Maronites' Liturgy

[scamandrius]

With Pope Benedict XVI's arrival in Cyprus to visit the small 2% Catholic minority there, I was informed that most of that 2% is either Maronite or Philipino expatriates.  There is also a lot of talk that the Liturgy that will be celebrated will be that of the Eastern Churches.  Do the Maronites use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or some earlier form?  Would it be fair to call Maronites the U-word or group them under that general umbrella?

[Orthodox11]

With Pope Benedict XVI's arrival in Cyprus to visit the small 2% Catholic minority there, I was informed that most of that 2% is either Maronite or Philipino expatriates.  There is also a lot of talk that the Liturgy that will be celebrated will be that of the Eastern Churches.  Do the Maronites use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or some earlier form?  Would it be fair to call Maronites the U-word or group them under that general umbrella?

The Maronites use a Syriac liturgy (a modern reconstruction from what I understand) which is unique to that community. They are not a 'uniate' church, but have a history quite independent from the Eastern, Oriental, or Assyrian churches.

[ialmisry]

With Pope Benedict XVI's arrival in Cyprus to visit the small 2% Catholic minority there, I was informed that most of that 2% is either Maronite or Philipino expatriates.  There is also a lot of talk that the Liturgy that will be celebrated will be that of the Eastern Churches.  Do the Maronites use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or some earlier form?  Would it be fair to call Maronites the U-word or group them under that general umbrella?

The Maronites use a Syriac liturgy (a modern reconstruction from what I understand) which is unique to that community. They are not a 'uniate' church, but have a history quite independent from the Eastern, Oriental, or Assyrian churches.

Not sure what reconstruction means. They were the remnants of the Monothelites in the Middle East, and have been in Cyprus almost as far back as the Crusaders-the Maronite representative at Florence came from Cyprus.  They also still speak an archaic form of Syrian colloquial Arabic.

[Shlomlokh]

With Pope Benedict XVI's arrival in Cyprus to visit the small 2% Catholic minority there, I was informed that most of that 2% is either Maronite or Philipino expatriates.  There is also a lot of talk that the Liturgy that will be celebrated will be that of the Eastern Churches.  Do the Maronites use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or some earlier form?  Would it be fair to call Maronites the U-word or group them under that general umbrella?

There are some Maronites that are extremely adamant that they "never left communion with Rome" and there are others who say that they did, but it doesn't matter because they are presently in communion with Rome. The Maronite Liturgy should be similar to the way the Syriac Orthodox have their Liturgy, but in the early 16th century the Jesuits, if I remember correctly, sought to latinize the Maronites seeing their liturgy as inferior, so they burned a good amount of their liturgical texts and anaphorae. The Maronites have been struggling ever since to regain their identity.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Deacon Lance]

There are some Maronites that are extremely adamant that they "never left communion with Rome" and there are others who say that they did, but it doesn't matter because they are presently in communion with Rome. The Maronite Liturgy should be similar to the way the Syriac Orthodox have their Liturgy, but in the early 16th century the Jesuits, if I remember correctly, sought to latinize the Maronites seeing their liturgy as inferior, so they burned a good amount of their liturgical texts and anaphorae. The Maronites have been struggling ever since to regain their identity.

In Christ,
Andrew

You are thinking of the Syro-Malabars.  The Maronites, while Latinized in some areas, have many ancient manuscripts.  Their rite combines elements from both the East Syrian and West Syrian traditions, although it leans to the West Syrian. 

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Altar Server]

In some places the Maronite's have started celebrating their liturgy with the altar facing the people another sad effect of the spirit of Vatican II.

David

[Deacon Lance]

While not in favor of it, it does not have the same effect as in the Roman rite in my experience as the prayers were not dumbed down nor was the focus shifted from God to the congregation.

[ialmisry]

With Pope Benedict XVI's arrival in Cyprus to visit the small 2% Catholic minority there, I was informed that most of that 2% is either Maronite or Philipino expatriates.  There is also a lot of talk that the Liturgy that will be celebrated will be that of the Eastern Churches.  Do the Maronites use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or some earlier form?  Would it be fair to call Maronites the U-word or group them under that general umbrella?

There are some Maronites that are extremely adamant that they "never left communion with Rome" and there are others who say that they did, but it doesn't matter because they are presently in communion with Rome. The Maronite Liturgy should be similar to the way the Syriac Orthodox have their Liturgy, but in the early 16th century the Jesuits, if I remember correctly, sought to latinize the Maronites seeing their liturgy as inferior, so they burned a good amount of their liturgical texts and anaphorae. The Maronites have been struggling ever since to regain their identity.

