Maronite & Melkite

[jissa]

What are the major differences between the Maronite and Melkite Catholic Church?

[DavidObeid]

Maronites are of the Syriac tradition, Melkites of the Byzantine.

The Maronite Church has always enjoyed union with Rome, the Melkite Church was brought back into unity (largely thanks to the work of the then Maronite Patriarch Estephan Douahi around 1750)

Following on from this, Maronites do not have an Eastern Orthodox counterpart, Melkites do.

That's off the top of my head. Perhaps others could add more?

[cmnunis]

The Maronites, Melkites, and Syriacs are from the same ancient Church of Antioch, "where they were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). Hence, the Patriarchs of these 3 churches, (the latter 2 having Orthodox counterparts), are all recognised as Patriarchs of Antioch and are mandated to equally rule the territory of Antioch.

During the Council of Chalcedon, during the schism over the issue of monophysitism, those who were non-monophysites were followers of the then-Byzantine emperor and they were called "Melkites" ("melek" for king in Semitic terms, and "vasilikoi" in Greek). Obviously at that time, the Maronite spiritual movement was still rather new, given that the Council of Chalcedon took place 30 - 40 years or so after St. Maron reposed. By that time, Antioch still had one rite - the Syriac rite, and the monophysites that first left the Church still exist till today - the Syriac Orthodox Church, and its counterparts.

Now, it is not explained very clearly how the Maronite Church became a Church, but there was a major gap between the time St. John Maroun was elected Patriarch of Antioch and the death of St. Maron. Nevertheless, I would assume that because the Maronites and Syriacs, like the Melkites, are from the same patriarchate, the Maronites were the non-monophysite camp within the Antiochian Church and became the normative successor to the original Syriacs. As the Maronites and Syriacs share similarities in liturgy, that would be my reasoning.

As for the Melkites, according to a book written by the late Fr. Lucien Malouf BSO, they had always remained in communion with Rome. After all, when Rome and Constantinople separated, Antioch still remained in communion and loyal to Rome. It was the Antiochian Patriarch Peter III that had tried to reconcile them but failed. They had even appeared at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed their communion with Rome. Looking back at history, Christendom in the ancient patriarchate of Antioch had ceased to be a legal entity by 1516, when the Ottoman sultans decreed it as such.

Of course, this happened only after years of continued attacks by the Turks, Mongols, Mamluks, Seljuks, all of whom were Muslims. By then, Melkite Catholics were decreed by the Ottomans to be subject to the schismatic Patriarchate of Constantinople. When this happened, the Melkites obviously adopted the Byzantine Rite and the Constantinopolitans imposed their own bishops over the Melkite Church.

However, this only lasted until 1724 when two men, Bishop Eftimios Saifi and Seraphim Tanas (later Cyril VI) publically reasserted their communion with Rome. This was considered to be treason, and the Greek Orthodox, ever subservient to the Ottoman Empire, declared a Greek Orthodox Patriarch over the see of Antioch. The Melkites did not like this, and Seraphim was elected as Patriarch of Antioch as well, taking the name Cyril (Kyrillos). He was affirmed as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch. However, communion was only officially restored to this remnant of the ancient Church of Antioch by 1748. By then, the Greek Orthodox had again separated the Church of Antioch, and created its own Antiochian Church, loyal to Constantinople. They succeeded in keeping it Greek until 1899. So, the Melkite Church never separated.

The Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has a very rich imagery of God's Kingdom, and gives you the impression that you are in a different place or time i.e. in Heaven. As per the Cherubic Hymn, "we mystically represent the cherubim, and cast aside all earthly cares to worship the King of All". However, there are significant parts of the Liturgy that symbolise Christ's birth, public ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.

I would love to go for a Maronite Qurbana one of these days. However, given what I've seen, the Maronite Rite of today largely resembles a Novus Ordo Mass. Not that that's a bad thing.

[frjohnlm]

The Melkites (http://www.answers.com/topic/melkite-greek-catholic-church),The Maronites (http://www.answers.com/topic/maronite-church)

Some food for thought:

The Melkite Liturgy has the Victorious Royal qualities of Christ as its primary focus.
The Maronite Liturgy has the Merciful Forgiving qualities of the Trinity as its primary focus.

