Replies

Of course, if one really wants to nitpick, they could note that Maronites are originally based out of Lebanon, which was a part of the Byzantine Empire up until the Muslims occupied the region. The Byzantine Empire, of course, did not call itself the Byzantine Empire - it continued to call itself the Roman Empire. The “Byzantine” title was placed upon it by the West, which wished to distinguish that Empire from the Holy Roman Empire.

Actually, prior to the schism, the Maronite Church would have fallen under the Patriarch of Antioch, not the Patriarch of Constantinople. The liturgy they use is the West Syro-Antiochene Liturgy of St. James (with a couple of minor modifications). (Note: on the other hand, the Melkite Church uses the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

This is significant because, even under the rule of Islam, Middle Eastern Christians tried to retain their “Roman” identity and called themselves such. So, TECHNICALLY, Maronite Catholics are “Roman Catholics” in a very real sense.

That is a pretty thin "nit" you are picking at there, FRiend.

As it is used, the term "Roman Catholic" would apply to those who would be in the ancient Patriarchate of the West (whose patriarch is the Bishop of Rome). The so-called "Eastern" Catholics, including the Maronites, each have their own liturgical traditions and would have been part of distinct patriarchates. The difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that the Eastern Catholics either never broke communion with the Western Patriarch or have since re-established communion.

One other point is that the Oriental Churches (as opposed to Eastern Churches) broke communion with the rest of the Christian world after the Council of Chalcedon. Some have since been reconciled...if memory serves correctly, the Assyrian Orthodox Church has reconciled with the Chaldeans (thus bringing them in communion with Rome).

The Maronites have a unique history, particularly dealing with the time of the Crusades...but while I won't argue about particular churches within the Byzantine Empire calling themselves "Roman" -- there are a lot that never would have (Syro-Malobars, Chaldeans, and Copts come particularly to mind).

I could be wrong on that, but it’s true if memory serves.

Actually, prior to the schism, the Maronite Church would have fallen under the Patriarch of Antioch, not the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I realize that. But I was not talking about the Patriarchy of Constantinople, but rather the Eastern Roman Empire itself, of which both Constantinople and Antioch were a part. If you look up the terms "Rum Orthodox" and "Rum Catholic", they refer specifically to Christians from that part of the Middle East living under Islam. "Rum" was an Arabized version of "Roman."

That is a pretty thin "nit" you are picking at there, FRiend.

It really was meant less of a nitpick than an obscure bit of history. :-)

I was not referring to Churches. I was referring to the Byzantine Empire itself - the Byzantine Empire did not call itself "The Byzantine Empire"... it called itself the Roman Empire and people living within the Empire whom identified with it called themselves "Romans." I was simply pointing out that Arab Christians had a tendency to maintain that Roman identity while under the dominion of Islam... like I said before, it was not meant as a line of reasoning as to why Catholics should be called "Roman Catholics" but rather as a small tidbit of information I thought you'd find interesting since you strike me as an intelligent person with an interest in history.