In Christ,
Andrew

I've never been to a Maronite Church in Lebanon, unfortunately never having been there, but I've been to ones in the Middle East: look just like an Italian parish.

Btw, adament or not, the Maronites were left when Rome renounced the Monothelite heresy with the rest of us and joined Jerusalem.  The Monothelites submitted to the Vatican during the Crusades.  We have eye witness accounts of the process.

[Alveus Lacuna]

In some places the Maronite's have started celebrating their liturgy with the altar facing the people another sad effect of the spirit of Vatican II.

Doesn't the priest face the people in the liturgy of St. James, the Brother of God?

[Shlomlokh]

There are some Maronites that are extremely adamant that they "never left communion with Rome" and there are others who say that they did, but it doesn't matter because they are presently in communion with Rome. The Maronite Liturgy should be similar to the way the Syriac Orthodox have their Liturgy, but in the early 16th century the Jesuits, if I remember correctly, sought to latinize the Maronites seeing their liturgy as inferior, so they burned a good amount of their liturgical texts and anaphorae. The Maronites have been struggling ever since to regain their identity.

In Christ,
Andrew

You are thinking of the Syro-Malabars.  The Maronites, while Latinized in some areas, have many ancient manuscripts.  Their rite combines elements from both the East Syrian and West Syrian traditions, although it leans to the West Syrian. 

Fr. Deacon Lance

I had heard that directly from a Maronite priest. He told me that the Latins burned Maronite liturgical texts and majorly fiddled with their liturgy. If you look at a Pre-Vatican II Maronite Liturgy, it would look almost exactly like a Tridentine Mass, with priests wearing the same vestments as the Latins. They were even forced to adopt the Tridentine style for the Sacrament of Confession, which they had never had a type of private auricular confession, that they still use today. From my limited knowledge, I would say the Maronite's Divine Liturgy is much more West Syriac than East Syriac. They were heavily latinized from the earliest times of recommunication, with Pope Innocent III and the crusaders ordering the Maronites to conform to the Latins and Maronites striking back against the Latins.

In 1145, the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, Luke Bnahrani ignored papal envoys from coming because they were asking the Maronites to conform to Latin liturgy, canon law, theology and devotions. Before that, the Franks under Pons, the Count of Tripoli, imposed a feudal system on the Maronites in the 1130s. Maronites in Jibbet Besharri rebelled against this by getting the Turkish prince of Aleppo to go to Tripoli where he successfully defeated the crusaders at Tripoli and even killed Pons himself. Clearly the Maronites favored Muslim rule over that of the Latins.

The Maronites are currently undergoing what many have termed "neo-latinization" which includes, but not limited to refusing to return to their roots, placing their tabernacles behind the altar, adopting the same stylized Protestant hymns that the Latins took on, refusing the priest to worship ad orientem, et al.

As much as many Maronites and certain Latins would like to believe, the Maronites did not always have a smooth relationship with the See of Rome.  

In Christ,
Andrew

[minasoliman]

I was thinking about the Maronites the other day.  Are they still Monotheletes?  Do they accept the first five councils but reject the sixth?

[Altar Server]

I don't think so as they are in communion with Rome I think they have and tend to accept all councils Rome defines as Eccumunical

[Robb]

Although it was the style after Vatican Council II for Maronite priest to face the people when saying their liturgy, this was recently abandoned by their Patriarch who favors the Ad Orientum way.

Sadly the Maronite's in the US continue to face the people for their DL, since they are not directly under the Patriarch in Lebanon.

[ialmisry]

I was thinking about the Maronites the other day.  Are they still Monotheletes?  Do they accept the first five councils but reject the sixth?

No, they have abandoned Monotheletism, but over centuries. It wasn't until the 1700s that the "union" with the Vatican "took."

[ag_vn]

Although it was the style after Vatican Council II for Maronite priest to face the people when saying their liturgy, this was recently abandoned by their Patriarch who favors the Ad Orientum way.

Sadly the Maronite's in the US continue to face the people for their DL, since they are not directly under the Patriarch in Lebanon.

From what I know, even in the Patriarchal territories in the Middle East, the Maronites, the Syriac Catholics and the Chaldeans continue to celebrate their liturgies facing the people after the Second Vatican Council.

[GregoryLA]

Although it was the style after Vatican Council II for Maronite priest to face the people when saying their liturgy, this was recently abandoned by their Patriarch who favors the Ad Orientum way.

