St Maron and the Maronites

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

Hi There!

Since maronite say that they were always roman catholics, (I don't know if this true), I got concerned about Saint Maron.
Is him an orthodox saint? I never saw his name in anyplace.
If not, why not?

Thank you very much!

José Lauro Strapasson.

[Demetrios Galanidis]

I am not at all convinced that our St Maron, hermit of Syria (Feb 14/27) and the Maron of the Maronites are the same person.

[John Charmley]

JoseLauro/Demetrious,

The best study of this subject I know is by Professor Matti Moosa, The Maronites in History which is published by Gorgias Press, http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/

His scholarly study shows both that the Maronites were not always Roman Catholic, but why they came to claim that they were. He is not at all convinced that St. Maron had very much to do with the origins of the Maronites.

If you are interested in the subject I strongly recommend the book.

Hope that helps.


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Hi John

Would you like to say a bit about how you come to have such knowledge of the Maronites? You keep surprising me.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

I have a long-standing interest in what the Victorians called the Near East, and much of my current research takes me to the Ottoman Lebanon, which stimulated my interest in both Maronites and Druze.

Prof. Moosa's book would interest you, not least since he suggests that the Maronites were, in origin, Syriac Orthodox who adhered to Chalcedon at a time when most Christians in the region were non-Chalcedonian. Much later, this allowed them to forge a relationship with Rome, with the latter glossing over the split of 1054 in order to gain a foothold in the region.

It is an interesting read - for those of us with such interests.

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

I'll put it on my reading list.

It sound interesting and I should surely know more than I do about the other Christian communities of the area.

Peter

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

Thank all you very much! :)

Hum, the only thing I know is that St Maron, hermit of Syria died about the year 370
http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/los/February/14-StMaronSyria.htm

and Maron, from Maronites, died about the year,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maron
so I don't think he is the same person.

[Anthony]

I was under the impression that the Maronites were originally monothelites (rejecting the sixth ecumenical council) and were thus isolated from both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. I may well be wrong though.

[Peter Farrington]

John, can you say a bit about the Maronites?

Peter

[John Charmley]

Peter/Anthony

If ever there was a problem with airbrushing the past to make the present look the way one wants it to be, then that of the Maronite identity is it.

Maronite scholars have identified at least two 'Maruns' as being the origin of the name of their Church: one is the early C5th 'ascetic Marun' to whom St. John Chrysostom is supposed to have written in about 404 A.D. Prof, Moosa comprehensively demolishes any connection between Chrysostom and Marun, as well as between Marun and the Maronites. This same 'Marun' is cited in Theodoret of Cyprus' (d.458) Religiosa Historia as an exceedingly holy and ascetic man, but with no trace of any connection to the Maronites.

The second 'Marun' is John Marun, who is said by some Maronites to have been their first partiarch. This Marun flourished c. 694 and came from the monastery of Marun near Hama. In Chapter 17, Prof. Moosa provides detailed evidence for believing that whatever later legend said, this Marun was quite definitely a Monothelite.

There are three sources for the existence of a monastery of Marun in what was called Syria Secunda, and all of them agree that it was a Monothelite foundation encouraged by the Emperor Heraclius in the first half of the C7th; whether it was the one other Maronites claim had existed since the C5th is, to put it mildly, doubtful.

This leads to the conclusion that the first identifiable Maronites are from the early C7th, which supports Anthony's view that from their origin they were indeed Monothelite. Later Maronites found this history a little inconvenient once the connection with Rome was formed in the C17th, which is why there was the attempt to connect their community with the C5th ascetic, which allowed them to claim they had always been Chalcedonian. Moosa's evidence that the Monks at Marun were anti-Chalcedonian is overwhelming, and those wishing for a full account should look at his chapter 10. Not until c.629 did the Monks accept Chalcedon, and then only under duress.

It is of relevance here to quote from the writings of John Marun:
'We believe that one of the Trinity, the Word, is of one substance with us except sin. He is in two natures, the divine and the human: one Son, one Lord, one Christ. We also profess One Incarnate Nature of the Divine Logos as the Holy Fathers have proclaimed.'
That doesn't sound terribly Chalcedonian to me, St. Severus would have had no problem with it.

After 630 A.D. the monks at Marun were Chalcedonian Monothelites. It was not until the middle of the C8th that we can really distinguish a separate Maronite community, that is not until after the 6th Council. The Malkite Chalcedonians adopted the the belief in two wills in Christ, the Maronite Chalcedonians (except in Aleppo) remained Monothelites.

When the Roman Catholics first came into contact with the Maronites in the late C16th, they were most suspicious of them, having retained a tradition that they were Monothelite. It was in both the interests of the Maronites (who wanted the patronage and help of the Roman Catholics) and of the Holy See (which wanted a base in the Holy Land) to give credence to a version of events which portrayed Marun as a bishop of Antioch who had visited Rome and received Papal blessing; this established an 'historic' link which served the purposes of Rome and the Maronites. Chapter 21 of Moosa's excellent work provides enough evidence and gives the argument in its full complexity.

It was only by the late C16th that the 'Latinisation' of the Maronite Church was complete - and that, of course, necessitated a rewriting of its history. As Churchill once said to a research assistant who queried the story of King Alfred burning th ecakes - 'give me the facts and I will make them fit the history.'

It is an interesting story, and I hope that I have managed to convey it in a reasonable way. I do hope that any Maronites who take offence at what they might see as allegations of Monothelitism will examine Professor Moosa's book before protesting too loudly.

In Christ,

Johnh