Maronite Monks of Adoration

[dvdjs]

Again, though, if we take ECCs to be essentially “Orthodox in communion Rome”…that’s an “if”. If you don’t, that’s fine, I don’t begrudge you for it.I just wasn’t aware. And I hope you can recognize in a dispassionate fashion that with such a wide variety of opinions along the spectrum of ideologies found among Eastern and Oriental Catholics (in addition to the fact that this terminology does not make sense with regard to the Maronites, since they have no Orthodox counterpart), it is really, really hard to come up with some argument that will not offend anyone. The only thing that might be more difficult, of course…

Since you ask: I don’t object to, but I don’t use the OiCwR terminology. I think the reason it is hard is that we are trying to create a category for something that we admit that we cannot define, so instead of objective criteria we wind up with objectionable criteria.

I disagree with you, anyhow. We don’t need to come up with some sort of definition for Latinization if the members of the church under consideration tell us that a given practice is a Latinization. And that is just what has happened in this thread on numerous occasions, which have been ignored or dismissed more or less out of hand. This is why I have formed the low opinion of the defenses of this monastery and its practices, and argued a bit more forcefully than may seem necessary in defense of an apparently unpopular position. So be it. The practices of this monastery as far as we can tell from the video are not in keeping with Maronite tradition, and no appeals to obedience to the bishop under which they operate will make them so.

There must be objective criteria otherwise we would risk, by ignorance, eliminating authentic elements of tradition. Moreover, what we have seen if that some members say “Latinization”, some may say “Latin genes but organically adapted and adopted” - and thus not something to be removed, even by Vatican urgings - and some may say “not a Latinization in any substantive sense.”

Of course there will contention. Are you under the impression that any renewal or for that matter other large undertaking among any large group of people will not breed contention?

But there is contention and contention. “Do we have to?” form the lax versus “You think you know better than my spritual fathers and ancestors?” form the pious.

I can’t speak for anyone here who might or might not operate under the same or a different motto. I can only guess that those things that inhibit the restoration are what need to be jettisoned, regardless of what you label them as.

I am not clear on your point but I would suggest that IMO the most stubborn problem against restoration is the implicit denigration of our own past. That;s why i think more can be accomplished by appealing to the treasures of our patrimony than be treating the path of our ancestors like an absessed tooth that must be extracted.

I invite you to read…

Thanks for the suggestion. The truth is that I am far enough behind in things I want to read regarding my own tradition, that it will take years to get around to this work. I will keep quiet on the Maronites.

 

[dvdjs]

And I believe you when you say that the interactions with the Latins did not have much or anything to do with the losses your church has suffered.

Just to clarify: There certainly was a connection in 1890’s and 1930’s. But the decline in numbers since, say the 1975, had little if any direct connection to* actions* of the Latins. Many may go to Latin churches for “convenience” (I am a six hour drive from the closest EC church), and a few who find themselves more absorbed in the dynamics of this relationship than in prayer and service, they often, but not always bolt.

I should bow out of the conversation. My apologies if I have caused you to feel any anger or frustration at any point. Peace.

I apologize if I give the sense that I was angry or frustrated with your comments. Your comments simply made me want to respond. I appreciated your willingness to converse.

 

[dvdjs]

Since you ask: I don’t object to, but I don’t use the OiCwR terminology. I think the reason it is hard is that we are trying to create a category for something that we admit that we cannot define, so instead of objective criteria we wind up with objectionable criteria.

There must be objective criteria otherwise we would risk, by ignorance, eliminating authentic elements of tradition. Moreover, what we have seen if that some members say “Latinization”, some may say “Latin genes but organically adapted and adopted” - and thus not something to be removed, even by Vatican urgings - and some may say “not a Latinization in any substantive sense.”

Burt there is contention and contention. “Do we have to?” form the lax versus “You think you know better than my spritual fathers and ancestors?” form the pious.

I am not clear on your point but I would suggest that IMO the most stubborn problem against restoration is the implicit denigration of our own past. That;s why i think more can be accomplished by appealing to the treasures of our patrimony than be treating the path of our ancestors like an absessed tooth that must be extracted.

Thanks for the suggestion. The truth is that I am far enough behind in things I want to read regarding my own tradition, that it will take years to get around to this work. I will keep quiet on the Maronites.

 

[frmgc]

It’s what I have been told, by a number of people.

And you’ve been wrong about what others told you before. Even your own eyewitness account is wrong:

I visited this monastery a few years ago…when I was there most of the community were Filipinos…

At most we have had exactly one Filipino monk. He returned to the Philippines 8 years ago. At most, we have had two Filipino candidates and they weren’t here at the same time. Sorry, Ciero, you’re credibility is low. Now, that’s my word against yours. You can check by contacting the monastery or any monk who has been here as long as I have or anyone who has known us longer than the extent of your visit here.

