Maronites and Syriac Orthodox/Catholic

[Leo_The_Great]

It would seem that the cultural conditions that first prompted the founding of the Maronite Church are no longer relevant.

Can anyone see a day when the Maronite Church is re-absorbed into the Syriac Catholic Church?

 

[mardukm]

I don’t know. From my understanding, the Maronites formally adhere to a diophysite Christology, while the Syriac Catholics are miaphysites (or should be). If, for example, the Syriac Orthodox and the Catholic Church should ever reunite (which has the best possibility of any of the apostolic churches), the Syriac Catholic Church would be miaphysite, I would think. That would distinguish them from the Maronites.

However, if the Syriac Catholic Church is currently diophysite, and reunion with the Syriac Orthodox Church is achieved, I would think that it is the Syriac Catholic Church which would be absorbed into the diophysite Maronite Church, and the miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Catholics would have a separate hierarchy.

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

From my understanding, the Maronites formally adhere to a diophysite Christology, while the Syriac Catholics are miaphysites (or should be).

If they are under the Pope they will be diophysites, for sure (at least formally, although I would say it is not as big a difference as people make it out to be). This will have entailed an adjustment for them when they joined the communion.

The Maronite church is very much larger than the Syriac Catholic church, which is tiny by any reckoning.

It would be interesting to see the two Sui Iuris particular churches jointly elect a patriarch, but to me the best scenario would be if the Maronites asked the Syriac Catholic patriarch to accept the office. I doubt that will ever happen for several reasons.

The Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) would be miaphysites.

 

[malphono]

It would seem that the cultural conditions that first prompted the founding of the Maronite Church are no longer relevant.

What “cultural” conditions?

Can anyone see a day when the Maronite Church is re-absorbed into the Syriac Catholic Church?

No.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Can anyone see a day when the Maronite Church is re-absorbed into the Syriac Catholic Church?

No. For one, they are not Churches of the same rite. It would be like a Byzantine Church being absorbed into the Armenian Church.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know. From my understanding, the Maronites formally adhere to a diophysite Christology, while the Syriac Catholics are miaphysites (or should be). If, for example, the Syriac Orthodox and the Catholic Church should ever reunite (which has the best possibility of any of the apostolic churches), the Syriac Catholic Church would be miaphysite, I would think. That would distinguish them from the Maronites.

However, if the Syriac Catholic Church is currently diophysite, and reunion with the Syriac Orthodox Church is achieved, I would think that it is the Syriac Catholic Church which would be absorbed into the diophysite Maronite Church, and the miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Catholics would have a separate hierarchy.

Blessings

Marduk,

I question how you can say that the Catholic Church is united, if there are doctrinal differences between different sui juris churches.

Note that I’m not arguing for theological uniformity. But if you have theological differences that preclude being under the same bishops or part of the same congregations, then what you have is doctrinal difference and not unity.

At this point I don’t see any difference between your vision of unity and that of evangelical Protestants, who think it’s fine to belong to different denominations as long as they all recognize each other as true believers.

Edwin

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Contarini,

Marduk,

I question how you can say that the Catholic Church is united, if there are doctrinal differences between different sui juris churches.

Note that I’m not arguing for theological uniformity. But if you have theological differences that preclude being under the same bishops or part of the same congregations, then what you have is doctrinal difference and not unity.

At this point I don’t see any difference between your vision of unity and that of evangelical Protestants, who think it’s fine to belong to different denominations as long as they all recognize each other as true believers.

Edwin

What difference in doctrine are you speaking of? Every OOC has signed a formal Christological Agreement with the Catholic Church. There are different doctrinal expressions and formulations, but as far as the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Churches are concerned, we all share the same Christological Faith.

I am a miaphysite Catholic. I know maybe a handful of miaphysite Catholics in real life, and there are probably only really are a handful of us . But being miaphysite does not contradict the Catholic Faith.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

What difference in doctrine are you speaking of? Every OOC has signed a formal Christological Agreement with the Catholic Church. There are different doctrinal expressions and formulations, but as far as the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Churches are concerned, we all share the same Christological Faith.

I am a miaphysite Catholic. I know maybe a handful of miaphysite Catholics in real life, and there are probably only really are a handful of us . But being miaphysite does not contradict the Catholic Faith.

