History Lesson: When did your Eastern Catholic Church/Rite enter into union with Rome & why?

[MorEphrem]

Dear brother MorEphrem,

I don’t mean this to sound like I’m belittling your very valid comment, but I believe we have to keep in mind that the Petrine primacy has always, among the Syriac Traditions, been a matter of doctrinal importance. With that in mind, maybe some slack can be given for the decisions of your forbears.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have never belittled Petrine primacy and I never denounced it, I find your comment to be irrelevant to be honest. I have not spoken against my Syriac forefathers and I certainly wouldn’t ever even attempt to speak against them.

In response to disagreeing with my challenges to the status quo Maronite history of pre-Crusade times, I will not argue. I simply ask that next time you read such a history you trace the source of such information. I’m certain you won’t find any sources earlier than the 17th century and will all probably indicate the same source, ultimately. However, do not take my word for it and test all things.

 

[josie_L]

While I by no means wish to belittle the true suffering Eastern / Oriental Catholics have experienced down through the centuries, I am getting a very distinct “woe are we!” vibe from this thread. The OP, who is Orthodox, asked a question and the general response of Eastern Catholics seems to be “our existence is one of woe - we were forced to be Catholic - it is all tragedy”. Surely there is more nuance to the reality? If not, why be Catholic at all?

Yah, I kind of got that vibe too, and not for the first time either, i.e., there is a certain predilection amongst some posters to bring up the past in a way that connotes a lingering anger.

 

[Thomas48]

It’s not good to dwell on the past but to realize and understand it is vital.

 

[angelic06]

While I by no means wish to belittle the true suffering Eastern / Oriental Catholics have experienced down through the centuries, I am getting a very distinct “woe are we!” vibe from this thread. The OP, who is Orthodox, asked a question and the general response of Eastern Catholics seems to be “our existence is one of woe - ***we were forced to be Catholic ***- it is all tragedy”. Surely there is more nuance to the reality? If not, why be Catholic at all?

There is another side of the Eastern Catholic story which you do not here very often, and that is one of those Eastern Catholics who have suffered because they chose to remain in full communion with the See of St. Peter (according to Rome, not the See of St. Peter according to Antioch) rather than join the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This component of the story includes those who suffered during Soviet times, many of them obtaining the palms of martyrdom in the Soviet concentration camps. (While there is no doubt the Orthodox suffered martyrdom also, it should be remembered that the Orthodox were at least tolerated by the Soviets, whereas the Eastern Catholics were absolutely hated for their loyalty to the pope who was not himself subject to USSR laws.)

As a Latin Catholic looking towards the East, I feel that attention should be drawn equally to these Christians. For while we cannot ignore those who were compelled in the past to become Catholic, we cannot ignore also those who suffered because they chose to remain so.

Indeed, these churches are important precisely because they show that the Catholic religion is not that of one people only, but instead that the Lord’s commands have been universally implemented:

“Take eat, for this is my Body which is given up for you for the remission of sins. Take drink, this is my Blood which is give up for you for the remission of sins.”

And also:

“Go, therefore, proclaim the Gospel to all peoples, baptizing them in the Name of the + Father, and of the + Son, and of the + Holy Ghost. And behold I am with you even unto the end of the age.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

While I by no means wish to belittle the true suffering Eastern / Oriental Catholics have experienced down through the centuries, I am getting a very distinct “woe are we!” vibe from this thread. The OP, who is Orthodox, asked a question and the general response of Eastern Catholics seems to be “our existence is one of woe - we were forced to be Catholic - it is all tragedy”. Surely there is more nuance to the reality? If not, why be Catholic at all?

I haven’t seen any statements that claimed that Oriental and Eastern Catholics were forced to be Catholic, except by the OP. At most, a few Catholic posters have expressed the idea that this is a debatable point.

No one here has expressed regret that their Churches joined the Catholic communion. We were asked about the circumstances of the reunions. It’s a fact that some reunions were accompanied by Latinizations, but that is a separate matter from the union itself, No unions were forced, and no one (as yet) has expressed any regret for the reunion. If you sense regret, it has been over the Latinizations. I hope you can see the distinction.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I have never belittled Petrine primacy and I never denounced it, I find your comment to be irrelevant to be honest. I have not spoken against my Syriac forefathers and I certainly wouldn’t ever even attempt to speak against them.

I’m not sure where I stated you belittled the Petrine primacy or denounced it. And since you are referring to the “Syriac forefathers,” I’m not sure we’re even referring to the same thing. I was referring to your comment that the Maronite loyalty to Rome was more important than your traditions. I made my comment to offer a possible explanation why that might have been the case at the time when the reunion (or rediscovery) occurred.