As for Eucharistic adoration being called a “Latinization”, my point isn’t that the Maronites weren’t influence by the west, but that it is a characteristic of ordinary growth in grace to worship Christ in the Eucharist. Maronites aren’t forbidden to grow that way, are they? It’s not something we tried to impose on the Maronites, it’s something that has grown within their own people and saints over time. The Synod of Mt. Lebanon (1736) legislated for a text for the feast of Corpus Christi. There must have been enough interest before 1736 to prompt them, no?

The manifest example of St. Sharbel and St. Nimtallah who literally spent hours on their knees with eyes fixed on the tabernacle every day and every night are witnesses not only that this was done, but that it was fruitful within the Maronite tradition. Read Fr. Iskandar’s biography and the eyewitness testimony for St. Sharbel or Fr. Sfeir’s biography of St. Nimtallah.

Even Blessed Pope JP2 recognized these historical facts when he declared St. Rafka a patroness of Eucharistic Adoration in the Jubilee year 2000.

As an anecdote, Bishop Zayek told us how a muslim cab driver in NYC once asked him: “Are you Christian?”
“Yes,” said the bishop.
“And you believe that Jesus is God?”
“Yes.”
“And you believe that Jesus is in the host?”
“Yes.”
“I don’t believe you” said the muslim.
“Why not?”
“Because you don’t act like it. If I believed what you said, I would throw myself on the ground whenever I went into a church.”

Now, friends, all good things (in this world) come to an end. So, I promise I won’t post anymore on this forum since I need to attend to monkish things. And I promise I’ll pray for you.

United in adoration of Jesus,

fr. michael gilmary, mma

 

[keefabarmorun]

shlomo 'amkhun,

In relation to the Maronite Council of 1736, despite the romanticisation that some Syriac Maronites have with regards to the Council of 1736, it was called against the will of the Syriac Maronite Church (the primary reason being the implementation of the Council of Trent – see the many examples of this prior to the Council of 1736, such as the 1594 Latinised Qurbono). The Council of 1736 was written by Msgr. Joseph Assemani (a famous Maronite) in Rome (with Rome’s endorsement), who took it to Lebanon and got everyone to sign it (virtually as is – even though previously some of the proposed reforms had been rejected.) This Council had two objectives: 1) to put down the Syriac Maronite Church’s resistance to Latinisation – please review historical texts for confirmation of this; and 2) the Arabisation of the Syriac Maronites, so that Muslims may accept the Maronites more and so that Christianity may be made available to the Muslims in a language they understand – this was damaging, because the Syriac Maronites had resisted Arabisation that was imposed on them in the 14th century and because the Syriac language united them together with their Fathers and their patrimony. The Arabic written during the period of the 14th century was weak and showed more knowledge of Syriac than Arabic. Despite this, Syriac was used as a day to day language until the beginning of the 20th century in some areas and the Latinisation of the Syriac Maronite Church continued to be resisted.

The Second Vatican Council was no help either, as although it encouraged the Eastern Churches to return to their authentic traditions (i.e. liberating them from Latinisation.) It encouraged Vernacular-ism that put another nail in the unity of the Syriac Maronite Church (Vernacular-ism became another excuse for Arabisation, even though the Lebanese (Arabised-Syriac) language that Maronites speak is different than Classical Arabic.) The post Second Vatican Council innovations created and continue to create tension within the Syriac Maronite Church, as they (those that had supported Latinisation) think that imitating these innovations means that they are showing themselves in communion with the Pope in Rome. The tension between those holding to the Authentic Antiochan Syriac Maronite Tradition and the Syriac language, and those that seek to imitate the post-Second Vatican Council innovations (AKA the Arabist-Latinisers), this tension continues to this day to be felt within the Church.

The negative effects of the 1736 Council have caused so much damage to the Antiochan Syriac Maronite Church that we continue to struggle to overcome them to this day, and this has been made worse by the post-Vatican II innovations’ imitators. The 2006 Syriac Maronite Church synod was called to address these damages and to restore the authentic Antiochan Syriac Maronite Tradition. Currently the implementation of the 2006 synod is being held up by those who hold to Latinisation and Arabisation.

Let us pray that God opens up their hearts and minds and leads them away from that which breaks the Apostolic continuity of our Antiochan Syriac Maronite Tradition. bshem abo wabro wruHo dqudsho Had aloho shariro, amin!

For those interested in resources with regards to the Antiochan Syriac Maronite Church, go to www.beith-morounoye.org

PS. Some of what is mentioned above is now freely available online through the Internet, thanks to effort to digitise manuscripts – a knowledge of Syriac, Garshouni, Arabic, Latin, and French would be helpful for anyone doing this type of research.

push(w) bashlomo,
keefa bar morun