Maronite Monks of Adoration

[Apotheoun]

Actually Orthodoxy rejects it. Rome very clearly endorses it: properly disposed orthodox are welcomed to communion in Catholic Church. Rome criticized as premature were piecemeal attempts at re-union operating outside of the effort for corporate re-union of the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

I am aware of the fact that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate, like Rome, rejected the initiative endorsed by the Melkite Catholic Holy Synod, but - even though it did not accept the 1995 initiative - intercommunion in the home territory of the Melkite Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is already happening. I guess that is what happens when you have members of families who belong to two different Churches.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex,

We will not agree on the filioque, and you should know that by now, having read the things I have written over the course of many years. There is NO place for the Latin filioque in the Byzantine tradition. I maintain that the Father alone is the sole cause, principle, and font of divinity within the Godhead, and nothing will make me waver from that doctrinal truth.

Christos Voskrese!
Todd

Voistynnu Voskrese!

My parish does not use the Filioque and I don’t when I say the Creed. (All your fault!! ).

I’m only referring to a particular historic, socio-cultural phenomenon that occurred in the life of the UGCC. Today, the UGCC is not a promoter of the Filioque and our bishops have agreed with their Orthodox counterparts to keep to the original Creed.

There are certain Latin-originating devotions that are popular in both the EC and Orthodox Churches, including the Passia. I wouldn’t want to tell them to get rid of them. And besides, they wouldn’t listen to us if we did.

But getting back to the removal of “pretending,” , how can anyone say they are in communion with Rome or a Byzantine Catholic if they believe the papacy to be a man-made institution and therefore rejects the papal dogmas?

I understand where YOU are coming from on the Papacy. But if you affirm as you do, why do you hang onto the EC moniker? Aren’t you really “Orthodox in communion with other Orthodox?”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that! (I admire your courage as well as your scholarship.)

In every which way, you are Orthodox. I’ll go further and say that I’ve never met a better informed Orthodox Christian layman as yourself. No empty praise, that’s just the way it is.

And you have thought out everything extremely well, on the basis of your in depth scholarly studies and perspectives.

So why would you want to continue to be in communion with a Rome you don’t agree with?

If you would rather not talk about this, I understand.

It’s always great to converse with you, O great Defender and Pillar of Orthodoxy!

Alex

 

[ciero]

I hold that the Latins should be Latin, and we Byzantines should be Byzantine. Moreover, let the Orientals be Oriental. Hybridization is the way to ecclesial death for the Eastern Catholic Churches. We cannot out Latin the Latins (heck the modern Latins are having a hard time being Latin themselves), but we can out Orthodox the Orthodox (St. Elias Church in Canada is a good example of that). Eastern Catholics need to make it so that the Orthodox can see that one can be fully Eastern and in communion with Rome. If we cannot do that our Churches are doomed to death, and ecumenism will suffer a set back that will last a thousand years.

Thank God for a voice of reason!!!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Thank God for a voice of reason!!!

However, pastoral sensitivity needs to be in place. Not everyone is as comfortable even with the word “Orthodox” as you, Ciero, and your friend, Todd!

You two . . .

Also, is ritual purity the only standard for “Orthodoxy?” Would the (real) Orthodox accept that one is truly “Orthodox” while in communion with Rome?

We’ve danced (liturgically) around this issue, but you (and your friend, Todd) are still defining it as Eastern Catholics would, not necessarily as Orthodox Christians would.

And I asked your friend how one could be so Orthodox with a view of the papacy as was defined, and still continue to “pretend” to be in a real, ontological union with Rome.

If you and your friend would be so kind as to forgive me in advance, are you two not being a tad (I didn’t say “Todd”) dishonest about your “communion with Rome?”

Would Rome accept such a basis for communion? Would Orthodoxy accept such a basis for being “Orthodox?” Or are you two trying to create a true ecclesial hybrid of your own that would make our EC Latinizations pale by comparison?

Thanks for that advance forgiveness, BTW!

Alex

 

[Apotheoun]

But getting back to the removal of “pretending,” , how can anyone say they are in communion with Rome or a Byzantine Catholic if they believe the papacy to be a man-made institution and therefore rejects the papal dogmas?

I understand where YOU are coming from on the Papacy. But if you affirm as you do, why do you hang onto the EC moniker? Aren’t you really “Orthodox in communion with other Orthodox?”

. . .

So why would you want to continue to be in communion with a Rome you don’t agree with?

