Melkites, Maronites, and Reunion

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_of_Patmos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Art321 said:
Wow. Just wow.

That sure is an interesting article. I suppose the things that the writer wrote on is true. Most Orthodox Chirstians just don’t like the idea of a possible reunion with Rome and honestly this article really paints a dim view if you know what I mean.😦
Click to expand...
Well, not really, no. I thought that article was pretty sympathetic – at least toward Catholics, if not necessarily toward Protestants.
 
Ghosty said:
Actually, the Antiochian Church only became “Greek” much later, under pressure from the Byzantine Empire and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now whether or not the language used originally was Greek I can’t say, but the Liturgy certainly wasn’t what we’d call Eastern Orthodox today.

cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=15&IndexView&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=US&pageno=1

As for reunion, it’s hard to say what would happen. The Antiochian Patriarchate (Byzantine) already reunited with the Church of Rome, and the result was that the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate was recreated to replace it. There will likely always be some splinter group that wants to maintain separation, and they will elevate their own Patriarch if the current one reunites with Rome. It seems like a never-ending process to me. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this is quite correct.
  1. It is true that due to ecclesial disruption brought about by competition between various Muslims, Eastern Romans, Latins and Mongols, the Patriarchate of Antioch began to be appointed by the secular/religious powers in Constantinople. As mentioned previously, Greek was a commonly used language in Antioch itself during late Antiquity and for quite a period after the Muslim conquest (for instance, Antiochians John Chrysostom, Romanos the Melodist, and John of Damascus wrote excellent Greek).
Though the current liturgy would not have been familiar in late antique or medieval Antioch, the same would be true in Constantinople. The “old” rite used in Hagia Sophia is sufficiently different from the current liturgy (both the hours and the Divine Liturgy) that I don’t believe that any of the service books are mutually compatible, and a modern day cleric would be lost if he were just suddenly thrown into the old liturgy.

In fact, I’m told that the old Constantinopolitan liturgy was heavily influenced by Antioch (since it developed during the 3-600s, during a time when Antioch was culturally much stronger than Constantinople), though I haven’t seen what kind of a manuscript base exists to substantiate such a claim.

(since people will ask, the current rite is based off of the liturgies developed in the Palestinian desert monasteries after the Islamic conquest, with modifications/additions from the monastery of Studios in Constantiople, and took its final form in Palestinian, Anatolian, and Athonite monasteries in the 12-1300s. Key books like the Octoechos, Menaion, Triodion, Pentacostarion, etc first appear in post-conquest Palestine, and parts of the Order of Service are quite different)
  1. I am told that, were reunion were to happen, the Melkite bishops already made the decision to resign their sees and integrate the parishes with their “Greek” Orthodox equivalents. This is because the Orthodox line is considered most “legitimate” - even in the case of Antioch, and certainly in the case of the Sees and parishes in Jerusalem and Alexandria. Since people will inevitably ask, I’ll search around to see if I can find something beyond rumors, though I doubt I’ll find it (or that, even if it exists, it exists in English).
 
The West Syrian Rite, also known as the Syrian Rite or the Syro-Antiochene Rite, is a Christian liturgical rite chiefly practiced in the Syriac Orthodox Church and churches related to or descended from it. It is part of the liturgical family known as the Antiochene Rite, which originated in the ancient Patriarchate of Antioch. The rite was largely an adaptation of the old Greek liturgy of Antioch into Syriac, the language more common in the Syrian countryside.

The oldest known form of the Antiochene Rite is in Greek which is apparently its original language. The many Greek terms that remain in the Syriac form show that this is derived from Greek. The version must have been made very early, evidently before the schism occasioned by the Council of Chalcedon, before the influence of Constantinople had begun. No doubt as soon as Christian communities arose in the rural areas of Roman Syria, the prayers which in the cities (Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) were said in Greek, were, as a matter** of course, translated into** the peasants’ language (Syriac) for their use.

