Le Synode Libanais de 1736 (review)

The Synod of Mt. Lebanon of 1736, held under the auspices of a papal legate and approved in 1741 by Pope Benedict XIV in forma specifica, was one of the most important events in the life of the Maronite Church. It was the culmination of several papal missions sent to the Maronite Church beginning in the sixteenth century. Their purpose had been to assure Rome of the doctrinal integrity and liturgical correctness of the Maronites, and also to lend support and encouragement to this Eastern Catholic church. There were a number of reasons for the convoking of the Synod of 1736. The Church of Rome desired to implement the teachings of the Council of Trent among the Eastern churches. There was a need to clarify liturgical practice and to codify particular law for the Maronite Church. In previous decades serious tensions had arisen between the patriarch and the bishops. Indeed, at this time, considering the monastic origins of the Maronite Church, the patriarch possessed almost absolute authority, with the bishops serving as his vicars or auxiliaries. There were no delineated dioceses or episcopal residences, the bishops for the most part residing at the patriarchal residence or in monasteries.

Joseph Simon Assemani, the famous Orientalist, was appointed papal legate to the synod and prepared a text in Latin for the synod before leaving Rome. An Arabic translation was made and given to the Maronite patriarch and bishops shortly before the opening of the synod. The synodal fathers offered changes and amendments to the text during three days of sessions and gave final unanimous approval on October 2, 1736. After the closing, the patriarch and some of the bishops had second thoughts about the conduct of the synod and its implementation and challenged its validity to Rome. After a thorough investigation, the Holy See recognized the synod and its decisions.

In succeeding decades, it became apparent that Rome and the Maronite Church were interpreting the synod from two separate versions, one in Latin and one in Arabic, which contained some important differences. The Latin text followed by Rome was probably the one on which papal approval was based, and the Arabic text used by the patriarch was presumably a copy of the text worked on by the synod. The issue that first brought the problem to light was whether the patriarch had authority to dispense from the second degree of consanguinity according to the Roman computation.

Elias Atallah, former superior general of the Maronite Antonine Order, has produced a detailed study of the various manuscripts and printed editions of the synod of 1736. He also provides a French translation of the original Arabic manuscript text, which until twenty years ago was considered lost. Atallah does not offer an analysis of how the synod influenced the restructuring of the Maronite Church as the subtitle of his work might imply. Nor does he offer an explanation of how or why the Latin and Arabic texts of the synod came to differ.

Atallah's contribution consists in providing in one volume an itemized presentation of all the correspondence that took place between Rome and the Maronites leading up to the synod, a description of the synod and its aftermath, and a detailed exposition of the correspondence of both those challenging and defending the synod. The remainder of the volume is a meticulous comparison of the differences between the Latin and Arabic texts, especially of the Latin text printed in Rome in 1820 and the Arabic text based on the original Arabic manuscript printed in 1788. Atallah defends the authenticity of the Arabic text and cites authorities in its support. He theorizes that both Latin and Arabic manuscripts were the bases for the papal approval of the synod in 1741, and that none of the reviewers...