If you would rather not talk about this, I understand.

It’s always great to converse with you, O great Defender and Pillar of Orthodoxy!

Alex

I remain a Melkite Catholic because I hold that Rome is orthodox, but I freely admit that many Roman Catholics misunderstand the nature of their own faith, because they confuse things that are historically peculiar to their local Church (i.e., the Latin Patriarchate) with the faith of the ecumenical Church (i.e., the whole of Christendom).

Why do the Latins do this? They do this because for almost a millennium they have wrongly believed that their Patriarchate is the ecumenical Church, when in fact it is not. It is but one Patriarchate within the Christian oecumene, and as a consequence its local synods were incapable of decreeing dogmas; instead, those councils only promulgated theologoumena, and of course no one is bound to accept theological opinions as divinely revealed dogmas (see Archbishop Zoghby’s book Ecumenical Reflections for a fuller treatment of the subject).

So I remain in communion with Rome as a Melkite Catholic because I know that Rome is not, nor could it ever be, the whole ecumenical Church. Moreover, the false notion that it was the ecumenical Church, which is still held by the vast majority of Latins, is simply an historical accident, i.e., a circumstance of history that cannot affect reality. That is why, as I am sure you already know, I constantly insist upon the fact that there have only been Seven Ecumenical Councils, and why I refuse to accord the Latin Church’s particular synods (and the local synods of the Eastern Churches too) ecumenical status.

To sum up my position, I remain Melkite Catholic because I believe that communion with Rome - properly understood - is possible, and that it does not necessitate spiritual, liturgical, or doctrinal Latinization.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I remain a Melkite Catholic because I hold that Rome is orthodox, but I freely admit that many Roman Catholics misunderstand the nature of their own faith, because they confuse things that are historically peculiar to their local Church (i.e., the Latin Patriarchate) with the faith of the ecumenical Church (i.e., the whole of Christendom).

Why do the Latins do this? They do this because for almost a millennium they have wrongly believed that their Patriarchate is the ecumenical Church, when in fact it is not. It is but one Patriarchate within the Christian oecumene, and as a consequence its local synods were incapable of decreeing dogmas; instead, those councils only promulgated theologoumena, and of course no one is bound to accept a theological opinions as divinely revealed dogmas (see Archbishop Zoghby’s book Ecumenical Reflections for a fuller treatment of the subject).

So I remain in communion with Rome as a Melkite Catholic because I know that Rome is not, nor could it ever be, the whole ecumenical Church. Moreover, the false notion that it was the ecumenical Church, which is still held by the vast majority of Latins, is simply an historical accident, i.e., a circumstance of history that cannot affect reality. That is why, as I am sure you already know, I constantly insist upon the fact that there have only been Seven Ecumenical Councils, and why I refuse to accord the Latin Church’s particular synods (and the local synods of the Eastern Churches too) ecumenical status.

To sum up my position, I remain Melkite Catholic because I believe that communion with Rome - properly understood - is possible, and that it does not necessitate spiritual, liturgical, or doctrinal Latinization.

Well, then I’m just going to have to agree with you . . .

I hate it when that happens . . . But I will take credit, if you please, for having something to do with getting you to come out and stating your position in a comprehensive and well put together way.

Cheers,

Alex

 

[dvdjs]

Thank God for a voice of reason!!!

What has been asked or and what has been lacking is the reasoning.

 

[dvdjs]

I am aware of the fact that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate, like Rome, rejected the initiative endorsed by the Melkite Catholic Holy Synod, but - even though it did not accept the 1995 initiative - intercommunion in the home territory of the Melkite Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church is already happening.

I hear that as well. This is a great thing.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Todd,

I remain a Melkite Catholic because I hold that Rome is orthodox, but I freely admit that many Roman Catholics misunderstand the nature of their own faith, because they confuse things that are historically peculiar to their local Church (i.e., the Latin Patriarchate) with the faith of the ecumenical Church (i.e., the whole of Christendom).

Why do the Latins do this? They do this because for almost a millennium they have wrongly believed that their Patriarchate is the ecumenical Church, when in fact it is not. It is but one Patriarchate within the Christian oecumene, and as a consequence its local synods were incapable of decreeing dogmas; instead, those councils only promulgated theologoumena, and of course no one is bound to accept theological opinions as divinely revealed dogmas (see Archbishop Zoghby’s book Ecumenical Reflections for a fuller treatment of the subject).

