Talk:Maronite Church/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are saint john maron and saint maron different people?

Yes. E.g., [1]


Contents

[edit] "phoenician" --

Some ignorant people who have studied neither history nor ethnography are attempting to mislead the unwary that there exists in Lebanon a discrete people that is not a part of the Syrian nation that is established as a single people throughout natural Syria. [When the commander of the occupying French Army first played the tune of the independence of Lebanon that he proclaimed, those concerned to assure the future of the Christian community in Lebanon readily seized on the concept of creating a separate Lebanese national state that would base itself on the myth of a Phoenician origin in Lebanon. They took the ancient sea-going Canaanite cities that developed on the coast before Mount Lebanon, notably Tyre, Sidon and Byblos, as a suhhort for this myth. But even if this mystical "Phoenician" (that is to say, Canaanite) origin be allowed for the sake of argument to have had some truths to it, it would then only connect the Lebanese people, from the ethnological point of view, very closely to the Palestinian people, and both of them would indeed form one people because the origin of the Phoeniacians, who were given this name by the Greeks, and then become formed under it in Mediterranean history and in the Mediterranean civilization that emerged in Syria - is in Palestine that had been known as "the land of Canaan". Palestine had been the centre and "body" of the Canaanites and remained the repository of those among them who did not migrate elsewhere has proven beyond any doubt the intermixing of the three main peoples that spread throughout Natural Syria.: the "Phoenician" Canaanites, the Aramo-Chaleans and the Hittites. Their integration and fusion with each other finally led to the emergence of a new single well-defined personality, namely the Syrian personality. These definitive scientific researches include data relating to the dimension of pure anthropology that studies races/ethnic groups (ajnas) from a rigorously physical viewpoint. The most decisive of these researches were those undertaken by the Dutch scholar Kefrus, who, while teaching at the American University of Beirut, studied the races present in Syria, in particular those in the Syrian mountains and plains in both North and South. From these studies, he composed a report that he presented to the Dutch academy. The Maronites in particular - and the Hittite form, let it be remembered is very common among as well - are Aramites in their origin and language, that is to say Syriac or "Syrians". They came originally from the hinterland of Syria. The story of the monastry of the monks of Mar Marun near Homs and the Maronites flight from that place to Lebanon is an established fact which Archbishop Mubarak saw fit to mention a few days back in one of his sermons. Thus the Maronites, they being part of the Syrian people that is centered in the interior of Syria, are Syriac rather than Phoenician in their original tongue and in culture and blood. Their religious and social literature is part of the Syrian literature which so greatly flourished in Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates , although also in Urfa (Edessa) and elsewhere. Returning now to "the Phoenician origin", we find that the Phoenicians extended from Palestine along the whole length of the Syrian coast. The major Phoenician sites that were lately discovered between 1929 and 1932 were Ras Shamra near Latakia and not along the coast before Fam al-Mizab, Sinin or al- Kanisah. The main Syrian peoples intermixed with each other as historical periods passed and even before they intermarried their sense of common destiny already led them into partial or comprehensive alliances - notably the alliance they formed against the Egyptians that followed the Syrian conquest of Egypt and the sovereignty the Syrians exercised over Egypt for a considerable period. This intermixing produced the special Syrian type which differs in hue and colour from the Egyptian form which is the outcome of an admixture of various peoples, and which distinctively colonizes them together in relation to other forms. The Syrian social race unites the Syrians and the coastal residents and the hinterland Syrians and the Palestinians, and all residents of the Syrian regions in a single type that distinguishes them from other forms. Wherever individuals of this type meet in the diaspora, their form and temperment unite them and distinguish them from others such as the Egyptians and the French and the English and the Germans and the Russians and so forth. Returning now to the Maronites specifically, we find them to have a grasp that preserved a residue of very ancient Syrian customs which they share with some groups of the Syrian hinterland and Mesopotamia. Their historical language is Syriac, that is to say the general Syrian language which was current throughout Syria and indeed for a certain period became the standard language of dealings between nations: some treaties between Egypt and Persia were drafted in the Aramaic (Syriac) language. The Maronite Patriarch is not the Patriarch of a Lebanese see but of a general Syrian one. He is "the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East" - Antioch being in the North of Syria, having served as the capital of the Syrian Empire in the Seleucid era in which the reigning family were Greek but the state Syrian. Phoenicia itself knew very well that it was Syrian rather than "Lebanese": the Gospels characterized it as Syrian when it described the travels of Jesus of Nazareth to Galilee and the areas of Tyre and Sidon. Before the First World War all the Lebanese used to consider themselves Syrians. None of them would define himself as Lebanese in any but a narrow regional sense as distinct from the nationality. It was the usage we observe in the phrases "Butrus al-Bustani the Lebanese" and "Yuhanna the Damascene" and Dik al-Jin al-Humsi (of Homs). The Maronites in particular are the bearers of a Syrian heritage; their sect has always been part and parcel of overall Syrian history. We expect them to play a major role in preserving the heritage. Every idea that is intended to isolate them from the mainstream of this history is an idea that would harm their basis and which would bring ruin to their future. The Lebanese question was never one of a particularist nation or a distinct race or of a separate land. Rather it is the issue of a religious group that bygone religious wars in tandem with a lack of political and civil rights pushed to demand an arrangement that would offer security to its religious rites and customs in order to maintain - certainly not to destroy - that ancient heritage. The truth of this issue is known to the Christians and the Mohammadans equally. The founding of the Lebanese Kataib Party or Phalange in itself recognized that no "Lebanese nation" exists given that the first article of its foundation constitution states that its aim is "to work continuously towards the establishment of a Lebanese nation" - that is, that this nation is still non-existent and that the Phalange wants to bring it into being. Even to this day the Phalange has never issued any statement that it has concluded its construction of this Lebanese nation. It has yet to call people to view the outcome of its landmark in any formal exhibition! Jubran Khalil Jubran, who was a Maronite when they set up the entity of Greater Lebanon, could only exclaim in an article he penned for that occasion: "You have your Lebanon, as I have my Lebanon." The Maronite Archbishop al-Dibs titled his magnus opus The History of Syria, and considered all of Syria his homeland and the Syrian Nation his nation. Sulayman al-Bustani, the great writer, likewise a Maronite, said on his deathbed: "Syria is the sanctuary in which hopes are invested:...." Do not betray the spirits of your fathers and grand fathers. Do not be so foolish as to rob yourself of that immortality to which you were from. There is no question - although some may make the claim for their own purposes - of dismantling the [Lebanese] entity because all groups now have accepted that entity. Let us then, distinguish between the entity and its safety on one hand and, social realities on the other.

