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.
Father, Bless.

Hi Fr. Sebastian. You probably don’t remember me, but I was a parishioner at Holy T before your brother was ordained to the diaconate (and before you yourself were ordained to the priesthood). We’ve only met in passing, and it was some years ago.

That being said, I was under the impression that the phrase “Melkite” as used today to refer specifically to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church was used in older times to refer to those Christians in the Middle East who were loyal to the Emperor in Rome rather than the Byzantine Emperor. I believe Fr. Cyril Korolevsky pointed this out either in the first volume of his History of the Melkite Patriarchates. It wasn’t until after the split in the Greek Orthodox Church in Antioch that “Melkite” began to refer specifically to the Melkite Greek Catholics.

I am open to correction if I’m wrong, though.

Humbly asking your blessing.
 
In terms of the Maronite tradition that we never broke communion with Rome, I’ve heard varying stories. Some hold to the above opinion with an almost aggressive loyalty. Others almost equally aggressively oppose such a viewpoint. From what I’ve found, the most that can be said is that there was a period of estrangement from Rome - due in large part to the isolation of the Maronites in the hills of Lebanon.

I would be cautious with the use of the Catholic Encyclopedia both because it is very dated, and also because it’s ecclesiology is decidedly Roman.
 
@Phillip_Rolfes

Well, even if we can’t be certain regarding the relationship between Maronites and Roman Church, do you at least know of any early Maronite references to their understanding of Peter — or even Rome (with regards primacy)?

Thanks
🙂
 
Last edited:
I know of no such source, and you would likely be hard-pressed to find one. Much of our theological and liturgical textual tradition was lost. Being suspect of Monothelitism, the Crusaders wasted no time in burning our books, from what I understand.
 
I found one!!
To Hormisdas, the most holy and blessed patriarch of the whole world, the holder of the See of Peter, the leader of the apostles, the earnest petition and humble prayer of the least (important) archimandrites and of other monks of your province Syria Secunda…
Click to expand...
To you God has given the power and authority to bind and to loosen
[Matt 16:19]. Not the healthy ones have need of the physician but the sick [Matt 9:12]. Arise, holy Fathers, come to save us! Be imitators of the Lord Christ, who has come down from the heavens onto the earth to seek the sheep that is going astray, Peter, that leader of the apostles, whose seat you adorn, and Paul, who is the vessel of election, the ones who are going around and have illuminated the world.
Click to expand...
This represents a correspondence between Saint Maron’s Monastery and Pope Hormisdas around the year 518 A.D.

http://www.maronite-institute.org/MARI/JMS/october97/The_Correspondence_Between.htm#b
 
Last edited:
Wow! Where did you find that? Do you have the full letter?
 
Yes it is. So clearly, not only did Maronite Christians never formally leave communion with Rome, they also seem to have always (at least in the AD 500s) acknowledged or understood that Rome had primacy (because of Peter). There was communication before the Crusades even occurred, even if there was diminished communication before then.
 
Last edited:
The Maronites and Rome never broke Communion–but not that Communion is established between churches each time it receives a new head.

The Maronites, unlike other Easterns, were physically separated by Muslim invaders. They were forcibly out of contact until the crusades. They ended up with their own “Patriarch of Antioch” in the separation.

The Maronites actually ended up building churches in caves–particularly, caves which were only accessible through low entrances, as the slims would trample their churches if they could get a horse there . . .

There are other Easterns that never broke Communion. The Greco-Italians in Italy, for example, have been there (and under Vatican control at that) all along.

The Ukrainians (and I presume Ruthenias) also never formally broke communion, although over time, renewal ceased.

For that matter, I don’t think that the Melkites ever formally broke communion. Rather, they took steps to re-establish communion along the way.
RyanBlack said:
Melkites are the Catholic counterpart to the Antiochian Orthodox Church. They entered into union with Rome in the 18th century.
Click to expand...
JRS_831 said:
I was taught that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch.
Click to expand...
Peter went from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome. Whether he was the first bishop of each, or whether the first bishop of each was his successor, is another question.
RyanBlack said:
Melkites are the Catholic counterpart to the Antiochian Orthodox Church. They entered into union with Rome in the 18th century.
Click to expand...
In this case (as with the Ukrainians) it’s actually the other way around: the AOC was created when the Melkite church re-established communion with Rome, much as Ukrainian Orthodox churches came about when the Ukrainian Church re-established communion with Rome (largely over military assistance against muslim hordes).
catholic1seeks said:
How many Antiochian Churches are there?
Click to expand...
The priest for the local Melkite mission showed me a group picture of the five (!) current Patriarchs of Antioch . . .
Which is the original church in succession from the first Apostles?
Click to expand...
According to each, itself 🙂 I think by succession it’s the Melkites–but there was an “irregularity” in the election before they re-etered communion with Rome (two bishops consecrated a third so they could hold the election. Then the AOC was created in response without any Melkite bishops [just the bishops sent from Constantinople]).