Sadly the Maronite's in the US continue to face the people for their DL, since they are not directly under the Patriarch in Lebanon.

From what I know, even in the Patriarchal territories in the Middle East, the Maronites, the Syriac Catholics and the Chaldeans continue to celebrate their liturgies facing the people.

Does anyone know which way the Nestorians face?  Also, is it true as Alveus said that the liturgy of St. James has the priest facing the people?

[ag_vn]

Does anyone know which way the Nestorians face? 

I think the Nestorians/Ancient Church of the East celebrate facing East, while their Eastern Catholic counterparts, the Chaldean and the Syro-Malabar churches, after the Second Vatican Council are facing the people.

Also, is it true as Alveus said that the liturgy of St. James has the priest facing the people?

Two videos of the Liturgy of Saint James from Amman, Jordan (Patriarchate of Jerusalem). Metropolitan Benedict of Philadelphia and the priests are facing the people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOKoJS7ABVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Ac8J7Wuis

[Alveus Lacuna]

I believe that the liturgy of St. James also calls for the Body of Christ to be placed to the hands of the faithful. I'm sure the traditionalist Roman Catholics wouldn't like to know this who make such a stink about the priest facing the people and communion in the hand.

[Shlomlokh]

Although it was the style after Vatican Council II for Maronite priest to face the people when saying their liturgy, this was recently abandoned by their Patriarch who favors the Ad Orientum way.

Sadly the Maronite's in the US continue to face the people for their DL, since they are not directly under the Patriarch in Lebanon.

Well, the Maronites are directly under their Patriarch in Lebanon whether they are in the traditional canonical territory or not. From what my former Maronite priest told me, he has the ability to alter the liturgy. I'm not sure if he can operate apart from his synod, though. However, they are not allowed to appoint their own bishops outside of Lebanon. Their synod can nominate 3 candidates and the Pope can confirm one of them or choose his own not from the 3. There was a recent example a while back when the their synod in Bkerke nominated three men to be a bishop somewhere in North America, but the Pope picked a completely different one.  

In Christ,
Andrew

[ag_vn]

I believe that the liturgy of St. James also calls for the Body of Christ to be placed to the hands of the faithful. I'm sure the traditionalist Roman Catholics wouldn't like to know this who make such a stink about the priest facing the people and communion in the hand.

Nowadays, in the way it is celebrated in the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, the Body of Christ is put on the tongue of the faithful and after that they drink from the Cup.

[scamandrius]

Back to one of my original questions (which maybe I didn't frame too precisely):  Would it be considered fair to label the the Maronite church as a u-word church with Rome?  Or does that term only refer to those eastern rite churches who came over following Florence and Ferrara?

[Deacon Lance]

The Maronites existed before the rise of Monothelitism.  It also makes no historical sense that they would have accepted the heresy concocted to bring peace between their two great persecutors the  Byzantines and Syriac Miaphysites.  While accused of Monothelitism by both Latins and Melkites, the evidence is scanty.  At worst it seems some may have taught Miathelitism.

[Deacon Lance]

I had heard that directly from a Maronite priest. He told me that the Latins burned Maronite liturgical texts and majorly fiddled with their liturgy.

He is wrong on the burning part.  The Patriarchal library has many ancient manuscripts.  Latinizations were both imposed and adopted, but the majority of them dealt with externals and are being or have been reversed.

[ialmisry]

The Maronites existed before the rise of Monothelitism.

And the Assyrians existed before Nestorius, and their use of that fact as a proof that his doctrine was apostolic falls as flat as the fact that the Maronites predate Monothelism absolves them of the heresy.

 It also makes no historical sense that they would have accepted the heresy concocted to bring peace between their two great persecutors the  Byzantines and Syriac Miaphysites.

LOL.  Such compromises in principles in the attempt to either bridge a divide or getting crushed between it fill the pages of history. It also explains why both the Romans (Byzantines didn't come into existence until Lyons and Florence) and the Syriac Miaphysites would persecute (or perhaps, just act in competition with) them.

While accused of Monothelitism by both Latins and Melkites, the evidence is scanty.

The evidence is quite sollid. One of my favorites is the Maronite "Life" of St. Maximos, which starts out "the Life of the Blasphemous heretic Maximos who had his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off for his impieity" or something like that. A real hatchet job. Lord have mercy!
Union and distinction in the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor By Melchisedec Törönen
http://books.google.com/books?id=4W8gdI3KRusC&pg=PA14&dq=An+Early+Syriac+Life+of+Maximus+the+confessor&cd=3#v=onepage&q=An%20Early%20Syriac%20Life%20of%20Maximus%20the%20confessor&f=false

 At worst it seems some may have taught Miathelitism.

