Talk:Maronite Church/Archive 1

are saint john maron and saint maron different people?

Yes. E.g., [1]

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.

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)

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)

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why? Seems to me that that's unnecessarily complicated. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

In the "History section" there is an anachronism. The Orthodox church did not exist until at lest 1054AD during the East-West Schism. The bottom line was that Papal recognition infered recognition by all Christiantiy because the Pope represented Western as well as Eastern Christianity which I thinke is what the author was trying to point out.

"Correspondence concerning the event brought papal and orthodox recognition of the Maronites which was solidified by Pope Hormisdas on February 10, 518."

Today Eastern Christianity in that part of the world is represented by both Greek Catholics in union with with the Pope and preserving their traditions separate from the Latin(Roman) Church, and the Orthodox Church which in essence hold nearly all the same traditions as Greek(Byzantine) Catholic, except that they are not in union with the Pope as they were during the time of Marion in the 6th century.

This error continues throughout the article "The chaos and utter depression which followed led the Maronites to elect their first Maronite Patriarch, John Maroun, in 685. This however was seen as a usurpation by both the Orthodox and Catholic rites. "

That last sentence should read "This however was seen as a usurpation by both the Eastern rite church as well as the Latin(Western) rites of the (pre-schism Church). Micael 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Y) Who removed the history section ?????????????

i have noticed that the headline "Population" is also in the page "Maronite people".

• The articles should be merged. Why should there be a separate article for Maronite people? Funkynusayri 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can think of as relevant is the particular treatment of Maronites under the constitution of Lebanon, giving them a particular legal status, identified with but independant of their membership in the Maronite church. oknazevad 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that could just as well be explained/pasted here, no? Anyone know how similar the two pages are, how much duplicate material there is? Funkynusayri 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples of extreme POV recounting in this article, especially in the section on history. For instance:

Thus, at a time when Islam was rising on the borders of the Byzantine and a united front was necessary to keep out the Islamic infiltration ..

Now in a state of harsh occupation under Arabic rule after the Muslim conquest of Syria, the Maronites relationship with the Byzantine Empire improved. The imperial court seeing its earlier mistake ..

I might wish for a less POV treatment, but the article, as it stands today, really does do a good job of recounting not just Maronite history, but Maronite sentiment as well. So, perhaps, it should stand as is?

--Philopedia 00:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it if you have some alterations. I think the history section begins a little odd as well "It was in Antioch that" etc., sounds kind of un-encyclopedic. Funkynusayri 09:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Infiltration' is a weasel word, so change it to something like 'Seige' 'Assault' etc. The 2nd sentance needs to be changed entirely. FinalWish 11:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you can change it too. Funkynusayri 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the "History" section it is stated that the Crusader states were "ethnically cleansed". I'm not sure that this is accurate. The Muslims were expelling a European occupation force that had invaded their territory. To say that this expulsion was ethnic cleansing is not accurate. If the author(s) insist that "ethnic cleansing" (which is often code for genocide) did occur there needs to be a citation because that is a very serious charge. This discussion augments the "Consistently Heavy Point of View Recounting" discussion below. Wikifan79 11:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, just change it if you want to, chunks of this artice seem to be remnants of an earlier version with big POV problems. Funkynusayri 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that there are between 8 and 9 million Maronites. While I very much would like for this to be true, I did check the source listed here (cnewa) and they only list uder 4 million. This is a big difference. Where are the numbers for the other 4 to 5 million coming from. The cnewa list the statistics for the entire Maronite Church including their diocese in the Americas. I just do not see where the numbers came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm brazilian and really doubt there are so many maronites here. A source would fit well.--LeonMello (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually the Maronites number around 3 to 6 million around the world, however there have been no official polls or anything of the like. However it is known for a fact that the Maronite diaspora outnumbers the Muslims in Lebanon. Maybe that's a starting point? There are around 4 million people in Lebanon, 36% I recall are Maronite.

Please don't move the infobox down, they are always top right in Wikipedia articles. Also, it messes up the layout. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is titled Maronite Church and so the box on the people itself, goes next to the section of population. See also the article on the Roman Catholic Church, also putting it the way you put it, offsets the entire articles layout, where it pushes the pictures into sections where they're not supposed to be. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article begins like this: "Maronites (Arabic: الموارنة, transliteration: Mawārinah, Syriac: ܡܪܘܢܝܐ, Latin: Ecclesia Maronitarum) are members of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, with a heritage reaching back to Maron in the early 5th century."

It is really irrelevant what the article is called, because the article deals both with the church and its followers.