However, determining the “original” when there is a schism among the synod is difficult, at best.
catholic1seeks said:
do you at least know of any early Maronite references to their understanding of Peter — or even Rome (with regards primacy)?
Click to expand...
You will not find any pre-schism references with the current RC understanding of the papal role. All will agree on primacy, but the monarchial role is post-schism.

hawk
 
JRS_831 said:
I wish MorEphrem or Malphono were still on this forum. … but to the best of my knowledge did not continue after this new format started.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m still here but, for a variety of reasons, don’t post much these days. In the “old days” on this forum, I would likely have jumped into this, but such discussions just aren’t worth the effort.
JRS_831 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Nicely said. 😄 FWLIW I happen to agree and will not be participating further in this thread either. 😉

As an aside, I’d be careful about the account of the 350 Maronite Martyrs from the Synaxarion. The one glaring issue in it is the identity of the perpetrators of the attack.
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I would be cautious with the use of the Catholic Encyclopedia both because it is very dated, and also because it’s ecclesiology is decidedly Roman
Click to expand...
Here again, in the “old days” I may well have expounded on that, but at this point suffice it to say, yes, true. Thank you, Phillip. 😄
 
You will not find any pre-schism references with the current RC understanding of the papal role. All will agree on primacy, but the monarchial role is post-schism.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by “current RC understanding.”

No teaching – in any church, Catholic or Orthodox or Eastern of whatever flavor – has the exact same teaching as the earliest centuries, because all doctrine and practice evolves.

However, the reference I found and posted above was sufficient for me. I think it favors the Catholic position on the Pope over and above, say, the Orthodox position. That was my main purpose (even though my thread never talked about Orthodoxy as such).

That is, I was wondering whether the early Maronites, who supposedly were always in union with Rome, in fact nodded towards the Catholic understanding of the Pope as opposed to what became the Orthodox understanding (especially the sense that communion with Rome is not essential).
 
Last edited:
Here again, in the “old days” I may well have expounded on that, but at this point suffice it to say, yes, true. Thank you, Phillip. 😄
Click to expand...
Well, this is why we need posters like you, still.

For I as a Roman Catholic reading the Catholic Encyclopedia online (NewAdvent.org) see no reason to suspect bias. It seemed to cover the various Eastern churches objectively, and under its article on Eastern Churches, kept emphasizing that Eastern Rites have just as much equality and dignity as Roman Rites and should not be Latinized, for example.
 
catholic1seeks said:
That is, I was wondering whether the early Maronites, who supposedly were always in union with Rome, in fact nodded towards the Catholic understanding of the Pope as opposed to what became the Orthodox understanding (especially the sense that communion with Rome is not essential).
Click to expand...
It’s more the Roman view that has changed than the Orthodox.

The EO don’t view communion with Rome as non-essential. Rather, they view it as impossible due to Rome being in heresy. Except for the RO, they would all supposedly enter communion tomorrow–on the first millennium terms–if Rome were to renounce and eliminate those issues.

hawk
 
Who decides if Rome is in heresy?

Also, are you Orthodox or Catholic or neither?

It’s an assertion to say the Catholic view has changed more - obviously a Catholic (like me) wouldn’t agree.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Who decides if Rome is in heresy?
Click to expand...
It seems to be something that each church decides about all the others.

Rome at that time had adopted a position that it had itself called heresy for a century . . .

In this case the Orthodox would probably state that the Nicean council made the decision, and that Rome was defying the council by unilaterally changing its dictate (whether heresy or not, th statement would be true).
Also, are you Orthodox or Catholic or neither?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholic (legally RC; I haven’t formally transitioned.
It’s an assertion to say the Catholic view has changed more - obviously a Catholic (like me) wouldn’t agree.
Click to expand...
Not really: the Orthodox position today on the Roman Primacy is pretty much what it was in he first millennium. The Roman claim to universal immediate jurisdiction, among others, has changed since the schism.

hawk
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top