Why more exactly does this strike you as strange? That is to ask what in particular do you feel is strange about it more exactly–I take it, from what follows, that you are meaning to suggest that the theology of these rites are definitely monophysiste, but this hasn’t been demonstrated by you.
Here I have say that the tone of sarcasm seems palpable. I apologize if this wasn’t your intention, but why otherwise would you state that it is lucky that such “monophysite corruptions” (if indeed that is what they actually are) have been “eradicated”?
No sarcasm from me, I am simply reiterating what our liturgical commission teaches. Such as the reason for eliminating the traditional Syriac doxology (Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit from our beginning until our conclusion: May mercy and compassion be poured forth upon in both worlds forever) was its Jacobite origins. Likewise, it seems strange that if we were so watchful against the monophysites that we would have previously shared such large portions of texts in common.
Interesting text. What are “both worlds” referred to here? Heaven and earth, I’m imagining?
Maybe I’m nitpicking, but that is not a “monophysite explicit reference”.
First, I will say that none of this has been true in my Church. Now, I am a Maronite from the U.S. and am not totally apprised of the whole situation in Lebanon. A lot of the liturgies I see online, especially those from our Patriarch, give me much cause to pause. However, up to now I’ve chalked it up to a couple of things not least of which is an insecurity among many in the Middle east that sees most Western things an inherently superior and the unfortunately an over eagerness to follow Rome’s lead. You know what the Jesus said about the blind leading the blind.
You realize your remark is against the entire Liturgical Commission and Maronite Synod, who not only think of these as positive developments but one would think they think they’re doing the will of God? Also your ad hominem hurts.
Absence of doxology, see liturgy. Prohibition of monophysite anaphorae, see Doueihi’s commentary or Msgr Seely’s book on the Divine Liturgy of the Maronite Church. For Mor Jacob of Sarug being anti-Chalcedonian, read any polemic of his tangentially related to Christology. For the removal of the baptism rite attribute to him or the removal of the Yaqoboye, see the current version of the baptismal rite and missal approved by the Synod. Pertaining to the unwritten prohibition of single piece stoles ask any Maronite bishop. If your parish has ripidia and a sanctuary veil it can only be one in the US and there are other factors why it has not been removed. Everything I have said is an accurate representation of the ideas of the Liturgical Commission and the Synod.
I think you meant “pre-Chalcedonian” (or better “non-Chalcedonian” rites, no?
No, I meant post-Chalcedonian in that they’re at least attributed to chronologically post-Chalcedonian figures (apart from them being non-Chalcedonian), e.g. the former baptismal rite was attributed to Mor Ya’qoub daSrug, born the same year as Chalcedon convened.I think you meant “pre-Chalcedonian” (or better “non-Chalcedonian” rites, no?
Ah, OK, got it. Still, it’s best, I think, to leave it as “non-Chalcedonian” to avoid confusion.
I, too, was thinking you had mistyped.
True, but communion with Rome should never imply a loss of our unique spiritual, theological, historical, and liturgical identity, no matter how uncomfortable such an identity may make our Roman brethren (or ourselves for that matter).Long answer short: They’re Catholics, in full communion with the Pope of Rome. What were you expecting?
I also find the question a little bit strange – I don’t mean w.r.t. this thread specifically, but just in general. People pretty much never say “What do Latin Catholics believe?” yet I often hear “What do [Maronite/Melkite/Ukrainian/Ruthenian/etc] Catholics believe?”
My favourite is when Latins like me ask if they can receive sacraments in eastern Catholic churches. I mean I’m not trying to be mean or anything about it to me it just happens to sound like an odd question.
Questioning if you really mean to be sincere in light of your paradoxical comments is not an ad hominem. I think you know this perfectly well, but I do think your intention here is to be insincere–maybe not about your ultimate point but in the provocative way you are attempting to make it. Consequently, I’ve reported your comment to the moderator.
The absence of charity in the above post is astounding.
Still there are many points of divergence between Roman and Antiochene theology. Very little has to be agreed upon for two churches to be in communion, which is to say on only the fundamental dogmas.
You think I lack charity? Can you give a reasoned argument to explain your beliefs because just making a naked assertion to that effect seems, at the very least, quite unfair if not actually outright hostile. In other words I am asking you to acknowledge your beliefs and state them explicitly, because as it stands you said something that is completely untrue, something that you may very well subjectively believe but that you state as if it were, in reality an objective fact. Which ironically seems to reflect the very lack of charity you appear to be accusing me of.The absence of charity in the above post is astounding.
And is that not at all strange?