How do the Orthodox view the Eastern Catholics?

[Barry_Gabriel]

I understand that you see differently. I pointed out that it is hard to determine one way or another if they were out of communion. What makes you so sure that they were? I worshiped with the Maronites for about a year before becoming an Orthodox catechumen. So I understand the arguments for both sides.

In Christ,
Andrew

The Maronites themselves say so.

 

[malphono]

Why would it matter to anyone else but the Maronites if they were once monothelite or not? ISTM that’s an internal matter among Maronites.

Yes, one would think so, but apparently that’s not the case …

 

[BobCatholic]

Just what the name implies.

They are Orthodox who practice the Western Rite, with a few verbal changes in the prayers to bring it into line with Orthodox doctrine: omission of Filoque and references to the treasury of merits, addition of an explicit Epiclesis to the Canon, and some other ones.

While in the USA they are principally among the Antiochians, they are also found in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and in different juridictions in Europe.

It’s a movement that began about 1898 or so.

There is a large WR parish in Denver, Colorado–St. Augustine’s–whose principal Sunday service is a High Mass (or at least Missa Cantata) in Latin. Metropolitan Philip blessed their particular vocation to “preserve and foster” the patrimony of Gregorian chant and polyphony.

What about Roman Orthodox? romanorthodox.com/ - they seem to be some kind of western rite…

 

[malphono]

What about Roman Orthodox? romanorthodox.com/ - they seem to be some kind of western rite…

From the photo on that website, they seem to be some kind of “Western Rite” that operates out of a living room.

One thing I find interesting on that website is the lack of any indication of with whom they are in communion. Another is the conspicuous (to me, anyway) absence of any indication of Apostolic Succession.

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

What about Roman Orthodox? romanorthodox.com/ - they seem to be some kind of western rite…

Hmmm. Slippery wording. Roman, but not Papal. Orthodox, but not eastern. Sounds iffy to me.:nope:

 

[Harpazo]

Why would it matter to anyone else but the Maronites if they were once monothelite or not? ISTM that’s an internal matter among Maronites.

Blessings

I think most Catholics would care, because to them it proves something that they “always stayed true to Rome.” Why doesn’t it matter to you as a Coptic Catholic?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Hesychios]

This is from maryourmother.net/Eastern.html
“Little was heard from the Maronites for 400 years, as they quietly escaped the Muslim invasions in the mountains of Lebanon, until the Crusader Raymond of Toulouse discovered the Maronites in the mountains near Tripoli, Lebanon on his way to conquer Jerusalem. The Maronites again confirmed their loyalty to the Pope in 1181. The Maronite Patriarch Jeremiah attended the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and the Maronite College in Rome was inaugurated in 1584. The Maronites have always remained true to Rome.” (my emphasis)

Interestingly, the First Crusade passed through Lebanon in about 1098AD.

Their ‘reaffirmation’ occurred in 1181AD, about 83 years later, or about four generations. This was just before the Third Crusade and the area was partly of the County of Tripoli and/or the Kingdom of Jerusalem continuously. One wonders what sort of communion they shared before that date for eighty years when they were definitely not lost.

Secondly, it is noteworthy that the Melkites were definitely not in communion with the Maronites for hundreds of years, yet knew of them and dealt with them as neighbors, while the Melkites were in communion with Rome (the Melkites being essentially the one Eastern Catholic church in the region, the representative Catholic church). The reaffirmation had taken place after the Melkites and Rome had a falling out (some time between 1054AD and 1100AD).

The island of Cyprus came under crusader control in 1192, several years after the reaffirmation of 1181AD. The Maronites of that island (a community which still exists) seemingly arrived on Cyprus about 700 years ago or more (during the occupation by westerners), possibly about 128 years after the ‘reaffirmation’. The community is recorded to have come into communion with Rome only in 1445AD at the Council of Florence. Did these come to the island and then break with Rome? Or did they arrive on the island already out of communion?

The claim that an eastern people like the Maronites never broke with Rome is pretty fudgey, but it makes for great propaganda.

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

Interestingly, the First Crusade passed through Lebanon in about 1098AD.

Their ‘reaffirmation’ occurred in 1181AD, about 83 years later, or about four generations. This was just before the Third Crusade and the area was partly of the County of Tripoli and/or the Kingdom of Jerusalem continuously. One wonders what sort of communion they shared before that date for eighty years when they were definitely not lost.