I"ll leave the thread splitting to you.

[SamB]

Two videos of the Liturgy of Saint James from Amman, Jordan (Patriarchate of Jerusalem). Metropolitan Benedict of Philadelphia and the priests are facing the people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOKoJS7ABVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Ac8J7Wuis

I need to thank you immensely for this! That's the church of the Lord's Entrance in Sway'fiy'yeh, and there's habeebna Abouna Dab'bour (I always refer to him by his last name--Father Hornet is just too cool a name not to say).

[Robb]

Is this the way they communion in Bulgaria?  I had no idea that there were different ways which Orthodox around the world distributed communion?

[ag_vn]

Back to one of my original questions (which maybe I didn't frame too precisely):  Would it be considered fair to label the the Maronite church as a u-word church with Rome?  Or does that term only refer to those eastern rite churches who came over following Florence and Ferrara?

I think since the Maronite Church doesn't have an Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian counterpart, the u-word is not accurate, but I wonder on what basis their Primate is titled Patriarch of Antioch. Btw which Eastern Catholic churches came into union with Rome following Florence and Ferrara?

Is this the way they communion in Bulgaria?  I had no idea that there were different ways which Orthodox around the world distributed communion?

There is no difference in the distribution of the Body and Blood with the rest of the Orthodox world. The liturgical spoon is not used only in the Liturgy of Saint James.

[surajiype]

The liturgy of St James as amongst the Syriac OO is as usual ad orientem.  The West Syriac Orthodox always argue  that the Maronites were Syriacs of Lebanon who adopted monotheleism and in the consequent isolation from both the Orthodox and the Melkite Orthodox entered the Latin fold.
Matti Moosa has given the West Syrian perspective on this well. 

I think to say that the Latins forced the Maronites to latinize is not always correct, in many cases the eastern catholic clergy and laity themselves embrace Latin traditions.  Both amongst the Maronites and the Syro Malabarese such is the case.  Ofcourse this happens because the bishops and the priests have had an entirely Latin formation and that is the only tradition they know.  In the case of the Syro Malabar church, it is common for priests who have been ordained and worked in Latin congregations to be selected and appointed as bishops over the Syro Malabarese.

[yeshua]

Greetings,

It's not often our community gets brought up on this board, and more often than not misinformation (though it's certainly not the poster's fault) is presented. That said, there is plenty, plenty evidence for Maronite Monothelitism, beyond the simple eye witness accounts of William of Tyre that Isa alluded to earlier in the thread. We have documentation of entire Maronite communities moving back and forth between their Monothelitism and the missionary attempts of the Syriac Orthodox, provided, ironically, by some of the first Maronite historians.

It should be known the first attempt at a Maronite history comes from the 15th century by one Jibral Ibn Al-Qilai, written in poor Arabic and even poorer Syriac as an epic poem recounting Maronite history. His penchant was sharing the multitude of Maronite persecutions (which are documented from a variety of sources, from Nestorians to Druze) as God's punishment for deviating from Rome and returning to Monothelitism. Every Maronite historian up to contemporary times have based their history on Jibral Ibn Al-Qilai, and rarely has their been a non cleric who has made an attempt to address Maronite history outside of that first source. When that attempt has been made---somewhat successfully---the responses have been to denounce their credential and person.

The "isolation" of the Maronites is an over emphasized historical event, and while it certainly occurred, it was one of geography and not culture. Relations with various Christian groups is also well documented, in fact, we have multiple Melkite Patriarchs denouncing Maronite migrations into their territories, subsequently taking from their flock (bearing in mind they shared the same liturgical patrimony at this time) and turning their people to Monothelitism. To counter, Maronite historians have tried to personally discredit these heirarchs throughout the centuries (despite maintaining that they were in communion with them by virtue of being in communion with Rome), culminating in simply negating their mentioning in Maronite history whatsoever.

I'd ask that these attempts at nation building be seen with some charity. These were persecuted people in incredibly difficult times in a region that has never seen ease. Jibral Ibn Al-Qilai was disingenuous with his people's origins, but the incredible acts of violence committed against his kind only encouraged his and his successor's attempts to build an identity for his people to latch onto and find support. And while communion with Rome was established in the 12th century (three different accounts of three different dates), that allegiance brought protection and pride that sustained an identity around which to coalesce in a hostile environment.