In response to disagreeing with my challenges to the status quo Maronite history of pre-Crusade times, I will not argue.

I’m not sure how you have interpreted that other post of mine as disagreeing with you (or at least as definitely disagreeing with you).

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Yah, I kind of got that vibe too, and not for the first time either, i.e., there is a certain predilection amongst some posters to bring up the past in a way that connotes a lingering anger.

That might be because there are those of us in Churches wherein the Latinizations are still rather pronounced.

Blessings

 

[josie_L]

There is another side of the Eastern Catholic story which you do not here very often, and that is one of those Eastern Catholics who have suffered because they chose to remain in full communion with the See of St. Peter (according to Rome, not the See of St. Peter according to Antioch) rather than join the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This component of the story includes those who suffered during Soviet times, many of them obtaining the palms of martyrdom in the Soviet concentration camps. (While there is no doubt the Orthodox suffered martyrdom also, it should be remembered that the Orthodox were at least tolerated by the Soviets, whereas the Eastern Catholics were absolutely hated for their loyalty to the pope who was not himself subject to USSR laws.)

As a Latin Catholic looking towards the East, I feel that attention should be drawn equally to these Christians. For while we cannot ignore those who were compelled in the past to become Catholic, we cannot ignore also those who suffered because they chose to remain so.

Indeed, these churches are important precisely because they show that the Catholic religion is not that of one people only, but instead that the Lord’s commands have been universally implemented:

“Take eat, for this is my Body which is given up for you for the remission of sins. Take drink, this is my Blood which is give up for you for the remission of sins.”

And also:

“Go, therefore, proclaim the Gospel to all peoples, baptizing them in the Name of the + Father, and of the + Son, and of the + Holy Ghost. And behold I am with you even unto the end of the age.”

He’s only making a reference to comments made on this thread, I’m sure he’s well aware (being well-informed) of all the things you’ve mentioned above.

 

[mardukm]

Thank you for this post.

There is another side of the Eastern Catholic story which you do not here very often, and that is one of those Eastern Catholics who have suffered because they chose to remain in full communion with the See of St. Peter (according to Rome, not the See of St. Peter according to Antioch) rather than join the Eastern Orthodox Churches. This component of the story includes those who suffered during Soviet times, many of them obtaining the palms of martyrdom in the Soviet concentration camps. (While there is no doubt the Orthodox suffered martyrdom also, it should be remembered that the Orthodox were at least tolerated by the Soviets, whereas the Eastern Catholics were absolutely hated for their loyalty to the pope who was not himself subject to USSR laws.)

As a Latin Catholic looking towards the East, I feel that attention should be drawn equally to these Christians. For while we cannot ignore those who were compelled in the past to become Catholic, we cannot ignore also those who suffered because they chose to remain so.

Indeed, these churches are important precisely because they show that the Catholic religion is not that of one people only, but instead that the Lord’s commands have been universally implemented:

“Take eat, for this is my Body which is given up for you for the remission of sins. Take drink, this is my Blood which is give up for you for the remission of sins.”

And also:

“Go, therefore, proclaim the Gospel to all peoples, baptizing them in the Name of the + Father, and of the + Son, and of the + Holy Ghost. And behold I am with you even unto the end of the age.”

 

[josie_L]

That might be because there are those of us in Churches wherein the Latinizations are still rather pronounced.

Blessings

I just get the sense that some posters are stuck in the past without seeing the progress that is being made today.

God bless!

 

[malphono]

Dear brother MorEphrem,

Form my limited knowledge, the Maronites have always been diophysite. That wouldn’t fit in with your statement that the Maronites were under the omophor of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch.

I really have no interest in getting involved in one of these carousel discussions :hypno: and I won’t. At the same time, let me say that MorEphrem’s brief historical analysis is pretty good. As for the part about “being under the omophor” of the SOC (which was, perhaps, implied, but the quoted words are yours), one does, I think, have to bear in mind that Deir Maroun itself was considered a Catholicosate (if not de jure, then at least de facto), so it really wouldn’t have made a lot of difference.

While a few things survived, most of our history (nor to mention a good part of our liturgical library) was set on fire by Dandini and his dogs, so obviously much of it is lost. As MorEprem says, most of what we have today dates from the Crusader period, and whether the source was Imperial Byzantine (who hated our guts) or Latin (who wanted control), it’s “history” as filtered. This is the sort of thing that revisionists (whether of the historical or liturgical variety) love, where they can pick-and-choose what they will.

If one actually accepts the principle of “lex ordandi lex credeni” as fact, it would seem that the near uniformity in prayers and traditions between the SOC and the Maronites suggests that diophysitism among the Maronites may not have been the case after all. IOW, whereas the Maronites bought into Chalcedon, it doesn’t mean that they spurned Cyrillian Christology.