Forgive me for intruding, but none of this really has a bearing on the OP. I probably should have remarked earlier about that.

Actually, the very few vestiges of monophysitism (or I suppose the more politically correct term these days is “miaphysitism” but whatever) in the Syriac OC books were abandoned by the Syriac CC at the time of reunion. (I’ve been under the impression that the same is true of the Copts and the Armenians, but perhaps that is mistaken.)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Forgive me for intruding, but none of this really has a bearing on the OP. I probably should have remarked earlier about that.

As regards the Syriac CC and the Maronites, that’s probably true. I was more concerned about the situation if the SOC reunite with the CC, since the OP’s title mentions the Syriac Orthodox.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

As regards the Syriac CC and the Maronites, that’s probably true. I was more concerned about the situation if the SOC reunite with the CC, since the OP’s title mentions the Syriac Orthodox.

OK, gotcha But even with the SOC, the references to monophysitism are so vestigial that it presents no practical problem in and of itself.

Keep in mind, too, that the Maronites never succumbed to monophysitism. (That’s notwithstanding the accusations of monotholetism; even if true, that is ancient history and I’m not going there).

 

[Rites]

Definitely not. The Maronites have become far too distinct from any other branch of Syrian Christianity. They’ve developed their own traditions, rites, and customs, and historically are quite unique. I say let them hold on to what makes them their own Church.

The Syriac Catholic Church would be a much better candidate for “absorbtion” (and it’s really just reunification).

 

[Hesychios]

I am a miaphysite Catholic. I know maybe a handful of miaphysite Catholics in real life, and there are probably only really are a handful of us . But being miaphysite does not contradict the Catholic Faith.

Very interesting. I realize that there is some important difference between Monophysite Christology and Miaphysite Christology, but it is not clear to me what that actually is.

How then, in your opinion, does Miaphysite Christianity read the Tome of Leo? Can you quote some Miaphysite authorities on the subject, like the Pope of Alexandria or Catholicos of Armenia?

I am not challenging you on this, I am looking for some elaboration.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Very interesting. I realize that there is some important difference between Monophysite Christology and Miaphysite Christology, but it is not clear to me what that actually is.

Monophysitism and Miaphysitism share two theological terminologies:

1. “OF TWO NATURES.” Diophysitism, in distinction, uses the phrase “IN TWO NATURES.”
2. “ONE NATURE OF CHRIST.” Diophysitism, in distinction, uses the phrase “TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.”

However, the Monophysite heresy taught that the human nature of Christ was completely absorbed in his divine nature after the union, and no longer existed. This was the heresy of Eutyches which the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians both condemn.

In distinction from Monophysitism, Miaphysites don’t teach that the human nature of Christ disappeared after the union. We believe that the nature of Christ is one, but it is a composite of His human and divine natures.

The Christological Agreements between the OOC’s and the CC affirm that our Lord has two distinct Natures, human and Divine, which are joined hypostatically in the one Person of Jesus Christ, without confusion, without admixture, without change. The OOC’s admitted that the Catholics, by stressing the two natures, did not intend to deny the hypostatic union. The CC admitted that the OOC’s, by stressing the one (composite) nature, did not intend to deny that Christ in a real way had two distinct natures. Basically, our Churches agreed that even while utilizing different theological terminologies, they were teaching the same thing.

How then, in your opinion, does Miaphysite Christianity read the Tome of Leo? Can you quote some Miaphysite authorities on the subject, like the Pope of Alexandria or Catholicos of Armenia?

The OOC’s accept the Faith contained in the Tome of Pope St. Leo, as well as his refutation of Eutyches. but not necessarily the theological terminology. In particular, OOC’s do not accept the term “IN two natures” found in the Tome.

I will provide some sources on the matter, hopefully by tomorrow. I’m very busy right now, and don’t have time to look up anything.

I am not challenging you on this, I am looking for some elaboration.

Don’t worry, brother. Though we may disagree sometimes, I’ve never seen your posts as polemical in any way.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Monophysitism and Miaphysitism share two theological terminologies:

1. “OF TWO NATURES.” Diophysitism, in distinction, uses the phrase “IN TWO NATURES.”
2. “ONE NATURE OF CHRIST.” Diophysitism, in distinction, uses the phrase “TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.”