As a side, the incident with the Jesuits is correct, after Trent, mass burning of Maronite texts instituted an era of profound Latinization. This burning is why it is very unlikely a Maronite will ever see Maronite Shimo, their traditional divine office, or books of individual prayers. Maronite libraries in Aleppo preserve some of the works burned throughout what is now modern Lebanon. One of oldest liturgical source Maronites have is a Book of Direction, a book used in Syriac Churches to define liturgical (as well as civil in the case of Maronites) procedure and law. It could immediately be used to resurrect the Maronite's ancient rites, however, it is Monothelite, and rather than correct the theological errors and admit to history, we suffer the current synthetic liturgical and theological disparity.

Contemporary Maronite historians have per tradition relied on the exaggerated works of the past, but in a twist, have also somewhat, though just barely, acknowledged the adoption of Monothelitism in the face of fact. Starting with Pierre Dib, we see the discussion of Monothelitism as a "moral Monothelitism," in that semantically Maronite christology was expressed as one will, though their dogma was of Chalcedon in foundation. There remains to this day not a shred of historical evidence of a "moral Monothelitism," not that it is even possible to prove, some historians going further to say that these were peasants and unaware of their own theology (Peter Tayah, "Maronite Roots and Identity"), though I don't find demeaning your own people a proper form of argument. That, and every historian of the time, regardless of scholastic or christian denomination, have detailed the profound affect theological discussion played a role in the daily life of people of the era regardless of economic standing.

From Popes calling Maronites "heretics" and "former heretics" respectively, to the resistance to Rome some Maronite Patriarchs have shown since communion began, it is dishonest for an individual to hold on to the perpetual communion theory of the Maronites. Fortunately, though slowly but surely, some Maronite clerics have admitted, even publicly the events of the past, and in doing so lay a foundation for aiding the horrible situation the Maronites find themselves in today. Granted, Maronites themselves have duly played their own detrimental role; from the 1700's on we see the political drive for communion turn to a theological drive, and it is then the paradigm of Maronite identity is shaped after a Roman fashion. If we can be honest about our past from day one, we can be honest about the disingenuous Maronite experience and identity today.

Forgive the length, but hopefully this can be referred to when the question arises again on the forum. I’d be happy to expand on any one point, as well.

[Robb]

Will the Maronite's be eventually "De Latinized" to the point that they will be indistinguishable from the Melkites?  Is this the plan of today's Maronite hierarchy? 

If so then wouldn't this procession of "de latinization" create more of an identity problem for this basically small and ethnoreligious community then by just keeping the changes that have already been made throughout the centuries as a mark of Maronite distinctiveness and individuality?

[GregoryLA]

Will the Maronite's be eventually "De Latinized" to the point that they will be indistinguishable from the Melkites? 

I have no idea if it's true or not, but your tacit assumption is that the original Maronite liturgical tradition was indistinguishable from the modern Melkite liturgical tradition.

[GregoryLA]

Yeshua, thank you so much for your very informative post!  I take it you yourself are Maronite.  Is this correct?  What exactly does "Syriac-Maronite" mean where it lists your faith?  Is this the same thing as Maronite?  Are you a priest?

If so many Maronites are ill at ease with their relationship with Rome, are there any efforts or talk about moving into Oriental or Eastern Orthodoxy?

What books would you recommend as an introduction to Maronite history, liturgical tradition and/or theology?

[surajiype]

Yeshua,

Great post.  Is the book of directions the Hudoyo, which is used by the Syriac Orthodox ie the OO.  Also some people do say that the Maronite liturgical texts bear an Edessan influence especially in  the Anaphora of Sharar.  What do you think of it ?

[yeshua]

Will the Maronite's be eventually "De Latinized" to the point that they will be indistinguishable from the Melkites?  Is this the plan of today's Maronite hierarchy?

No, the Melkite's "current" patrimony is Byzantine. The Melkites once followed the Western Syriac, as did the entire Patriarchate of Antioch prior to Byzantine patriarchal appointments from Constantinople. Coupled with Arab infusion of language and culture, the Melkite tradition of today, while venerable and quite Byzantine, is not the traditional Syriac that de-latinization would theoretically show. If such de-latinization did occur, Maronites would find themselves in similar company to the Syriac Orthodox. However, Maronites and Syriac Orthodox have enough history and time apart to necessitate some differences.

If so then wouldn't this procession of "de latinization" create more of an identity problem for this basically small and ethnoreligious community then by just keeping the changes that have already been made throughout the centuries as a mark of Maronite distinctiveness and individuality?

