (which in itself is inaccurate because Jesus didn’t speak the Syriac dialect, no matter how intelligible it would’ve been to Him).

Another form of Latinization was when the Maronite Catholic immigrants from Lebanon came to the USA and went to Roman Catholic parishes, which caused some to Marry Roman Rite Catholics. Plus lots of Roman Catholic Bishops would give the Eastern Churches a hard time and would force them to Latinize. To the Bishops at the time it was either be Latin or not Catholic at all, which was really wrong. But due to the fact there were not any Maronite parishes in the U.S. at the time, (I think around the early 1900’s I could be wrong). The Roman Churches had lots of influence on the liturgy of Maronite Churches in the U.S.

God Bless,
BVMFatima

 

[malphono]

Another form of Latinization was when the Maronite Catholic immigrants from Lebanon came to the USA and went to Roman Catholic parishes, which caused some to Marry Roman Rite Catholics. Plus lots of Roman Catholic Bishops would give the Eastern Churches a hard time and would force them to Latinize. To the Bishops at the time it was either be Latin or not Catholic at all, which was really wrong. But due to the fact there were not any Maronite parishes in the U.S. at the time, (I think around the early 1900’s I could be wrong). The Roman Churches had lots of influence on the liturgy of Maronite Churches in the U.S.

Exactly the same thing can be said for all Eastern & Oriental Churches in diaspora, but in any case, that really has nothing to do with matters. As I’ve said umpteen times before, the “old” latinizations began in earnest in the late 16th century. The Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, which are far more insidious, are a post-conciliar phenomenon. It’s nothing to do with the diaspora in general or the US in particular.

 

[BVMFatima]

Exactly the same thing can be said for all Eastern & Oriental Churches in diaspora, but in any case, that really has nothing to do with matters. As I’ve said umpteen times before, the “old” latinizations began in earnest in the late 16th century. The Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, which are far more insidious, are a post-conciliar phenomenon. It’s nothing to do with the diaspora in general or the US in particular.

Ah I see, this is just something I read in the past.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Exactly the same thing can be said for all Eastern & Oriental Churches in diaspora, but in any case, that really has nothing to do with matters. As I’ve said umpteen times before, the “old” latinizations began in earnest in the late 16th century. The Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, which are far more insidious, are a post-conciliar phenomenon. It’s nothing to do with the diaspora in general or the US in particular.

Insiduous, but very evident. The use of modern hymns, the loss of ornamentation, versus populum orientation, et cetera. Sometimes, I feel rather guilty as a Latin Catholic that we let those elements contaminate the tradition of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Aramis]

Another form of Latinization was when the Maronite Catholic immigrants from Lebanon came to the USA and went to Roman Catholic parishes, which caused some to Marry Roman Rite Catholics. Plus lots of Roman Catholic Bishops would give the Eastern Churches a hard time and would force them to Latinize. To the Bishops at the time it was either be Latin or not Catholic at all, which was really wrong. But due to the fact there were not any Maronite parishes in the U.S. at the time, (I think around the early 1900’s I could be wrong). The Roman Churches had lots of influence on the liturgy of Maronite Churches in the U.S.

God Bless,
BVMFatima

The late 1800’s (1880-ish onward) really are when the first parishes begin to organize and demand their traditional rite instead of Roman. (The rejection leads to Fr. Toth’s schism.)

Pope Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII continued to expand the rights of the Eastern Faithful, with the exception of the small issue of no married clerics to be in the US.

Pope Pius X also was the one who overturned the ban on non-Roman Missal liturgies within the US, revoking the actions of the Baltimore Conferences and formally clearing the way for both the Dominicans and the ECCs.

 

[MorEphrem]

Insiduous, but very evident. The use of modern hymns, the loss of ornamentation, versus populum orientation, et cetera. Sometimes, I feel rather guilty as a Latin Catholic that we let those elements contaminate the tradition of the Eastern Churches.

Don’t feel guilty, at least for the Maronite Church. Our people unwittingly embrace every latinization as authentically Maronite, contrary to the directives of the popes to restore our liturgy.

 

[malphono]

Our people unwittingly embrace every latinization as authentically Maronite, contrary to the directives of the popes to restore our liturgy.

I would exactly say “unwittingly” since they, meaning the clergy and the so-called “liturgical commission,” know exactly what they are doing. The Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations have been purposefully and willfully embraced, despite Orientalim Ecclesiarum and the efforts and directives of the Oriental Congregation. It is, as I’ve said in the past, a misguided attempt to be more Latin than the Latins. Which, of course, leaves us in a situation where the clock is ticking, and it calls to mind Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

Perhaps not. I have just talked to Eastern Catholics in the past who said they have a different understanding of original sin and papal primacy than Latin Catholics. Perhaps they were heretics.

If you asked a bunch of different Latin Catholics about their beliefs regarding papal primacy and original sin you would also get a bunch of different answers too. The reality is that few Catholics are well catechized. As both are doctrines of the faith Latins and Maronites actually must believe the same thing.

There are different points of emphasis however to be sure. The main distinction is that one uses a Syriac rite and the other a Latin rite Mass. Although a lack of liturgical discipline is a common problem for all Churches in the U.S.

The Maronite Mass in Austin is I believe pretty good, but I have heard real horror stories about Maronite Masses elsewhere in the U.S. every bit as bad as the worst abuses that plague the Novus Ordo. In other words Masses that seem more like shows to entertain the congregation than an act of worship and a re-presentation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Medical_Student]

What can be done to reverse these Latinizations?

Or does no one really care. Does the Patriarch not?