Was Maronite Church only Eastern Church always in communion with Rome/Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
I often hear that the Maronite Christians were always in communion with Rome — or at least never formally left communion (like in schism).

From the little research I have done, it seems that the Crusaders and Maronites were friendly toward each other, and a good relationship with Rome was solidified after the Crusaders came across the Maronites.

But what evidence is there, for example, that the Maronites always held to Papal or Roman primacy? Did they just assume they were in communion with Rome still?
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
But what evidence is there, for example, that the Maronites always held to Papal or Roman primacy?
Click to expand...
Eastern Christians always have, and still do hold to Papal primacy. Even Assyrians and Copts, all Orthodox - they all believe in Papal primacy.

It is the nature of that primacy, and whether that primacy entails supremacy and infallibility which various Easterners reject.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know that.

But I’m looking for the evidence of the Maronite view, since they are often pointed to as evidence that the Maronites had the genuine Catholic view of communion with Rome, primacy, etc.

But also, I think it would have to be nuanced by what one says by saying “papal primacy.” Because other Eastern churches may hold to it in one sense, but they obviously consider communion with Rome to be non-essential. Hence my asking about the Maronites’ view (from early evidence, pre crusades).
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
@Casilda Are you saying that the Maronite tradition is the continuation of the original Church of Antioch?

Also, what do you mean when you say Peter was first pope in Antioch?

I’m most curious about how the Maronites represent an ancient Eastern understanding of communion with Rome and Peter’s primacy there.
 
Last edited:
Most people don’t understand the term “Pope” in that context. It could also be read as “Peter was Antioch’s first Pope,” so I was confused.

So like, Peter surely has other successors in the sense that he ordained and appointed others besides in Rome. But when we say Peter was the first “Pope” in Rome, we mean that Rome passes on the office of Pope, which is a singular role in the church. Antioch may have Petrine succession, but that has little significance insofar as the office of the Pope (as chief bishop) is concerned.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
So like, Peter surely has other successors in the sense that he ordained and appointed others besides in Rome. But when we say Peter was the first “Pope” in Rome, we mean that Rome passes on the office of Pope, which is a singular role in the church.
Click to expand...
I was taught that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch.
 
I’ve heard that too.

What I am asking in this thread is along these lines:

I often hear that the Catholic understanding of the Pope is not merely a Western vs Eastern issue, since there have been Eastern churches always in communion with Rome. Many like to point out that the Maronite Church have always been in communion with Rome, and so they represent Antioch/Syriac Christianity as having a true Catholic understanding of the Pope/Bishop of Rome.

But while it is true that Maronites never formally left communion with Rome, I would still like evidence that the early Maronite Church (before Crusades or whatever) actually held Rome in esteem. Any references to Peter or Rome would be very helpful!

Thanks
 
catholic1seeks said:
But while it is true that Maronites never formally left communion with Rome, I would still like evidence that the early Maronite Church (before Crusades or whatever) actually held Rome in esteem. Any references to Peter or Rome would be very helpful!
Click to expand...
I don’t have the evidence you need. I wish MorEphrem or Malphono were still on this forum. They were highly educated Maronites here, but to the best of my knowledge did not continue after this new format started.

You might want to look up the history of the 350 Maronite Martyrs.
The following is from the Maronite Prayer of The Faithful; Ramsho; Synaxarion:

"SYNAXARION

After the Council of Chalcedon, Syria was divided between those who upheld the Council and those who opposed it. The monastery of Saint Maron and those who gathered around it supported the declarations of the Council. Patriarch Severus, however, was at the head of those who rejected the teaching of the Council that in the person of Christ there was both a human nature and a divine nature. Serverus and his followers held that in Christ, the incarnate Word of God, there was but a single human divine nature.
In the year 517 a group of monks left the monastery of Saint Maron and went to the monastery of Saint Simon the Stylite near Aleppo. The monks were arrested by a troop of partisans of the “one nature” of Christ who killed three hundred and fifty of the monks. Many of the monks who were wounded in the attack were able to escape.
Alexander, the superior of the monastery of Saint Maron, and the superiors of the neighboring monasteries wrote to Pope Hormisdas in order to inform him of the events that had taken place. The Pope responded on February 10, 518 and encouraged them to persevere in the Catholic faith and praised the faith of the martyred monks. May their prayers be with us. Amen."

I don’t know if this helps or not.
This is the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
Like I said, I wish more learned Maronites were still here.
Phillip_Rolfes is still here, and he is very learned about Maronite history and spirituality.
Maybe he will respond.
 