A fair but misinformed concern. The "Romanization" of the Maronites in the 1700s was not necessarily theological, it was concerned with the rubric of the liturgy. When one looks at the Maronite celebrations (at least, celebrated in diaspora) prior to Vatican II, the aforementioned Tridentine structure is all but apparent, however, kept intact within a Syriac liturgical basis. After Vatican II, a very genuine and quite celebratory attempt at renovation was made with incredible success. However, civil war in Lebanon created a verbal and political gap between the Patriarch and the diasporic bishops. Afterwards, priests and bishops alike published their own liturgies in a theological frenzy creating multiple Maronitic experiences throughout the United States. Through a series of events I'd rather not go into right now, the American Maronite bishops gained considerable influence, and Patriarchal leadership has been more concerned the political survival of our community in Lebanon (understandable to an extent). My point: Maronites have undergone significant changes at every moment in our history. With strong leadership and guidance, it can be done, as it almost succeeded in the 1970's. I would say this: don't demean "this basically small and ethnoreligious community;" they hold more treasures of Early Christianity than you could possibly imagine, and all it takes is a trip to Aleppo or Wadi Qadisha in Lebanon to realize how potent their is. While certainly not a Maronite, the very saints Byzantine Christianity holds proud were Syriac, from St. John Chrysostom to St. Ephrem. That doesn't validate the Maronites, but it allows them some respect as members of their inheritors.

[yeshua]

Yeshua, thank you so much for your very informative post!  I take it you yourself are Maronite.  Is this correct?  What exactly does "Syriac-Maronite" mean where it lists your faith?  Is this the same thing as Maronite?  Are you a priest?

My story is irrelevant to the topic but, yes, I am a Maronite, though no priest. Those of us from the more traditional families, or those Maronites who have studied their heritage, find it is easier to interact with fellow Eastern and Orientals by including a discussion of our Syriac patrimony, reflected here in my profile.

If so many Maronites are ill at ease with their relationship with Rome, are there any efforts or talk about moving into Oriental or Eastern Orthodoxy?

I don't believe I said many were at ill ease with Rome. It would be hard to come to that conclusion by witnessing Maronites in the United States, though the situation in Lebanon can be different. The current Maronite Patriarch, a Cardinal no less, has never shown any inclination towards Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy. To be honest, that shouldn't be on our plate now. We are fighting for our home as much as our identity, whether the American Maronite community is aware of it or not. In Lebanon, it is a different story, at least in the north. Many of the old ways are still preserved, and distinctions between Orientals and Easterners are quite mute, ironically. Regardless, the political nature of the Maronite leadership is not a positon or inclination to seek communion elsewhere. In fact, I'd personally like to say their priorities are off track, and the motivation of some, the United States bishops in particular, to be entirely suspect.

What books would you recommend as an introduction to Maronite history, liturgical tradition and/or theology?

In English? Very few. For a scholastic viewpoint, I would look at "Maronite Historians of Medieval Lebanon" by Kalil Salibi. His scholarship is exemplary, and sources incredible. It is his book that would best serve how Maronites have developed their nation building history. As for the history itself, Pierre Dib's "History of the Maronite Church" is, in my opinion, the most fair of the historical accounts readily accessible, despite being replete with the same fallacies of Dib's predecessors. There you will also have a pretty descent example of the "moral Monothelitism" argument I mentioned earlier. As for the theological, that's another story, very little is written in English. I'd liket to say "Early Syriac Theology: With a Special reference to the Maronite Tradition" by Seely Beggiani, though good luck getting your hands on it. I'm in the process of digitizing it (and other Maronite materials), and am looking forward to making it available. In the mean time, "Captivated by Your Teachings" is a catechism of sorts written by a wonderful Maronite priest, Abouna Anthony Salim. It was published by a Latin press, but it does a very good job considering the political hoops with his bishop he had to pass. Eh, another story for another time.  

[GregoryLA]

Yeshua,

Great post.  Is the book of directions the Hudoyo, which is used by the Syriac Orthodox ie the OO.  Also some people do say that the Maronite liturgical texts bear an Edessan influence especially in  the Anaphora of Sharar.  What do you think of it ?

I've also heard this...