I don't see your point, all other articles about religious and ethnic groups have the specific religious group/ethnic group infobox on the top right of the page, see Assyrians, Amish, Copts, Jews, so on and so on. I'm not talking about the series infobox which is put on several articles. The images are not pushed into places they shouldn't be as far as I can see. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is titled the Maronite Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has that article and then one of Copts, perhaps Maronites need their own breakoff article for the people Maronites rather than just one for both the religious organisation and its people. - Gennarous (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles were merged because the text was identical in both. If it is an issue simply because the title is "Maronite Church", then we should maybe have the article moved to Maronite people or similar. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be completely ignorant of the fact that the Maronite Church is a religious organisation in communion with the Catholic Church. Under what basis would we "not need" an article titled Maronite Church for the religion that most Lebonese around the world follow? - Gennarous (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's Lebanese, and how exactly is it "ignorant"? Maronites are a people who follow the Maronite Church, there are not different sects of Maronites, and so far, there is not enough information to justify there being two separate articles about the people and the church, so they have been merged. I don't see the sudden problem at all, there was a consensus to merge, so you should rather discuss it here and see what other editors think than suddenly change it all around. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of who the Maronites are, what you don't seem to be able to understand is the Maronite Church (which this article is titled) is a specific religious organisation with a layed out hierarchy, a partiarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir and it is in full communion with the Catholic Church, making the Maronite Church highly notable. Look at the articles on other Christian organisations and then see what the standard is. You seem to be confusion articles with an ethnic group title, to articles with a religious organisation title. - Gennarous (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an ethic group, but a religious group which follows a specific sect, which is the Maronite Church, and this article is about both. If the articles aren't split, the infobox should be at the top, but if we do split them up, well, everything's possible, but at the present moment there just isn't enough info here to justify having two separate articles. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need to change the title of the page to Maronites. Chaldean (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the majority of the information in this article is of the Maronite people. I think we should first move this article to "Maronites"... and then create "Maronite Church" as a seperate article with some of the information from this one moved into it. They certainly both need their own articles, however small they begin, articles can grow. - Gennarous (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should have two separate articles eventually, but it would be better if someone actually wrote decent article about the church and then created the article afterwards, than just creating a stub with few lines. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the userbox at the top. Eli+ 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The population of Maronites in Cyprus according to their official website stands at 6000. Not 16 000. That number is obcenely high. http://www.maronite-heritage.com/html/maronites_of_cyprus.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reliability and relevancy of sensitive data is questioned especially that user:AramaeanSyriac labels erratically anything remotely relating to eastern levantine culture or religion as being "SYRIAC". My effort is simply aimed to keeping the project's articles as reliable as possible. THird party opinions are very welcome. thank you for understanding user:AramaeanSyriac and thank you for helping end conflicts. 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Eli+ 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your reversions, the Maronite Church is Syriac in origin, but this is simply related to languages, not ethnicity. Talk of a "Syriac people" should not be mentioned outside articles about people who specifically identify as such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki currently has an article called Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. My understanding was that Assyrian was the ethnic name, where Syriac was the name of the language, as per Monk and Elie above.

I'm very keen to learn more about the issues, if anyone wants to discuss things further here in order to ensure this article is reliable. I live in the "little Beirut" of Sydney, my neighbours are mainly Lebanese background people, many are Maronite. I am also interested in Syriac, because it is closely related to the Aramaic that Jesus spoke. I enjoy meeting Assyrian Christians, because they are usually warmly positive about the value of studying Hebrew to understand the Old Testament.

All articles can be improved, but so too many individual proposed changes have a mixture pros and cons. Perhaps there is a place to source a more complete, but still concise statement of the relationship of Maronite faith to the broader historical movements of the ancient and important cultural traditions of the Assyrian peoples.

Rejection of one edit, doesn't mean rejection of that editor, nor of the basic idea of refining and/or expanding the article. Instead of stopping something uncomfortable, we could be starting something good here. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we more or less point out that the Maronites consider themselves to be Syriacs, and their church is officially a Syriac Maronite Church? There is no race nor people called Maronite. The Maronites are Syriacs and still have Syriac as their liturgical language.--Yohanun (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there is no race called Syriacs either, it simply refers to Syriac speaking Christians that could be described as an ethnicity. The thing is, Maronites only use Syriac as a liturgical language, and prefer to identify as Phoenicians anyway. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They (for the most part) actually don't even speak Syriac (anymore.) It is only used in the church, but its not understood. Kinda like how latin was used in churches. Chaldean (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They"? You mean Maronites? No Maronite speaks Syriac as their mother tongue. Funkynusayri (talk)