Last edited:
Read the Real Story in the Catholic Encyclopedia. All Lebanese Christians were originally Melkite. Then a group of monks moved from Iraq area to Damascus. Since they were heretics, specifically Monothelites, St. Maximus chased them out of Damascus. The monks fled to the mountains of Lebanon. Once there they started proselytizing Melkites. Melkite Bishops wrote letters condemning their monotheletism and eventually converted. By the time of the Crusaders passing through the area, through the efforts of the Melkites, they had returned to a proper understanding of the Faith. So if you are Lebanese, your ancestors were Melkite. Read the Catholic Encyclopedia on “Maronites”.

Now if you are Maronite and are offended by what you just read, please don’t be. These are facts of history. As a Melkite priest, I am tired of hearing Maronites talking about their history in fairy-tale land and trying, as they still do, to proselytize Lebanese Melkites here in the US. History is history.

In Christ,
Fr. Sebastian
steliasmelkite.org
 
FatherSebastian said:
Now if you are Maronite and are offended by what you just read, please don’t be. These are facts of history. As a Melkite priest, I am tired of hearing Maronites talking about their history in fairy-tale land and trying, as they still do, to proselytize Lebanese Melkites here in the US. History is history.
Click to expand...
I was just going to leave this alone but i thought I better say at least something.
You have an agenda apparently, and hard feelings. I’m sorry.
St. Maron was Syriac Catholic by modern definition.
You believe what you want, I’ll believe want I want and what I was taught.
Otherwise, this will become an argument and will become a mess, that I certainly don’t want to be part of, and I don’t want to be uncharitable or disrespectful to you.
I will not participate.

Goodbye, Father
 
@FatherSebastian @JRS_831

Ouch. Why is there competition? Aren’t both Melkites and Maronites fully Catholic?

Regardless, I’m asking about the Maronite Church in this thread.

@Phillip_Rolfes Any thoughts, concerning the original post?
 
Last edited:
So then were Melkites in communion with Rome, or did they leave communion with Rome and later re-join?

Pardon the ignorance with respect to Melkite tradition — this thread is asking about Maronites.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
So then were Melkites in communion with Rome, or did they leave communion with Rome and later re-join?

Pardon the ignorance with respect to Melkite tradition — this thread is asking about Maronites.
Click to expand...
Melkites are the Catholic counterpart to the Antiochian Orthodox Church. They entered into union with Rome in the 18th century.
 
I’m confused. Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
This brings us to the end of the Monophysite bodies and so to the end of all schismatical Eastern Churches. A further schism was indeed caused by the Monothelite heresy in the seventh century, but the whole of the Church then formed (the Maronite Church) has been for many centuries reunited with Rome. So Maronites have their place only among the Eastern Catholics.
Click to expand...
So does that mean NO Eastern church has been in continual communion with Rome since the beginning???
This is what has happened. There is at any rate no certain evidence of continuity from time before the schism in any of these Eastern Catholic Churches. Through the bad time, from the various schisms to the sixteenth and seventh centuries, there are traces, isolated cases, of bishops who have at least wished for reunion with the West; but it cannot be claimed that any considerable body of Eastern Christians have kept the union throughout. The Maronites think they have, but they are mistaken; the only real case is that of the Italo-Greeks (who have never been schismatic). Really the Eastern Catholic Churches were formed by Catholic missionaries since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. And as soon as any number of Eastern Christians were persuaded to reunite with the West, the situation that had existed before the schisms became an actual one again.
Click to expand...
So it does not seem Maronite Church was in constant communion with Rome:
In spite of the indignant protests of all Maronites there is no doubt that they were separated from the old See of Antioch by the fact that they were Monothelites. They were reunited to the Roman Church in the twelfth century, and then (after a period of wavering) since 1216, when their patriarch, Jeremias II, made his definite submission, they have been unswervingly faithful, alone among all Eastern Churches.
Click to expand...
@Spyridon and others… help!
 
Last edited:
How many Antiochian Churches are there?

Which is the original church in succession from the first Apostles?
 
If the Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, then no real Eastern community has maintained constant communion with Rome, from the beginning onward.

What are the implications of this fact with regards to the papal claims of Rome?
 
catholic1seeks said:
How many Antiochian Churches are there?

Which is the original church in succession from the first Apostles?
Click to expand...
The Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church are all part of the Antiochian tradition. The Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Melkite Catholic Church use the Byzantine rite, whereas the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Maronite Catholic Church are of the West Syriac tradition. As to which has the best claim to succession from the Apostles, I’m not informed enough to offer an opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top