Terms of union with Roman Catholics

[Philothei]

No, originally there were 3, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, Of those three, one is not calcenonian, Alexandria, other has fallen in all heresies, Antioch, and One keeps beeing the First of all times, Rome.

that is a bogus claim they are recorded as such by the counsils I take their word for this over anyones

 

[Basil the Great]

This is news to me. I wonder then why the Maronites were different from the rest of the East and sided with Rome, rather than Constantinople?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

This is news to me. I wonder then why the Maronites were different from the rest of the East and sided with Rome, rather than Constantinople?

Because they are not Greeks, they are Aramaic, they speak the languaje of the Lord and they know about Kepha, as the Rock left by Him. Not Petros as a small stone.

 

[Philothei]

This is news to me. I wonder then why the Maronites were different from the rest of the East and sided with Rome, rather than Constantinople?

They were "isolated" in a "pocket" of Palestine or even further...Byz empire was falling remember?? They tried to rescue them to no avail Moslems came in... then the last crusade re-discovered them. They were 'missionized" by a previous one

You can read for starters here:

The martyrdom of the Patriarch of Antioch in 602 AD[citation needed] left the Maronites without a leader, a situation which continued because of the final and most devastating Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628. In 687 AD, the Emperor Justinian II agreed to evacuate many thousands of Maronites from Lebanon and settle them elsewhere. The chaos and utter depression which followed led the Maronites to elect their first Patriarch, John Maroun that year. This however was seen as a usurpation by the Orthodox churches. Thus, at a time when Islam was rising on the borders of the Byzantine Empire and a united front was necessary to keep out the Islamic infiltration, the Maronites were focused on a struggle to retain their independence against imperial power. This situation was mirrored in other Christian communities in the Byzantine Empire and helped facilitate the Muslim conquest of the most of Eastern Christendom by the end of the century.

I think that lots of small groups were against the Byz becasue of steep taxation as the Empire was declining so lotsa groups wanted out....The mistake they made to side with the moslems I think was not intentional they did not estimate well...that siding with the enemy was not wise But you can read on) It sounds like the circumstances were too horrific for "protecting them" as Constatntinople was indeed declining and Islam was rising .

Maronite Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was late in the 11th century when the Crusaders made their way to the lands of the Levant to overthrow Islamic rule; on their way they passed through Lebanon where they came across the Maronites. The Maronites had been largely cut off from the rest of the Christian world resulting in part from a blockade that was said to have lasted for around 400 years. The Church in Rome had been unaware that the Maronites were still in existence. The crusaders and Maronites established ties and from this point provided each other with mutual assistance.

 

[Philothei]

Because they are not Greeks, they are Aramaic, they speak the languaje of the Lord and they know about Kepha, as the Rock left by Him. Not Petros as a small stone.

So you are not accepting the LXX that is strange All Western Fathers I think did except the Protestants

 

[Philothei]

Because they are not Greeks, they are Aramaic, they speak the languaje of the Lord and they know about Kepha, as the Rock left by Him. Not Petros as a small stone.

Any way you care to support this?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

They were "isolated" in a "pocket" of Palestine or even further...Byz empire was falling remember?? They tried to rescue them to no avail Moslems came in... then the last crusade re-discovered them. They were 'missionized" by a previous one

You can read for starters here:

I think that lots of small groups were against the Byz becasue of steep taxation as the Empire was declining so lotsa groups wanted out....The mistake they made to side with the moslems I think was not intentional they did not estimate well...that siding with the enemy was not wise But you can read on) It sounds like the circumstances were too horrific for "protecting them" as Constatntinople was indeed declining and Islam was rising .

Maronite Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, But they recognized always to the bishop of Rome as succesor of Peter and visible head of the whole church. even since the very Saint Maroun.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So you are not accepting the LXX that is strange All Western Fathers I think did except the Protestants

The LXX is only old testamet. You know it, don't you?

 

[Megaloskhemos]

The Maronites never broke-- They were cut off by the Muslims. To be honest everybody thought they were wiped out unilt the crusaders found them (They fought a war agaist the Byz in the 800's also). They reaffirmed there support for the pope and joined the Crusaders as Turcoples.

