Talk:Maronite Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Somewhere it says that the Maronites have documented communion with Rome from c.1100 CE forward. $1 says they were Monothelites from 600-1100 ("for centuries") and only returned to Rome when Roman Crusader Armies were their only military option versus Islam during the crusades. From 1100 - present, they have been Roman and flatly denied their own "heresy".

This article is being discussed as part of a wider miniproject. Please see Syriacs/miniproject.

are saint john maron and saint maron different people?

Yes. E.g., [1]

Contents 1 "Monothelite" -- not in 5th century 2 Maronites were Monothelites? 3 President of Lebanon 4 "Syriac-Arameans" 5 Split 6 non-Arab Middle East Christians 7 Title 8 Five original patriarchates

[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.--Kross^Talk 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)