Althought all the extant manuscripts of this eucharistic prayer [the Nestorian's Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari] are of a very late date, the comparative geographical and ecclesiastical isolation of the region and the strong Semitic influence on early Christianity there have encouraged scholars to believe that parts of the prayer may be very ancient indeed, perhaps as early as the second or third century.  Furthermore, unlike other early eucharistic prayers, it appears to have been composed in Syriac rather than Greek.  The publication by William F. Macomber in 1966 of a critical edition based on a tenth/eleventh-century manuscript from the church of Mar Esa'ya in Mosul- at least 500 years older than any previously known manuscript of the prayer- constituted a significant development for attempts to reconstruct its earlier form, as did the publication by J.M. Sauget in 1973 of a critical text of the Third Anaphora of St. Peter or the Sharar of the Maronite rite.  Since most of the contents of Addai and Mari are also found in the Sharar, scholars had long believed that a common source must lie behind the two texts.
     Macomber himself attempted to reconstruct the original anaphora from which these extant versions developed as it might have been c.400, and which he thought belonged to the Aramaic-speaking church centred on Edessa.  He believed that the whole prayer had originally been addressed to the Son and not the Father, as Sharar still is from its post-Sanctus to the final doxology; that the Sanctus, though disputed by some earlier scholars, was original to the text; that the institution narrative, found in Sharar but absent from the Mar Esa'ya text, was part of the earlier prayer- as the existence of an anamnesis paragraph in the letter indicated- but had been deleted from Addai and Mari as a result of the reforms of Iso'Yab III in the seventh century; and that the epiclesis was probably a fourth-century accretion to the earlier core.
     There is, however, no clear scholarly consensus on the question of its original form.  Bryan Spinks, for example, regards the prayer as having a bipartite structure rather than the tripartite shape discerned by many other scholars, and would hold that the institution narrative is an addition to the original core, but the epiclesis is primitive.  He also questions whether there ever was a single original written form, and suggests that it may be more accurate to speak simply of common oral tradition shared by the two prayers.

Sorry for the long post but I found that really interesting even though only a part of it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Iconodule]

At worst it seems some may have taught Miathelitism.

If one follows the arguments made by St. Maximus, "miathelitism" would be the same as monothelitism. "Mia physis" is an Orthodox phrase because the "physis" is understood to be a synonym for "hypostasis." So it is really saying two natures united in one hypostasis. However, will (and energy) are properties of the nature; to say the will is one in the same way that the hypostasis is one is therefore false.

[yeshua]

Yeshua,

Great post.  Is the book of directions the Hudoyo, which is used by the Syriac Orthodox ie the OO.  Also some people do say that the Maronite liturgical texts bear an Edessan influence especially in  the Anaphora of Sharar.  What do you think of it ?

Yes, the Hudoyo is it's name. As for the Anaphora of Sharar, see below.

Furthermore, unlike other early eucharistic prayers, it appears to have been composed in Syriac rather than Greek.  The publication by William F. Macomber in 1966 of a critical edition based on a tenth/eleventh-century manuscript from the church of Mar Esa'ya in Mosul- at least 500 years older than any previously known manuscript of the prayer- constituted a significant development for attempts to reconstruct its earlier form, as did the publication by J.M. Sauget in 1973 of a critical text of the Third Anaphora of St. Peter or the Sharar of the Maronite rite.  Since most of the contents of Addai and Mari are also found in the Sharar, scholars had long believed that a common source must lie behind the two texts.

Sorry for the long post but I found that really interesting even though only a part of it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

No, I'm pleased you mention this, it certainly is relevant! The aforementioned and sadly brief Maronite renaissance in the 1970's is what birthed the reuse of Sharar, tragically (fists to the sky) no longer used today. The Edessan influence would be an example of the differences between the current Syriac Orthodox and the Maronites today were the de-latinization straight to the Western Syriac rite were to occur.

The Syriac tradition has not always been so cut and dry East and West, though it was natural per cultural milieus to turn out they way they have. The Maronite tradition was one born out of a fusion of Edessan and Antiochene influences, subjected to geographic isolation and a subsequent feudal Patriarchal existence. Those three influences molded the Maronites, whereas the Syriac Orthodox were often in direct opposition (dare I say competition) to the vastly large (at the time) Eastern Syriacs, the Church of the East. The frequent disputes between the two polarized and sometimes "cleansed" the Western Syriac rite of the Syriac Orthodox of its Edessan influences. Only now have they been reexamined.

As for the Anaphora of Sharar itself, it can't be 100% certain if the Maronites or the Assyrians/Chaldeans have the oldest anaphora. One might say since the Western Syriac rite and tradition led to the Eastern as the tradition migrated towards the Orient that the Maronites have the advantage,  but there are peculiarities in both liturgies that make each argument suspect. Perhaps further scholarship will tell, but all we can say for certain is that both are ancient, and both sides are going to claim credit.  