Secondly, it is noteworthy that the Melkites were definitely not in communion with the Maronites for hundreds of years, yet knew of them and dealt with them as neighbors, while the Melkites were in communion with Rome (the Melkites being essentially the one Eastern Catholic church in the region, the representative Catholic church). The reaffirmation had taken place after the Melkites and Rome had a falling out (some time between 1054AD and 1100AD).

The island of Cyprus came under crusader control in 1192, several years after the reaffirmation of 1181AD. The Maronites of that island (a community which still exists) seemingly arrived on Cyprus about 700 years ago or more (during the occupation by westerners), possibly about 128 years after the ‘reaffirmation’. The community is recorded to have come into communion with Rome only in 1445AD at the Council of Florence. Did these come to the island and then break with Rome? Or did they arrive on the island already out of communion?

The claim that an eastern people like the Maronites never broke with Rome is pretty fudgey, but it makes for great propaganda.

Fudgey? It’s their history. Take it up with them.:tsktsk:

 

[Addai]

Interestingly, the First Crusade passed through Lebanon in about 1098AD.

The claim that an eastern people like the Maronites never broke with Rome is pretty fudgey, but it makes for great propaganda.

“Full communion is a term used in Christian ecclesiology to describe the relationship of communion, with mutually recognized sharing of the same essential doctrines, between a Christian community and other communities or between that community and individuals.[1]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunion#Protestant_Churches

I don’t see anywhere in the definitions where a loss of radio contact for X number of years breaks communion. Such a claim itself is strange for a person belonging to a Church that advocates an “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” (more than a “Body Ecclesiology”).

The terms of the Maronites might seem a bit grandiose given the hundreds of years they have been out of contact at times etc. But might your seeing this as “fudgey” really be because you deny the historically legitimate possibility of Papal Supremacy, so you dismiss this claim “as a given” because you find its obvious implications abhorrent?

 

[mardukm]

I think most Catholics would care, because to them it proves something that they “always stayed true to Rome.” Why doesn’t it matter to you as a Coptic Catholic?

The only reason I can think of is that I’m not a crade Catholic. When I was an Oriental Orthodox not in communion with Rome, I didn’t go around concerning myself with the affairs of my Syriac brethren. I guess I’ve carried that mentality over to the Catholic Church. Whatever the history of my Maronite brethren is or was, it doesn’t affect my relationship with them today.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

The only reason I can think of is that I’m not a crade Catholic. When I was an Oriental Orthodox not in communion with Rome, I didn’t go around concerning myself with the affairs of my Syriac brethren. I guess I’ve carried that mentality over to the Catholic Church. Whatever the history of my Maronite brethren is or was, it doesn’t affect my relationship with them today.

Whether it was true or not, the matter is long resolved and is little more than a historical footnote which no longer means anything. So no, the OO don’t usually get worked up over it. Neither do the RC, for quite the same reason.

That, of course, leaves us with the EO, where the story is, and has been for ages, quite different. But I’ve been around this forum long enough, and have not the least interest in saying more so I’m leaving it at that. No further comment from me.

 

[Madaglan]

“Full communion is a term used in Christian ecclesiology to describe the relationship of communion, with mutually recognized sharing of the same essential doctrines, between a Christian community and other communities or between that community and individuals.[1]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunion#Protestant_Churches

I don’t see anywhere in the definitions where a loss of radio contact for X number of years breaks communion. Such a claim itself is strange for a person belonging to a Church that advocates an “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” (more than a “Body Ecclesiology”).

The terms of the Maronites might seem a bit grandiose given the hundreds of years they have been out of contact at times etc. But might your seeing this as “fudgey” really be because you deny the historically legitimate possibility of Papal Supremacy, so you dismiss this claim “as a given” because you find its obvious implications abhorrent?

For my part, I haven’t seen evidence of a formal break of communion. This said, I also don’t see any reason to believe that the Maronites for 400 years were ultramontanists isolated but ever-yearning to seek the guidance of their father, the Pope of Rome. For the 400 years, did they once write to the Pope of Rome?

Did they claim to always be in communion with the Pope of Rome because they always believed in his supremacy? Or, did they claim to always be in communion with the Pope of Rome because from the beginning of those 400 years to its conclusion there was no cause (or opportunity) for break of communion? The belief here seems to be that, since the Maronites presented no issue with Papal supremacy when the West re-discovered them, the Maronites had always held to Papal supremacy…

Admittedly, a lot of the Maronite history seems shrouded in mystery to me, but I’d be interested in hearing what the early Maronites had to say about the Pope of Rome.