OK, so that’s about about as much of my :twocents: as I’m tossing into the ring in this thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Hmmm, where to begin?

CNEWA has a lot of helpful info, e.g. cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=63&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=US&pageno=1
(Of course, many other websites have info as well, but I find that things tend to get twisted around a lot.)

 

[Peter_J]

Well, no one has represented the Maronites yet so I’ll say it. We’ve “always” been in communion with Rome,

I’m just thinking … Knowing that arguments usually break out wrt the descriptions of Maronites as always-in-communion-with-Rome (not that that would happen here, of course ) … I’m wondering if a better description might be “always been Catholic”?

Of course, I’m not suggesting that that’s a perfect formulation. I know better than to do that – especially on a thread that also involves Christology.

 

[malphono]

I’m just thinking … Knowing that arguments usually break out wrt the descriptions of Maronites as always-in-communion-with-Rome (not that that would happen here, of course ) … I’m wondering if a better description might be “always been Catholic”?

Of course, I’m not suggesting that that’s a perfect formulation. I know better than to do that – especially on a thread that also involves Christology.

Agreed about the “prefect” part, but the suggested formulation is better??? How about WORSE … in spades! :bigyikes:

 

[MorEphrem]

I’m not sure how you have interpreted that other post of mine as disagreeing with you (or at least as definitely disagreeing with you).

Pardon me if I jumped the boat.

But by saying the claim that the Maronite creed has been historically diophysite in Christology is to concede the 17th century revisionist history and, in virtue of that, disagree with my advocation of critical historical standards. Implicit disagreement, but nonetheless, the two views are inherently at odds. [And if one looks at **malphono’s post, to justify the revisionist platform one would need to sufficiently explain why we share extensive commonality inclusive of the expressing of Christ’s humanity and divinity with the miaphysite SO].

I would concede if I was proven wrong through critical history - however, the people who advocate the revisionist history of the Maronite Church rely on folklore and sources written 15 centuries after the events. I went to university for history and received a degree in history, and such methods have absolutely no credibility in an academic sense. Furthermore, the vast implications of the revisionist narrative are never address - the text commonality above, the lack of sources (for events such as the martyrdom of the 350 monks being committed by the SO), anachronistic claims (like the SO and Maronites were completely distinct in the 4th century - that we didn’t wear cuffs but we wore miters in the 7th century), and dismissing any correlation as “Latinization” simply because it correlates (incensing 4 horns of the altar, secret prayers, etc.). I don’t understand why claims must be substantiated except in the case of Maronite history.

Bowing out now as I’ve disturbed the flow of the thread enough.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m just thinking … Knowing that arguments usually break out wrt the descriptions of Maronites as always-in-communion-with-Rome (not that that would happen here, of course ) … I’m wondering if a better description might be “always been Catholic”?

Of course, I’m not suggesting that that’s a perfect formulation. I know better than to do that – especially on a thread that also involves Christology.

Agreed about the “prefect” part, but the suggested formulation is better??? How about WORSE … in spades! :bigyikes:

Well, it’s possible we’re never going to agree, but I think it’s pretty good, or at least not as bad as “always been in full communion with Rome”. By way of comparison, I don’t think anyone would claim that the ROCOR used to be non-Orthodox, even though they weren’t in full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, EP, etc.

 

[malphono]

Well, it’s possible we’re never going to agree, but I think it’s pretty good, or at least not as bad as “always been in full communion with Rome”.

On this particular item, Peter, I think the “it’s possible we’re never going to agree” should read “we’re NOT going to agree” … then we’d be in agreement.

 

[Peter_J]

On this particular item, Peter, I think the “it’s possible we’re never going to agree” should read “we’re NOT going to agree” … then we’d be in agreement.

I will tentatively agree.

 

[Celticnovice]

Wow! That sounds awful. The Why in this case was because of force. Hearing that history, now I wonder why they remain united with Rome today?

Because Vatican II has called for Eastern Catholics to restore their traditions.

 

[twf]

Dear brother Tyler,

I haven’t seen any statements that claimed that Oriental and Eastern Catholics were forced to be Catholic, except by the OP. At most, a few Catholic posters have expressed the idea that this is a debatable point.

No one here has expressed regret that their Churches joined the Catholic communion. We were asked about the circumstances of the reunions. It’s a fact that some reunions were accompanied by Latinizations, but that is a separate matter from the union itself, No unions were forced, and no one (as yet) has expressed any regret for the reunion. If you sense regret, it has been over the Latinizations. I hope you can see the distinction.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,
Point well taken. My apologies if I offended anyone.