Maronite Catholic vs. Orthodox

DeusLuxMeaEst

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
Did a brief search and found some very limited information on this, but no threads. From my cursory research Maronites are Catholics in union with Rome.

Besides that can someone explain the major differences between the Maronites and say Orthodoxy?

I met a Maronite friend and they seem MUCH more devout than the run of the mill Catholics I meet (fasts, prayer, devotion)
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
Did a brief search and found some very limited information on this, but no threads. From my cursory research Maronites are Catholics in union with Rome.

Besides that can someone explain the major differences between the Maronites and say Orthodoxy?

I met a Maronite friend and they seem MUCH more devout than the run of the mill Catholics I meet (fasts, prayer, devotion)

Maronites are Catholic, their Rite is Western Syriac (as opposed to Roman). They are part of the Catholic Church. As such their theological differences with Orthodoxy are the same as a Roman Catholic. The difference seems to be how well your friend is practicing his faith.
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
Very quickly, the uniate churches are basically eastern churches that for whatever reason decided politically to go with (modern day) Rome. This is not to say that they didn't have good reasons or legit reactions to competitive hierarchies that existed to inform that movement, but rather that it is odd that they share similar theology that is different actually from Roman Catholics, and practice that is different (it is usually even the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) as well, making it clear that for whatever the initial reason, it was a political decision.

I disagree with NoMoreTO, I have met and seen it written even by many so-called Uniates (he says they are Roman Catholics) that have Orthodox views on the essence and energies theology, would never practice holy communion as current Rome does, have liturgical practice just as Orthodox do and even with the same Calendar, etc.
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
Very quickly, the uniate churches are basically eastern churches that for whatever reason decided politically to go with (modern day) Rome. This is not to say that they didn't have good reasons or legit reactions to competitive hierarchies that existed to inform that movement, but rather that it is odd that they share similar theology that is different actually from Roman Catholics, and practice that is different (it is usually even the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) as well, making it clear that for whatever the initial reason, it was a political decision.

The liturgy of St. John Chrystosm has no conflict at all with Catholicism. I think you are mixing Liturgical Rite and practice with the Faith.

Whether you are Orthodox or Catholic, uniting your Church and Faith to Rome or an Eastern Metropolitan is not a political matter. It is a matter of Faith, Belief, Theology.
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
The liturgy of St. John Chrystosm has no conflict at all with Catholicism. I think you are mixing Liturgical Rite and practice with the Faith.

Whether you are Orthodox or Catholic, uniting your Church and Faith to Rome or an Eastern Metropolitan is not a political matter. It is a matter of Faith, Belief, Theology.
I notice you didn't quote the second paragraph in your response which is where I gave the examples of the contradiction, and why your last sentence is not accurate for uniates. They don't hold RC beliefs but retain a relationship still, politically, because that was always the point.
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
I notice you didn't quote the second paragraph in your response which is where I gave the examples of the contradiction, and why your last sentence is not accurate for uniates. They don't hold RC beliefs but retain a relationship still, politically, because that was always the point.

"Roman" Catholic means Roman Rite/Liturgy. They are not Roman Catholic, they are an Eastern Rite Catholic or a Maronite. As I understand they don't call themselves "uniates". The fact that they are joined to Rome means that the Church these people are attending holds Catholic theology. The parishioners might not or even some Priests. But these does not change the fact.

I have met and seen it written even by many so-called Uniates (he says they are Roman Catholics) that have Orthodox views on the essence and energies theology, would never practice holy communion as current Rome does, have liturgical practice just as Orthodox do and even with the same Calendar, etc.
If they believe in essences and energies, then as I understand it "they" are outside Thomistic Theology and could very well be out of communion with Catholic Theology. The liturgy and practice is different because it is a different Rite. Byzantine Catholics practice a different rite and have differing practices around communion, the Maronites are the same. Not all Catholic rites are Roman. Maronites for example would have to hold to dogmas like the Assumption of the Blessed Mother, where a E. Orthodox would not.

I'm still not understanding the politics behind it all.
 

Cleotis

Pigeon
Very quickly, the uniate churches are basically eastern churches that for whatever reason decided politically to go with (modern day) Rome. This is not to say that they didn't have good reasons or legit reactions to competitive hierarchies that existed to inform that movement, but rather that it is odd that they share similar theology that is different actually from Roman Catholics, and practice that is different (it is usually even the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) as well, making it clear that for whatever the initial reason, it was a political decision.

I disagree with NoMoreTO, I have met and seen it written even by many so-called Uniates (he says they are Roman Catholics) that have Orthodox views on the essence and energies theology, would never practice holy communion as current Rome does, have liturgical practice just as Orthodox do and even with the same Calendar, etc.
Maronites aren’t “Uniates”. They never broke communion with Rome. Unfortunately since Vatican II, they’re also the most heavily Novus Ordo-ized of the Eastern churches:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/09/the-maronite-liturgys-corruption-under.html?m=1
 

Cleotis

Pigeon
Very quickly, the uniate churches are basically eastern churches that for whatever reason decided politically to go with (modern day) Rome. This is not to say that they didn't have good reasons or legit reactions to competitive hierarchies that existed to inform that movement, but rather that it is odd that they share similar theology that is different actually from Roman Catholics, and practice that is different (it is usually even the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) as well, making it clear that for whatever the initial reason, it was a political decision.

I disagree with NoMoreTO, I have met and seen it written even by many so-called Uniates (he says they are Roman Catholics) that have Orthodox views on the essence and energies theology, would never practice holy communion as current Rome does, have liturgical practice just as Orthodox do and even with the same Calendar, etc.
If political expediency was the prime motivation for Eastern Rite Catholics as you claim (cynically), how do you account for all the many times throughout history in which “so-called Uniates” were steadfastly loyal to Rome and to the Catholic Faith though it was extremely inconvenient to do so ? How do you account for the all the “Uniates” who, despite facing intense persecution and great pressure being exerted upon them to renounce the Pope and the Filioque to join Eastern Orthodoxy, chose Catholicity instead of schism, embracing suffering and martyrdom because of it? How do you explain all the heroic Eastern Rite/ “Uniate” Catholic martyrs who could simply have avoided martyrdom and persecution altogether by joining Eastern Orthodoxy?
 
Last edited:

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
If political expediency was the prime motivation for Eastern Rite Catholics as you claim (cynically), how do you account for all the many times throughout history in which “so-called Uniates” were steadfastly loyal to Rome and to the Catholic Faith though it was extremely inconvenient to do so ? How do you account for the all the “Uniates” who, despite facing intense persecution and great pressure being exerted upon them to renounce the Pope and the Filioque to join Eastern Orthodoxy, chose Catholicity instead of schism, embracing suffering and martyrdom because of it? How do you explain all the heroic Eastern Rite/ “Uniate” Catholic martyrs who could simply have avoided martyrdom and persecution altogether by joining Eastern Orthodoxy?
The same could be said in reverse for the Orthodox and this debate has been had several times on the forum and it's ugly each time and usually personal, so I encourage everyone not to go down this road.
 
Top