(quoted from Antoun Saadeh) http://www.ssnp.com/new/library/saadeh/misc/en/maronites_1.htm

I think it should be made clear that MARONITES are NOT phoenicians, but SYRIANS who flem from persecution before the crusades. It would be fair truthful to say they have Syrian, Arab, and French 'Crusader' (to a MUCH lesser extent than in the county of Edessa where crusaders frequently married with Armenians. Maronites today often idealize the crusading period where in fact the crusaders often looked down upon the other christian sects, such as maronites), but it would be ridiculous to say that the Maronites are Phoenicians.

[edit] "Monothelite" -- not in 5th century

The monothelite heresy was an invention of the Emperor Heraclius in the early 600's. Therefore it is not possible that the Maronite church began when they were excommunicated by the Syrians in the 5th century.

Can you cite your source for the Monothelite connection? If you have this in an authoritative source, when does that source claim the excommunication happened?

We need to clear this up instead of simply having you change my edits and vice-versa over and over.

By the way, if the 5th century/Monophysite version is correct, then the term Syrian Orthodox Church is an anachronism, because the S.O.C. wasn't really a separate body from the main Catholic/Orthodox church until the divisions resulting from the Monophysite schism had fully congealed, which was not until the late 5th century at the earliest. (Monophysitism was anathemetized at Chalcedon in 451.) Lawrence King 19:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[2]; [3]; [4]; [5]
--Briangotts 22:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, all of these articles agree on the Maronite history, and they are saying something very different than the existing Wikipedia article does!