So I remain in communion with Rome as a Melkite Catholic because I know that Rome is not, nor could it ever be, the whole ecumenical Church. Moreover, the false notion that it was the ecumenical Church, which is still held by the vast majority of Latins, is simply an historical accident, i.e., a circumstance of history that cannot affect reality. That is why, as I am sure you already know, I constantly insist upon the fact that there have only been Seven Ecumenical Councils, and why I refuse to accord the Latin Church’s particular synods (and the local synods of the Eastern Churches too) ecumenical status.

To sum up my position, I remain Melkite Catholic because I believe that communion with Rome - properly understood - is possible, and that it does not necessitate spiritual, liturgical, or doctrinal Latinization.

I certainly have to agree with your position here, as well.

Now what do we do about those EO who promote EO uniatism and are not only content with rejecting Latinizations, but are also interested in destroying what genuinely, properly and correctly belongs to the Latin Church and are completely orthodox (use of statues, unleavened bread, filioque, doctrine of Atonement, original sin, etc., etc.), not to mention those who disrespect genuine Oriental theology (miaphyistism, doctrine of Atonement, Divine Justice, original sin, etc., etc.).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[abtsharrar]

I visited this monastery a few years ago…I’m sure the monks there are very holy…but there was nothing really Maronite about the place…everything was geared to Eucharistic adoration a very Latin thing…there were no Maronite members of the community…when I was there most of the community were Filipinos…with a very Western outlook. Just my :twocents:

Reply: In 1985 when the Maronite Monks of Adoration came to Petersham, there arrived at the same time Br. Craig Driscoll (no relation to the founder of the Maronite Monks) to establish his own Monks of Adoration. Brother Craig’s group brought in several Filipinos as possible new menbers. He maintained the Traditional Latin Rite with Latin Liturgy. Apparently that is the community you visited at the time of your visit. The Maronites had only one Filipino who has long since returned to the Fillippines. May I add now that when Our Blessed Lady appeared at Fatima, was her message only for Portugal, or merely for the Latins. Everyone I ever met has considered her appraitions to be universal and the same for Lourdes. And so with Eucharistic Adoration. It is universal in the Church of Jesus Christ. A Lebanese pastor related how in Lebanon every housewife has a rosary in her aprin pocket. Is that Latin. The Lebanese would answer Why latin - its Lebanese! The Lebanese are totally Antiochine in their liturgy and spirituality, and totally Catholic in their observance of that Abt Sharrar.

 

[Aramis]

A hybrid Church is not an Eastern Church, nor is it a Western Church for that matter; instead, it is something altogether novel.

Now as interesting as the idea of a hybrid Church may be to some people it is important to remember that the Eastern Catholic Churches have been entrusted with the specific mission of safeguarding their spiritual, doctrinal, and liturgical patrimony, and of course Latinizations are not a part of that inheritance, which is why they must be expunged in as timely a fashion as possible.

Actually, that’s only true in the 20th Century, and perhaps the last decade or two of the 19th.

In the 17th and 18th C’s, the role of the EC’s was explicitly to hybridize, to become a conduit between orthodoxy and the Roman Rite. Not all the bishops agreed on how; liturgical syncretism has been one of several approaches. Until the 20th C, the hybrid praxis in the Ukraine was seen as an ideal; liturgically adapted to remain byzantine, but incorporating the theology of Rome and the praxis of Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t Western Orthodoxy by definition a hybrid Church? How long will that last? If reunion occurs, will the Western Orthodox return to their genuinely Latin roots?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

A hybrid Church is not an Eastern Church, nor is it a Western Church for that matter; instead, it is something altogether novel.

Now as interesting as the idea of a hybrid Church may be to some people it is important to remember that the Eastern Catholic Churches have been entrusted with the specific mission of safeguarding their spiritual, doctrinal, and liturgical patrimony …

Says who?

The mission of our church is to advance the salvation of its members. We are confident that the the tradition, theology, and a ritual patrimony of our church is efficacious for that mission, and therefore we are careful not to tamper with that in ways that may perhaps be counter productive to that mission.

Finally, if it becomes clear that Latinizations are truly unavoidable it follows that it would be unwise for the Eastern Orthodox Churches to ever consider entering into communion with the Latin Church; and moreover, those Eastern Catholics who cherish their ecclesial traditions would have to consider conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy as the only way to maintain their legitimate spiritual, doctrinal, and liturgical heritage.