However, the Monophysite heresy taught that the human nature of Christ was completely absorbed in his divine nature after the union, and no longer existed. This was the heresy of Eutyches which the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians both condemn.

In distinction from Monophysitism, Miaphysites don’t teach that the human nature of Christ disappeared after the union. We believe that the nature of Christ is one, but it is a composite of His human and divine natures.

The Christological Agreements between the OOC’s and the CC affirm that our Lord has two distinct Natures, human and Divine, which are joined hypostatically in the one Person of Jesus Christ, without confusion, without admixture, without change. The OOC’s admitted that the Catholics, by stressing the two natures, did not intend to deny the hypostatic union. The CC admitted that the OOC’s, by stressing the one (composite) nature, did not intend to deny that Christ in a real way had two distinct natures. Basically, our Churches agreed that even while utilizing different theological terminologies, they were teaching the same thing.

I think the problem has always been that the East, West, and Orient have not had the same precise definitions of words like nature. Thus, when one side speaks of nature as they define it and the other interprets as they define it and it then doesn’t always mesh.

 

[Hesychios]

In distinction from Monophysitism, Miaphysites don’t teach that the human nature of Christ disappeared after the union. We believe that the nature of Christ is one, but it is a composite of His human and divine natures.

So then (assuming you are correct for purposes of this discussion), I would speculate that both miaphysitism and diophysitism have to be reckoned as theologeumena.

 

[JMJ_coder]

So then (assuming you are correct for purposes of this discussion), I would speculate that both miaphysitism and diophysitism have to be reckoned as theologeumena.

Here is the Joint Declaration with the Copts (relevant section):

In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.

 

[Hesychios]

Definitely not. The Maronites have become far too distinct from any other branch of Syrian Christianity. They’ve developed their own traditions, rites, and customs, and historically are quite unique. I say let them hold on to what makes them their own Church.

From my limited exposure to the tradition, I would say I can’t disagree with you.

However, they [the Maronites and Syriac Catholics, *perhaps the Melkites too] are already sharing seminaries and working together in other ways. Probably more due to the fact that the Syriac church is so small, but obviously they share some commonalities and this close association in the development of priests should promote mutual respect.

The Syriac Catholic Church would be a much better candidate for “absorbtion” (and it’s really just reunification).

It would not do to see the Syriac Catholics disappear into the much larger Maronite church, I think it would be very unfortunate (for one thing it would send the wrong message to the Jacobites). However, if the Syriac Catholics and Jacobites ever reconciled, I could see where a very close relationship between the Maronites and the Syriac church would be very posssible, even desireable. The reason I say this is because they ultimately share common roots and the Maronites are in the process of recovering those roots. Two more or less equally sized churches (with common ancient roots) are not going to worry about partiality.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

So then (assuming you are correct for purposes of this discussion), I would speculate that both miaphysitism and diophysitism have to be reckoned as theologeumena.

Theologoumena are beliefs that may or may not be believed in a particular Tradition. For example, purgatorial fire and toll houses are theologoumena. They are not condemned, but neither is there a theological necessity to believe in them.

Theologoumena are different from doctrines. Doctrines are a necessary and identifying belief of a particular Tradition.
For example, the Essence/Energy distinction is a doctrine of the Eastern and Oriental Traditions, the particular judgment is a doctrine of the Eastern and Western Traditions, and the Atonement is a doctrine of the Western and Oriental Traditions.

Doctrines, again, are different from dogmas. Dogmas are teachings which are believed by all the Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gregory_I]

The byzantine east doesn’t believe in the atonement?

 

[mardukm]

The byzantine east doesn’t believe in the atonement?

Westerns and Orientals believe the Atonement refers to the Sacrifice of our Lord as satisfaction for the Justice owed to God.

I have heard of an Eastern version of “Atonement” which admits neither the “satisfaction” nor the “Justice of God” elements of the doctrine. An EO presented this mitigated version a long time ago when this Forum was still called the “Eastern Christianity Forum.” IMO, without those two elements, it cannot properly be called Atonement.

I would like to hear your understanding of the matter, as I see you are into Eastern theology.

However, this is really a topic for another thread.

Here is a thread I started over 2 years ago on the issue:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=218236&highlight=Atonement

If you want to pursue this conversation further, perhaps you can resurrect that thread by adding a response to it.

Blessings