Here is my summary of these articles. Does this look right as a replacement for the first paragraph of the History section?

Apparently, Maronites originated from the Syrian Orthodox Church and were separated and excommunicated in the 5th century (or 7th century?) because of their support of the Monophysite (or Monothelite?) heresy.
In the early 4th century, a community gathered around the Christian hermit St. Maron. After his death in 435 (or 410, according to some sources), this community continued to grow, and adopted the name of Maronites.
Centered near Emesa in Syria, the Maronites remained orthodox in the 5th and 6th centuries despite the strength of the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies in that region. In the early 7th century, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius invented the Monothelite heresy as an attempt to reunite Christendom. Heraclius' plan backfired, and the Maronite community seceded from the Byzantine Empire rather than remain associated with an emperor they considered a heretic. After this time, the Maronites constantly struggled to retain their independence from the Byzantine and the Muslim empires.

That will solve the problem, it seems to me. I will also make "John Maron" a link in the history section, and put the Mardaites in their proper place (it now seems clear, rereading Mardaites, that this was a group that abandoned Monothelitism when they joined the Maronites.)

Objections?

Lawrence King 11:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going ahead with this (and will fix the "cleanup" issues too). Lawrence King 00:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maronites were Monothelites?

The current version we have seems to disagree with most accounts I have read, which say that the Maronites themselves were Monothelites, and that this was the cause of the break. Indeed, this makes more sense on the face of it - why, otherwise, would the Maronites have remained a separate group after the main church at Antioch returned to Orthodoxy? john k 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See, for instance, [6], [7]. The current edition of Britannica agrees:

Though their traditions assert that the Maronites were always orthodox Christians in union with the Roman see, there is evidence that for centuries they were Monothelites, followers of the heretical doctrine of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, who affirmed that there was a divine but no human will in Christ.

The version we have seems to be the Maronite version. At the very least, we should mention the more common, non-Maronite version that they were Monothelites. john k 17:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First as to your question regarding "why would they not have reunited with Byzantium after Byzantium returned to orthodoxy?" This is a good argument, but I can imagine several answers. By that point the Maronites lived in Muslim-dominated territory adn Byzantium couldn't defend them in any event. Plus there are now a dozen Orthodox churches that remain separate from the Greek Orthodox church.
After reading the links you posted, I agree that in the pursuit of NPOV we need to mention this alternate theory. But first I would like to understand this theory.
Assuming this theory is true:
  1. When did the Maronite community originate?
  2. Were they monothelites from the beginning? If not, when did they become monothelites?
  3. When did they stop being monothelites?
Your first link says they were monothelites from the beginning, which means they must have originated in the 600's; it doesn't answer the other questions.
Your second link says they were monothelites by the late 600's. It also says the Byzantines were briefly monothelites again from 711-3; it doesn't say if the Maronites were still monothelites at that point. It doesn't answer the other questions.
Your Britannica quote says they remained monothelites "for centuries" but doesn't answer the other questions.
Should we take this info and add a blurb to the main page about "An alternative theory is that..." and stress that this alternative theory does not contain a lot of specifics?
Lawrence King 00:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should certainly not call it an "alternate theory," because it appears to be the main theory held by historians (as opposed to Maronites). That it is less detailed and more speculative than the mythic origin story of the Maronites themselves is not surprising. On the History of Rome page, should we give the mythical story of Romulus and Remus as our basic account of the founding of Rome, and then note an "alternate theory" with "few specifics" based on modern archaeology? I think it would behoove us to find a more authoritative recent non-Maronite source that discusses this question. But, it looks to me as though the question of the origins of the Maronites is essentially unclear. We should say that the Maronites themselves believe that their split with the Orthodox Church was due to their rejection of Monothelitism, but that most historians hold to an alternate theory that the Maronites did, in fact, originate out of a Monothelite movement. At any rate, I think it is clear that what is really needed here is actual research, out of a book, and not simply what we can find on google. I am not a scholar of eastern christianity, so I wouldn't even begin to know where to look for this, but I'm sure sources can be found. john k 00:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then I agree that we shouldn't use the Maronite version as the "Main Theory" and the Britannica version as the "Alternate Theory", as I suggested above.
What do you think about two theories, each given equal weight? (That doesn't mean equal number of words or anything silly like that, and I don't care which comes first.)
I am not a scholar of this subject either, but I don't want to assume that Encyclopedia Britannica is always right and religious groups are always wrong about their own origins. I believe that NPOV includes representing even supernatural claims, which the Britannica certainly doens't do.
We can make this change and then leave it for a future scholar to update after that -- preferably one who has carefully studied the evidence for both views, not just a partisan.
One of the many reasons I don't want to take the Britannica version as "preferred" is that if we take one side or the other, then to be consistent we need to rewrite several linked articles. For example, Mardaites seems to presume the Britannica version, while Maron presumes the other version.
Indeed, if the Britannica is right, what can be made of St. Maron? Did he exist at all? He certainly can't be the 4th century founder of a group that was created by a 6th century heresy. If he didn't exist, why does his page say he knew St. John Chysostom (who certainly existed)? I can make some guesses -- maybe there was a real 4th century Maron, and the group of Maronites were founded by a real 6th century John Maron, and later these two men were confused? -- but I certainly don't want to put guesses on this page.
So I believe that this is a legitimate historical controversy which Wikipedia should not try to settle. Does that sound right to you?
Lawrence King 09:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should certainly present both views - but it isn't POV to say that historians tend towards one point of view, if it's true. The problem is, we don't really know, because we don't have enough information. At the very least, at the moment, we should put in the view that they started out as Monothelites as being one held by "many historians," since I think Britannica can be found reliable as far as that goes. Is there anywhere we could list this to try and get it more attention from somebody who might actually know? Peer review, maybe? john k 15:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] President of Lebanon