This reasoning is too fuzzy to be useful. First, we must think about the whats and whys. What Latinzation is truly unavoidable and why is it unavoidable. In some cases what you write may be correct, in others it may not. People might simply cherish whatever it is that they are familiar with, and regard any idea “not invented here” as a threat to their tradition. Such an outlook could lead to a reaction against “daily” celebration of the liturgy, or frequent reception of communion.

These matters are worth some consideration, not just posturing and sloganeering.

 

[frmgc]

I visited this monastery a few years ago…I’m sure the monks there are very holy…but there was nothing really Maronite about the place…everything was geared to Eucharistic adoration a very Latin thing…there were no Maronite members of the community…when I was there most of the community were Filipinos…with a very Western outlook. Just my :twocents:

They served the Maronite Liturgy with Latinizations…looked nothing like the Maronite Liturgies I have attended in the Lebanon.

From what I’ve been able to gather…the founder could not find a Latin Rite bishop to allow him to found a monastery within their jurisdiction…the Maronite bishop did…with all the Latinizations is tow!

Ciero’s claims are denied by me, Fr. Michael Gilmary Cermak, MMA. I am a monk-priest here at Most Holy Trinity Monastery and began here in 1989. I’ve had plenty of experience of our liturgy here over the last 22 years. Ciero claims that we’re introducing or maintaining “latinizations” which Church authority forbids. So, effectively, he accuses us of disobedience.

So, where’s the evidence?

I invite you, Ciero, either produce evidence that can be examined or retract your serious charge against us. You have so far done neither. You haven’t yet tried to contact me via email or private message from this list. I’m concerned for your soul … you seem to be bearing false witness against the priests and monks of this monastery.

You can visit our website maronitemonks.org/Mhtm.htm and on the left side of the page is a column where you can click on “Vocations” and at the bottom of that page is the email contact info as well as the address and telephone. Why not make contact? What have you got to lose?

This thread was begun by asking about our monastery and only one or two answered the OP. My concern was to defend our monastery against the erroneous and false claims made against us.

Are you interested in the truth, Ciero?

United in adoration of Jesus,

fr. michael gilmary, mma

 

[ciero]

Reply: In 1985 when the Maronite Monks of Adoration came to Petersham, there arrived at the same time Br. Craig Driscoll (no relation to the founder of the Maronite Monks) to establish his own Monks of Adoration. Brother Craig’s group brought in several Filipinos as possible new menbers. He maintained the Traditional Latin Rite with Latin Liturgy. Apparently that is the community you visited at the time of your visit. The Maronites had only one Filipino who has long since returned to the Fillippines. May I add now that when Our Blessed Lady appeared at Fatima, was her message only for Portugal, or merely for the Latins. Everyone I ever met has considered her appraitions to be universal and the same for Lourdes. And so with Eucharistic Adoration. It is universal in the Church of Jesus Christ. A Lebanese pastor related how in Lebanon every housewife has a rosary in her aprin pocket. Is that Latin. The Lebanese would answer Why latin - its Lebanese! The Lebanese are totally Antiochine in their liturgy and spirituality, and totally Catholic in their observance of that Abt Sharrar.

During my visit to Petersham I visited 3 monastic communities, yours, the Benedictines and the traditional Latin one.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Bless, Father Michael!

I liked very much your words about your community on the site!

What particularly struck me was your comment about how the Hours of the Divine Praises belong to all Christians, whether they are monastic or lay.

At that point, I had to stop and close my eyes to ponder what you said so movingly.

As an oblate of St Benedict, I know that the daily Office is an important source for holiness. It is a source that is open to us all.

I used to worry about being able to “say it all” but it is really like a Fountain from which there gushes forth refreshing waters and which we are invited to drink as much as we can from, as we can.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

 

[ciero]

Ciero’s claims are denied by me, Fr. Michael Gilmary Cermak, MMA. I am a monk-priest here at Most Holy Trinity Monastery and began here in 1989. I’ve had plenty of experience of our liturgy here over the last 22 years. Ciero claims that we’re introducing or maintaining “latinizations” which Church authority forbids. So, effectively, he accuses us of disobedience.

So, where’s the evidence?

I invite you, Ciero, either produce evidence that can be examined or retract your serious charge against us. You have so far done neither. You haven’t yet tried to contact me via email or private message from this list. I’m concerned for your soul … you seem to be bearing false witness against the priests and monks of this monastery.