[surajiype]

Indeed the maronite liturgical material available on many sites is an excellent resorces especially for those of the Syriac churches.

Comparison of the Syriac and Maronite daily offices itself might earn one a Phd. The Western Syriac tradition amongst the Syriac Orthodox itself has tremendous variations, the Eastern orders of Mosul and Edessa often varied significantly from those used in Mardin and in Syria. 

[Robb]

So the U.S. Maronite bishops are in a state of de facto independence from their Patriarch in Lebanon? Would the Maronite diaspora bishops be considered more liberal then those in Lebanon?  I have always liked the Maronite's and have deeply sympathized with their plight for survival.  Their whole liturgical tradition which, as you said fuses eastern and western Syriac elements is very impressive and I in no way underwrite them or their influence on Christendom.

[yeshua]

So the U.S. Maronite bishops are in a state of de facto independence from their Patriarch in Lebanon?

In those words, no. To properly answer that question, I have to dabble in a little inter-Catholic jurisdiction issues, so bear with me: technically, Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are restricted in their jurisdiction in that it reaches only so far as "the patriarchal territories," those boundaries being defined by Rome. From the Code of Canon of the Eastern Churches (the canon in conjunction with the individuals canons of each particular church):

Canon 146 - §1. The territory of the Church over which the patriarch presides is extended to those regions in which the rite proper to the same Church is observed and the patriarch has the legitimately acquired right of erecting provinces, eparchies as well as exarchies.
 §2. If a doubt concerning the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church arises or if it is a case of the modification of boundaries, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to investigate the matter, having heard from the superior administrative authority of each Church sui iuris concerned, and, having discussed the matter in the same synod, to direct an appropriately prepared petition proposing the resolution of the doubt or the modification of the boundaries to the Roman Pontiff, who solely can authentically resolve the doubt or issue a decree modifying the boundaries.

Due to civil war and the political might of the American Latin Bishops, the transplanted Eastern Catholics (whatever the church) over the years migrated to the United States without structure or leadership, for the most part. Some of them by virtue of different circumstances succeeded in solidifying a place in the religious landscape; others were not so lucky. Technically, due to the canon cited above, America has not been considered within the full rights and privileges of Patriarchal reach, and therefore---here is the---rub, it is the privilege of Rome to elect bishops, raise eparchies (though through Patriarchal consent), etc., only stopping to retain all things liturgical in the hands of the Patriarchs. However, considering what I said about the liturgical competition that has taken place since Maronites came to this country, even then the Patriarch's sole privilege was not being respected, though he was also concerned with the survival of his people in the homeland. In fact, that glorious attempt at reviving the old ways in the 1970's wasn't even given to the Patriarch for approval, it went to Rome first!

I should note each individual particular church has handled these canons in their own way. Some have been brought down by them (i.e. Maronites) and some have simply ignored them (i.e. Melkites). What we are left with are heavily Romanized (in comparison to Latinized, mind you), heavily Americanized Bishops running the show and gaining influence. There are now more Maronites outside of Lebanon than within (so we are thinking), and while most bishoprics are from the homeland, the Synod knows its future as a people is dependent on how they will survive outside of Lebanon. They are left with having to embrace the more wealthy and Rome sanctioned diasporic bishops. Wonderfully, that is in no way unilateral across the Synod, and you'd be surprised at how visceral some of the traditional bishops can be. It gives me hope. 

Would the Maronite diaspora bishops be considered more liberal then those in Lebanon?

Considering what I stated above, yes, but the clergy can be an entirely different matter, as Andrew relayed in his experience with a Maronite priest. The clergy in America are slowly learning about their roots and discovering their reach heritage post-seminary. With it, they are slowly bringing entire communities around; veils in front of the alter are reappearing, oriental hand crosses, and ad orientem is celebrated in one or two Maronite parishes. For these great men and communities, I ask for prayers, please.

I have always liked the Maronite's and have deeply sympathized with their plight for survival.  Their whole liturgical tradition which, as you said fuses eastern and western Syriac elements is very impressive and I in no way underwrite them or their influence on Christendom.

Wonderful! I am so happy that we can have these sort of discussions free from the normal Orthodox vs. Catholic arguments. The Maronties are a unique and dying people, with a heritage that has affected more traditions than most realize. Granted, walking into a Maronite church in the United States would cause the average Easterner or Oriental to pause, but that is not emblematic of who we are, nor of what we are going to remain.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: Maronites' Liturgy