I have been reading the Constitution of Lebanon, and I can find no reference to a religious requirement for the office of president. If I am mistaken, I would much appreciate being corrected, thanks.

I don't know whether it says it in the constitution, but the President is always a Maronite, the Prime Minister a Sunni, and the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi'ite. This is pretty common knowledge. john k 23:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then if it doesn't say it in the constitution, the article should be revised to reflect common practice, and not to continue a factual fallacy. Of course, I could still be reading the Lebanese constitution incorrectly.

It's in the constitution. Amendments in 1990 incorporated the Taif Agreement, which codified what had previously been custom.

Thanks! You've been a big help!

Before Taif, it was part of the "national pact" (1943), it was an unwritten agreement that gave christians 65% of the parliament seats. But later, in 1990, christians numbers were constantly decreasing due to the civil war so we made it 50/50:) we can say now that approximately, christians are 30% of the population, and still decrasing.

[edit] "Syriac-Arameans"

This is not an ethnicity but a language. The Lebanese, regardless of religion, share the same genes with the rest of the Levantines and are mainly Cana'anites(Phoenicians)ethnically speaking.

Ethnicity and language are largely intertwined, and have little to do with genes. Aramaeans in antiquity were regarded as a distinct people from Phoenicians/Canaanites.

Ethnicity is far closer connected to genes than language, a German-American who speaks English is till German by ethnicity, that is an indisputable fact.

The Aramean speakers in Lebanon were not Arameans by ethnicity, just like they aren't ethnically Arabs today. Recent genetic studies have proven that Cana'anites/Phoenicians/Lebanese are the same people regardless of language and religion, so the same goes with the Maronites. It would be very appropriate to change this: "they are mainly Syriac-Aramaeans with a mix of Phoenician, Crusader, and Greeks." As it should really deal with ethnicity. And the crusader/Greek admixture is neglible as best. The Wikipedia articles on Lebanon and Syria should also be changed.