You can visit our website maronitemonks.org/Mhtm.htm and on the left side of the page is a column where you can click on “Vocations” and at the bottom of that page is the email contact info as well as the address and telephone. Why not make contact? What have you got to lose?

This thread was begun by asking about our monastery and only one or two answered the OP. My concern was to defend our monastery against the erroneous and false claims made against us.

Are you interested in the truth, Ciero?

United in adoration of Jesus,

fr. michael gilmary, mma

Holy Father; You ask for evidence of Latinizations in your monastery. I believe the video of your monastery posted at the beginning of this link is proof enough of Latinizations, but I will elaborate just a few. I do NOT believe I have born false witness against you or your monastery. I would also like to state that it is no one business (especially mine) what devotions you choose to practice within your monastery, or how you choose to live your life within the church. That is your business and the business of the other monks. But to claim that certain practices are not a Latinization is just untrue. So having said that I will respond to your post.

I visited your monastery in the early 1990’s, while in Petersham I also visited the Benedictine communities as well as the traditional group in town.

First off…just look at the name of your monastery and it’s focus. “Adoration” is hardly a traditional Maronite practice…no matter how you spin it. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (as venerable a tradition it is in the West) has no foundation anywhere in the East. Another poster here on this thread claiming to be a monk from your monastery says that this came from contact with the French in the Lebanon…this is PROBABLY true…but to be honest the French are Latins…therefor a LATINIZATION.

Monks living a life of enclosure in a cloister…hardly Eastern…or traditional Maronite, probably done since contact with the French…but again a Latinization.

The praying of the rosary.

Liturgy prayed facing the people…call it what you will a modernization or whatever…it comes from the Latins.

The fact that the 1962 Roman Rite was being prayed at all in your monastery even in a private chapel shows a certain amount of Latinization.

My only reason for this post at all is after posting MY impression of a visit to your monastery, I was attacked by you as bearing false witness. I truly believe you lead a holy life in your monastery…but I also believe you are kidding yourself if you think that certain practices you live don’t come from the Latin tradition.

Begging your prayers and blessing.
Ciero

 

[dzheremi]

It is self-evident that these things are Latinizations. I don’t think it’s anything to be ashamed of or hide from, but at the same time should not be taken as normative if the call to return to roots is to be taken as seriously in the Syriac Maronite Church as any of the other Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches to which it applies. A real effort in this area would require massive doses of “Syriacization”, and you’re not going to get that following anyone in Lebanon or anywhere else who isn’t similarly committed (no French, no Arabs). From conversations with Malphono here on CAF, I am under the impression that the only way to go in Lebanon itself is the OAM. In America, it is…not the monastery in the video.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What would be “Syriacizations” then? That is very interesting!

Alex

 

[The_Monk]

Holy Father; You ask for evidence of Latinizations in your monastery. I believe the video of your monastery posted at the beginning of this link is proof enough of Latinizations, but I will elaborate just a few. I do NOT believe I have born false witness against you or your monastery. I would also like to state that it is no one business (especially mine) what devotions you choose to practice within your monastery, or how you choose to live your life within the church. That is your business and the business of the other monks. But to claim that certain practices are not a Latinization is just untrue. So having said that I will respond to your post.

I visited your monastery in the early 1990’s, while in Petersham I also visited the Benedictine communities as well as the traditional group in town.

First off…just look at the name of your monastery and it’s focus. “Adoration” is hardly a traditional Maronite practice…no matter how you spin it. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (as venerable a tradition it is in the West) has no foundation anywhere in the East. Another poster here on this thread claiming to be a monk from your monastery says that this came from contact with the French in the Lebanon…this is PROBABLY true…but to be honest the French are Latins…therefor a LATINIZATION.

Monks living a life of enclosure in a cloister…hardly Eastern…or traditional Maronite, probably done since contact with the French…but again a Latinization.

The praying of the rosary.

Liturgy prayed facing the people…call it what you will a modernization or whatever…it comes from the Latins.

The fact that the 1962 Roman Rite was being prayed at all in your monastery even in a private chapel shows a certain amount of Latinization.

My only reason for this post at all is after posting MY impression of a visit to your monastery, I was attacked by you as bearing false witness. I truly believe you lead a holy life in your monastery…but I also believe you are kidding yourself if you think that certain practices you live don’t come from the Latin tradition.

Begging your prayers and blessing.
Ciero

Ciero,

Your above observations apply to the Maronite Church, not just this monastery.