 

[Cecilianus]

For my part, I haven’t seen evidence of a formal break of communion. This said, I also don’t see any reason to believe that the Maronites for 400 years were ultramontanists isolated but ever-yearning to seek the guidance of their father, the Pope of Rome. For the 400 years, did they once write to the Pope of Rome?

Did they claim to always be in communion with the Pope of Rome because they always believed in his supremacy? Or, did they claim to always be in communion with the Pope of Rome because from the beginning of those 400 years to its conclusion there was no cause (or opportunity) for break of communion? The belief here seems to be that, since the Maronites presented no issue with Papal supremacy when the West re-discovered them, the Maronites had always held to Papal supremacy…

Admittedly, a lot of the Maronite history seems shrouded in mystery to me, but I’d be interested in hearing what the early Maronites had to say about the Pope of Rome.

Why would they need to write to the Pope? They’re perfectly capable of managing their own affairs. One can acknowledge Papal supremacy without needing to be in contact with the Pope. Papal supremacy doesn’t mean micromanagement.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t see anywhere in the definitions where a loss of radio contact for X number of years breaks communion. Such a claim itself is strange for a person belonging to a Church that advocates an “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” (more than a “Body Ecclesiology”).

The terms of the Maronites might seem a bit grandiose given the hundreds of years they have been out of contact at times etc. But might your seeing this as “fudgey” really be because you deny the historically legitimate possibility of Papal Supremacy, so you dismiss this claim “as a given” because you find its obvious implications abhorrent?

By your standards the Pope of Alexandria could probably claim the church at Toledo never broke communion with them.

There is no evidence at all that the Maronites were actually in communion with anyone for several centuries. They were definitely out of communion with other eastern Catholics, and that is a historical fact documented in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

This would be like the Ukrainian Catholics not being in communion with the Syro-Malabar Catholics, although they are both in communion with Rome. Does anyone really believe that scenario is possible? It is a major principle that Catholics can receive the sacraments in any Catholic church, of whatever rite.

Another canard is that these people were somehow lost or missing. They were definitely rural mountain folk, but they were not on Mars. All of their neighbors were aware of them and there was contact. Even the Melkites and Jacobites were aware of what they believed, and I suspect there was trade and intermarriage to some extent.

You cast aspersions on my motives, but this is the same position I held when I was a Catholic, and there are many Catholic scholars (judging by what was written in the CE) who have held the same opinion… so your contention does not hold water.

 

[Madaglan]

Why would they need to write to the Pope? They’re perfectly capable of managing their own affairs. One can acknowledge Papal supremacy without needing to be in contact with the Pope. Papal supremacy doesn’t mean micromanagement.

Of course they’re capable of managing their own affairs.

Yet, during those 400 years, to whom did they appeal when there was any issue that created local unrest?

 

[Hesychios]

Fudgey? It’s their history. Take it up with them.:tsktsk:

If you are tooting their horn, and spreading unsubstantiated claims as propaganda, I’ll take it up with you.

 

[Cecilianus]

Of course they’re capable of managing their own affairs.

Yet, during those 400 years, to whom did they appeal when there was any issue that created local unrest?

Like what?

I’m not aware that they have had any issues causing any unrest. Nor am I aware of them having any since.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

By your standards the Pope of Alexandria could probably claim the church at Toledo never broke communion with them.

That would be an inaccurate comparison. The Coptic Orthodox Church has never claimed that there was some kind of remnant of Coptic Orthodox Christianity or non-Chalcedonian Christianity in Spain. It was only in 2001 that HH Pope Shenoute established a mission in Spain to meet the needs of emigrant Copts.

Blessings

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

By your standards the Pope of Alexandria could probably claim the church at Toledo never broke communion with them.

How did you come up with that?You’re stretching.

There is no evidence at all that the Maronites were actually in communion with anyone for several centuries. They were definitely out of communion with other eastern Catholics, and that is a historical fact documented in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

They were in communion with Rome. If you’re talking about the CE online, it’s 100 years out of date.

It is a major principle that Catholics can receive the sacraments in any Catholic church, of whatever rite.

This is true, but it’s not recommended.

Another canard is that these people were somehow lost or missing.

I believe you originally brought this up.

You cast aspersions on my motives, but this is the same position I held when I was a Catholic, and there are many Catholic scholars (judging by what was written in the CE) who have held the same opinion… so your contention does not hold water.

See above.

 

[Cecilianus]

This is true, but it’s not recommended.

Why in the world not? I’ve never heard that before. I receive communion every week at a church of a different rite than the one I was officially registered in when I became Catholic.