And thats a good thing either way..

[DavidObeid]

lovely stuff Father John!

[jissa]

Thanks Fr John :)

[cmnunis]

Very true. Something amazing about the Antiochian liturgies, be it Melkite-Byzantine (Constantinopolitan), Maronite (West-Syriac), Syriac, and Syro-Malankara. You will find a common trait there. It will be a beautiful experience. To experience these liturgies is to experience the root of the Catholic Church, and thankfully, they are all available in Sydney. I believe Fr. Michael Berbari is the principal celebrant of the Syriac Rite. I need not say much about the Melkites or Maronites in Sydney at this point because both Eparchies are well-established in Sydney.

On another note, I was told that Sayedna Ad Abi Karam might be retiring soon. Is this true?

ps: It is rumoured that Cardinal Pell has biritual faculties to celebrate Mass in the Armenian Rite, by virtue of him being ordained a priest by Krikor Bedros XV Cardinal Agagianian (the late Catholic Armenian Patriarch).

[DavidObeid]

On another note, I was told that Sayedna Ad Abi Karam might be retiring soon. Is this true?

I believe he reaches the age limit soon.

[cmnunis]

So, is there anything else we can talk about? No one seems to talk about the Catholic East, or even add on Eastern theological viewpoints when discussing Catholic dogma.

[DavidObeid]

I guess it is because for me the views (east and west) meld into one in what the Catechism presents as the faith.

[jissa]

Thanks everyone for your input.

[cmnunis]

I guess it is because for me the views (east and west) meld into one in what the Catechism presents as the faith.

That is very true.

[habeeb895]

Hi David,

Please explain what the Maronite Patriarch Estephan Douahi had to do with the Melkite Church in the 18th Century?

It seems to be a common misconception that the Melkites were brough 'back' to unity with Rome. Antioch was always in communion with Rome and Saifi and Tanas reaffirmed this FACT in 1724.

[DavidObeid]

Hi Habeeb,

My source is Rev. Boutros Dau's "History of the Maronites". I read it about 15 years ago. Patriarch Douahi's story stood out in my memory.

[habeeb895]

I see. It would be interesting to check it out. Do you know where I could find a copy?

[DavidObeid]

I have no idea where my copy is, but I got it from the piety shop at St. Charbel's in Punchbowl.

[Matthew]

It might be in that back shed with all the other books Dave.

[cmnunis]

One book that will complement your reading of "History of the Maronites" could be "Byzantine-Melkite Thinking" by Abouna Lucien Malouf.

The other 2 books I can think of are:-

1) Almanach de l'Eglise Grecque Melkite Catholique (Beirut 1997), C. Charon.
2) History of the Melkite Patriarchates, 4v. (Fairfax 1998 - 2000), S. Descy.

[DavidObeid]

Isn't the book by Malouf the one that had the error on marriage in it?

[DavidObeid]

It might be in that back shed with all the other books Dave.

I'll never find it in there!

[cmnunis]

Isn't the book by Malouf the one that had the error on marriage in it?

Well, I wouldn't call it an error, but rather a "theologumena" (theological thought); which is far from dogma. Dogma is definitive, whereas the Catholic Church has always encouraged different theologumenas, in tandem with doctrine. Because the Western mind is objective as compared to the abstract Eastern one, an error in this case would be a blatant disagreement with dogma and the refusal to accept it.

I had a good read lately of John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology" and I would suppose that the late Fr. Lucien based his rather Orthodox assertions on that. I ran this through a few Eastern Catholics from the Ruthenian and Ukrainian counterparts (which are apparently more fundamentalist Orthodox than we are) and they also said that Meyendorff's assertions on marriage was wrong.

However, until further notice, where the Melkite synod definitively comes out with a Catechism, I'll stick with the CCC, which ironically says nothing much about marriage after death.

As for history, I think Lucien Malouf's book still puts out some food for thought.

[Matthew]

Two points cmnunis:

"Objective" and "abstract" are not contrary terms.

Secondly, any other Catechism issued cannot go against the CCC. All more local catechisms are subordinate to it which is even mentioned in the Apostolic Constitution introducing it.