I would like to give you crach course of the identification of phenocians, the truth is that there is no ethnic group called phenocians. Phenocia is a geografical term that was invented by the greeks. Canaites is a term that is not used in greater extension as an identification of a group, but rather the land of the canaites. And there have not been any evidence of canaites when the greeks came to Beth nahrin//syro-mesopotamia, the truth is that the canaites was aramaized long time before the greeks arrived . The "phenocians"(that is people that lived in phenocia) are ethnically arameans. Suryoyo 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Both Maronites and Maronite Catholic Church now redirect to Maronite. In my opinion, this article should be split, with Maronite serving as a disambiguation page. -Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Seems to me that that's unnecessarily complicated. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought it would be convenient to have an article about the Maronite church, and one about the Maronite people. I assumed there would also be secularised or non-Catholic Maronites. But I could very well be mistaken. ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I was a bit too hasty adding the {Split}} tag to this article. Any input about the matter is appreciated, though. For now, I'll remove the tag. ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You should try to read a bit about ethnic, national and religious phenomenons in the Ottoman Empire and in post-Ottoman countries: Maronites are not an ethnic group separated from their church, they are'nt either "Syriacs" or "Arameans" or whatsoever. --Pylambert 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-Arab Middle East Christians

I think people discussing here should have a look at the doings of some anti-Arab Christian activists at the Assyrian-related articles. They even designed a totally inaccurate and propagandist Syriacs box, mentioning Maronites and Melkites as "Syriacs", thus non-Arabs, which I proposed for deletion here. Pylambert 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

"Maronite Rite" (Wild Wolf's change) is not the most suitable title for this article. "Maronite Church" would be better. "Rite" requires disambiguation. "Church" is easily understood. "Maronite Catholic Church" would be tautological. The previous simple title "Maronite" may well be quite enough, but Wild Wolf is probably right in thinking there should be indication that the word concerns a Church rather than a nationality or the like. Lima 05:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He really should've proposed the page move here first, before just going off to do it.--KrossTalk 07:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
If nobody, even Wild Wolf, objects, I will in a few days' time, move the article to "Maronite Church" Lima 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five original patriarchates

This phrase needs an additional explanation. For years I have been under impression that there were FOUR original patriarchates (see the article). -Idiotoff 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maronites ethnicity

They are of Assyrian and Phoenecian blood, St. Maron was part of Church of the east (Nestorian), he later split from the church and migrated toward lebanon. For example the leader of the maronite church must know Syriac, even if the do thier prayer in arabic.

[edit] Shakira

Shakira's father is Maronite. Should she be added into the list of famous Maronites?

[edit] Lack of Citations

This article suffers from a serious lack of citations; in particular I would like the claims regarding Mamluk and Ottoman ethnic cleansing to either be substantiated or removed.لقمانLuqman 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


I have been looking for the right spot to say this, but I can't seem to find it. Sorry about butting in. All I want to say is that in paragraph number 8 (copy-paste just below) you mention that Crusader Raymond of Toulouse conquered Jerusalem in the Great Crusade. I clicked on the Great Crusade link and found out it has nothing to do with Raymond of Toulouse. I clicked on the Raymond of Toulouse link and found out that it was the First Crusade. I just wanted to point out this error which can easily be fixed. Again, I am sorry for posting this here. I looked and looked but finally gave up on finding the right spot for this post.

Following the conquest of Eastern Christendom outside of Anatolia and Europe by the Muslims, and the established of secured lines of control between Islamic Caliphs and Byzantine Emperors, little was heard from the Maronites for 400 years. Fastened in their mountain strongholds, while civil wars between competing Caliphs and sects of Muslims rent the Islamic Empire, and with the front of the Islamic Jihad moved north, most Maronites escaped the Muslim led genocide of Eastern Christianity in the mountains of Lebanon. It was not until the Crusader Raymond of Toulouse on his way to conquer Jerusalem in the Great Crusade that the Maronites were re-discovered mountains near Tripoli, Lebanon. Raymond later returned to besiege Tripoli after his conquest of Jerusalem and relations between the Maronites and European Christianity were re-established.

[edit] Pictures.

I know everyone would rather bicker over whether Maronites are Phoenicians, and whether Phoenicians were black, but I still feel the need to mention that this article would benefit from some photos of contemporary Maronite life, such as a congregation in queue for communion, or the current Patriarch. 70.22.212.107 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)