The earliest extant Syriac documents come from about the end of the 5th century.They contain valuable information about local forms of the Rite of Antioch-Jerusalem. The Syriac Orthodox Church kept a version of this rite which is obviously a local variant. Its scheme and most of its prayers correspond to those of the Greek St. James.
 
So, if I may ask…
if you put all dogmatic differences aside, and the orthodox wished to join the catholics (and did, not just some, but all orthodox), would they “schism from themselves”? Is it possible, if a WHOLE church joins another, would they “schism form themselves”?
 
John_of_Patmos said:
So, if I may ask…
if you put all dogmatic differences aside, and the orthodox wished to join the catholics (and did, not just some, but all orthodox), would they “schism from themselves”? Is it possible, if a WHOLE church joins another, would they “schism form themselves”?
Click to expand...
Or maybe the catholics would schism from themselves.
 
Peter_J said:
Well, not really, no. I thought that article was pretty sympathetic – at least toward Catholics, if not necessarily toward Protestants.
Click to expand...
I meant to say that it was really honest on the view that a lot of Orthodox Christians don’t consider a reunion with Rome to be a rather popular idea.

This to me is kinda sad.
 
Art321 said:
I meant to say that it was really honest on the view that a lot of Orthodox Christians don’t consider a reunion with Rome to be a rather popular idea.

This to me is kinda sad.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not really too surprising, if you look at the big picture. Just try asking fellow Roman Catholics what they think the prospects are for reunion with, say, Anglicanism. 😉
 
Art321 said:
I meant to say that it was really honest on the view that a lot of Orthodox Christians don’t consider a reunion with Rome to be a rather popular idea.

This to me is kinda sad.
Click to expand...
So if they can’t “schism from themselves”, what is holding the Orthodox back from joining the Catholics, albeit a few things with the Pope?
 
John_of_Patmos said:
So if they can’t “schism from themselves”, what is holding the Orthodox back from joining the Catholics, albeit a few things with the Pope?
Click to expand...
Well I suppose an Orthodox poster could probably answer this better than I, but I would have to say that it’s the same reason that I don’t become Orthodox: I don’t agree with their teachings.
 
Peter_J said:
Well, it’s not really too surprising, if you look at the big picture. Just try asking fellow Roman Catholics what they think the prospects are for reunion with, say, Anglicanism. 😉
Click to expand...
Honesty, I believe the odds of reunion with Anglicans is FAR higher that reunion with the Orthodox. And the reason for this is a bit more complicated to explain. I just hope that it happens one day but it just seems that there is a high possiblity that it will never go beyond simple respect for each other’s churchs.
 
Art321 said:
Honesty, I believe the odds of reunion with Anglicans is FAR higher that reunion with the Orthodox. And the reason for this is a bit more complicated to explain. I just hope that it happens one day but it just seems that there is a high possiblity that it will never go beyond simple respect for each other’s churchs.
Click to expand...
WHAT?!
:eek:
 
Art321 said:
Honesty, I believe the odds of reunion with Anglicans is FAR higher that reunion with the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I don’t speak for John of Patmos; but I would say it *greatly *depends on which Anglicans you consider. I think Continuing Anglicans (especially the TAC, but the others as well) are a little bit closer to swimming the Tiber than the Orthodox are. But on the other hand, the more liberal Anglican groups are gradually (or even not-so-gradually) moving *away *from Catholicism.
 
P.S. Also, let’s not forget that a good number of Anglo-Catholics decide to swim the Bosphorus instead of the Tiber.
 
Peter_J said:
I don’t speak for John of Patmos; but I would say it *greatly *depends on which Anglicans you consider. I think Continuing Anglicans (especially the TAC, but the others as well) are a little bit closer to swimming the Tiber than the Orthodox are. But on the other hand, the more liberal Anglican groups are gradually (or even not-so-gradually) moving *away *from Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
PS I don’t the moderators to have to move this topic…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top