[cmnunis]

Matthew: I did not imply that "objective" and "abstract" or contrary. They've always complemented each other, but people go about things differently.

Which Apostolic Constitution are you referring to? Fidei Depositum? Please show me the quote.

[Matthew]

Hi cmnunis,

I should clarify my first remark. What I mean is it does not make sense (at least to me) to separate objective and abstract (even if you say they are complementary) as one describing one way and one another. What I mean is even if you are abstract you are still being objective (assuming your abstraction is rooted in the real) and when you are objective you still need to be abstract since it is the abstract which identifies that which is essential and thus most immutable to a thing, the source of objectivity.

The quote is here from Fidei Depositium:

"Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms."

It would not make sense in the Catholic Church anyway for one person to say I follow this Catechism's teaching or take on the issue and another say he follows another.

[Matthew]

By the way, I'm not up to date on what this error is. Marriage after death? Is that the matter we discussed a while ago? If someone say there is marriage after death he is contradicting Christ himself as I showed. Any speculation to the contrary is therefore literally Anti Christian (against Christ's teaching).

[cmnunis]

Hi cmnunis,

I should clarify my first remark. What I mean is it does not make sense (at least to me) to separate objective and abstract (even if you say they are complementary) as one describing one way and one another. What I mean is even if you are abstract you are still being objective (assuming your abstraction is rooted in the real) and when you are objective you still need to be abstract since it is the abstract which identifies that which is essential and thus most immutable to a thing, the source of objectivity.

The quote is here from Fidei Depositium:

"Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms."

It would not make sense in the Catholic Church anyway for one person to say I follow this Catechism's teaching or take on the issue and another say he follows another.

Well, that was definitely different from the first time you implied it. :p Anyway, to add on what "Fidei Depositum", all the Eastern Catholic Churches are exhorted to write their catechisms with the CCC as a gold standard reference. So far, only the Ukrainians have done it. The Holy See has always made it clear that the CCC was targeted towards the Latin Rite, but that in itself was not a problem because a lot of Eastern viewpoints were absorbed into it. I personally think that the CCC in itself is good enough and that there is no need for reinventing the wheel.

Perhaps I was wrong in comparing abstract and objective. I thought hard about it during a music workshop and perhaps what I was getting at was comparing a scholastic and embodied/spiritual approach to theology, which distinguishes both East and West. While it does distinguish, it is complementary, as JPII implies in "Orientale Lumen".

[cmnunis]

Hi cmnunis,

I should clarify my first remark. What I mean is it does not make sense (at least to me) to separate objective and abstract (even if you say they are complementary) as one describing one way and one another. What I mean is even if you are abstract you are still being objective (assuming your abstraction is rooted in the real) and when you are objective you still need to be abstract since it is the abstract which identifies that which is essential and thus most immutable to a thing, the source of objectivity.

The quote is here from Fidei Depositium:

"Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms."

It would not make sense in the Catholic Church anyway for one person to say I follow this Catechism's teaching or take on the issue and another say he follows another.

Well, that was definitely different from the first time you implied it. :p Anyway, to add on what "Fidei Depositum", all the Eastern Catholic Churches are exhorted to write their catechisms with the CCC as a gold standard reference. So far, only the Ukrainians have done it. The Holy See has always made it clear that the CCC was targeted towards the Latin Rite, but that in itself was not a problem because a lot of Eastern viewpoints were absorbed into it. I personally think that the CCC in itself is good enough and that there is no need for reinventing the wheel.

Perhaps I was wrong in comparing abstract and objective. I thought hard about it during a music workshop and perhaps what I was getting at was comparing a scholastic and embodied/spiritual approach to theology, which distinguishes both East and West. While it does distinguish, it is complementary, as JPII implies in "Orientale Lumen".

[cmnunis]

By the way, I'm not up to date on what this error is. Marriage after death? Is that the matter we discussed a while ago? If someone say there is marriage after death he is contradicting Christ himself as I showed. Any speculation to the contrary is therefore literally Anti Christian (against Christ's teaching).

Well, i think it referred specifically to the late Fr. Maloof's error about "remarriage after the death of one's spouse".

[Charbela]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GRxlZg_p6o

Fr Mitch Pacwa discussing maronite church history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GRxlZg_p6o