The wording also reflects an unsubstantiated bias. I don't think this is a provable position, unless we have that particular documentation. Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant. I can make the counter claim that the Churches in Britain were not fully papist (I wish to use this term in a non-offensive way, I apologize if this is inappropriate) until the end of Revolt of the Earls, but not only is that difficult if not impossible to prove for the purposes of this discussion.

Because they are not Greeks, they are Aramaic, they speak the languaje of the Lord and they know about Kepha, as the Rock left by Him. Not Petros as a small stone.

The same argument can be made about the Assyrian Church or the Syrian Oriental Orthodox Churches. Once again, the first instance of the Maronites siding exclusively with Rome is just before the Third Crusade (1182). if you are basing this on a modern position of the Maronites (not that this is a official position of the Maronite Patriarchate), then you should give equal credence to the modern positions of the Orthodox, Miaphysites and Assyrians, all of which threaten Rome's position. If you try to use the Maronites as a point to give evidence to Rome's position while denying these other positions, your argument is necessarily circular as you would be claiming that the Maronite position is correct because of their affiliation with Rome; therefore, Rome is right (Rome is right; therefore, Rome is right).

Sorry, But they recognized always to the bishop of Rome as succesor of Peter and visible head of the whole church. even since the very Saint Maroun.

Once again this is an entirely unsupportable position and is irrelevant because of it.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

So you are not accepting the LXX that is strange All Western Fathers I think did except the Protestants

The LXX is only old testamet. You know it, don't you?

I don't see the purpose nor the rationale behind this argument.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Any way you care to support this?

yes,you can also see it, go to John 1, 42, for aramaic speakers Kepha is rock not small stone.

 

[Philothei]

The LXX is only old testamet. You know it, don't you?

would hope so... hehe...

 

[Philothei]

yes,you can also see it, go to John 1, 42, for aramaic speakers Kepha is rock not small stone.

WRong statement I asked you a differnt statement for you to support

 

[Philothei]

yes,you can also see it, go to John 1, 42, for aramaic speakers Kepha is rock not small stone.

So Greeks did not 'get it": what about All the Antioncheans who are EO ? I suppose they did not get it either?? An since when the first Christians were Sola Scripturists...

 

[Basil the Great]

I would find it most informative and interesting if an Eastern Rite Catholic from the RCC board, if anyone posts there, would come to this thread and explain to us the Eastern Rite reasons for being loyal to Rome.

 

[Philothei]

This is not the topic of the thread though Maybe you could start another thread witht his topic ?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

So Greeks did not 'get it": what about All the Antioncheans who are EO ? I suppose they did not get it either?? An since when the first Christians were Sola Scripturists...

Do I have to remember you that the Church always understood Rome as the first see not because of being th former capital of the empire but for being the see of Peter and Paul?, By the way why don't you ask a Maronite why don't they unite a syrian EO church? after all for you EO is the right church.

Just as a universal culture data, the richest man in the World is a Mexican descendant of Maronites:

 

[Photini]

I would find it most informative and interesting if an Eastern Rite Catholic from the RCC board, if anyone posts there, would come to this thread and explain to us the Eastern Rite reasons for being loyal to Rome.

There is an Eastern Rite Catholic that calls TAW her home board. Not sure if she would be interested in this sort of thread though.

 

[Thekla]

Do I have to remember you that the Church always understood Rome as the first see not because of being th former capital of the empire but for being the see of Peter and Paul?, By the way why don't you ask a Maronite why don't they unite a syrian EO church? after all for you EO is the right church.

Just as a universal culture data, the richest man in the World is a Mexican descendant of Maronites:

Rumor is that CS is getting into the silver market.

 

[RobNJ]

I would find it most informative and interesting if an Eastern Rite Catholic from the RCC board, if anyone posts there, would come to this thread and explain to us the Eastern Rite reasons for being loyal to Rome.

This is not the topic of the thread though Maybe you could start another thread witht his topic ?

Really, too much of this tread is already senseless tangents trying to obfuscate the real issue.