That is what I said. Chaldean (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I wasn't sure whether you referred to Maronites or "real" Syriacs. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Shouldn't we more or less point out that the Maronites consider themselves to be Syriacs, and their church is officially a Syriac Maronite Church? — Though many of them still consider themselves to be Syriacs (Suryoye), they are too dense to realise they're not Phoenicians. Well, there is no race called Syriacs either, it simply refers to Syriac speaking Christians that could be described as an ethnicity. — Syriacs are of the Semitic race and ethnically Assyrians (though some of us Syriacs have difficulties understanding this, since we've been stateless for over 2000 years). By the way, is there actually some compelling evidence of a direct lineage for this ridiculous Phoenician identity, or is it something they made up just because they felt they weren't Arabs? No Maronite speaks Syriac as their mother tongue. — Most of them speak Lebanese Arabic (which is very influenced by Syriac). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Proclaiming the existence of a Semitic race is also a bit iffy, though you could argue that Middle Easterners as a whole, or the wider Mediterraneans, form a somewhat distinct genetic cluster, within the big cluster we call "Caucasoids". After all, a Syrian or Iraqi would have more genetically in common with an Iranian or Anatolian than with an Omani or Yemenite, geographic proximity is more important than ethnic self-designation and language. Semitic really just refers to a language family, not a true definable genetic family.

As for Phoenicians, Maronites do not exactly have homogeneous origins, but the bulk of them came from the Syrian mountains, not the coast, as far as I understand, so they are probably descendants of the wider Canaanites, but not necessarily the coastal Phoenicians. Genetic studies have shown links, but that's simply because different groups within the Levant are so similar to each other that trying to separate them by ancestry is useless. It would be equally hard to genetically separate a Swede from a Dane, or similar. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course a controversial area, but I feel a section on the general identity of the people who follow the Maronite Church self-identifying with the Phoenicians rather than Arabs, despite now speaking the Arabic language is certaintly needed.

The term "Arab world" in itself is somewhat contentious, because of there being an Arab language and also an Arab ethnicity. The "Arab world" should rename itself the "Arabic speaking world" to avoid this. - Gennarous (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • why hasn't anyone mentioned in the history section about the group of Maronites in the Lebanon massacre? Seanmichaelcouch (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source on the claim that Ralph Nader is a Maronite. It is cool if he is but since any Catholic running for office gets attacked about it I just figured I would have heard something about it. I tried to look for it myself on the net but haven't found anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.13.27.206 (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hes not a Maronite(despite common belief) his actually Orthodox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.224.163 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history section seems to move to the 10th century and flit back to the 6th century. Anyone with some knowledge on the history could tackle this, if deemed necessary. I am also interested in relations between the Maronite Church and the Crusaders who passed by. Was there mutual respect, any doctrinal bullying by the superior force etc or perhaps they were all united in having a perceived common enemy? Any comments by anyone who could shed any light on this would be very much appreciated. --Another berean (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a suggestion for some, put them here. But let's not overdo it, pick the most notable ones, both male and female, so we don't end up with something like this.[8] FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lebanese are "Syriac people", other use the word "Syriac-Maronite" too, booth are right. They are most members of the Syriac Orthodox Church or members of the Syriac Maroite Church, there language i originally "Syriac-Aramaic" this is a dialekt of Aramaic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.63.229 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is the definiton of "Syrac people"? FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Syriac people" are people and follower of the syriac christianity and the syriac(Aramaic) language, the maronite church is a offshot of the syriac orthodox church, and the maronites speaks syriac in origin.And the still use syriac like their Liturgical language. Thats why the full name of the church is " Antiochene Syriac Maronite Church"

And the official website of the maronite patriach are explain that the maronite are a part of the syriac people.

http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=143:-introduction&catid=35:maronite-identity-&Itemid=55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.29.175 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab christians? arabs are MUSLIMS, everyone knows that! and 9 million of them? i think the rest of the arab world wouldve noticed if 9 million arabs converted to christianity… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.26.19 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is your comment a joke? Funkynusayri (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually kind of offended at that comment(me being a Maronite myself), it only shows how stupid some people are. FinalWish (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Christians? I think the author of this comment must have failed to read the article, pointing out that Arabs are a large ethnic group, and Islam is a religion (with a small number of discrete denominations eg Sunni and Shi-ite) to which the majority of arabs belong. but not all arabs converted to Islam, either from Christianity or from the other preceding religions (though I dont know of any of those which are still in existnace) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.40.177 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the WP:TROLLs! Of course some Arabs are Christians. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance to other Christian ethno-religious groups in the Middle East and Churches, the article about "Maronite Church" should reflect the faith history and scope, while "Maronites" article should reflect the demographics of Maronite people. Examples:

Assyrian people vs Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church

Copts vs Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

Greeks vs Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Greek Church of Alexandria

Arameans vs Syrian Orthodox Church and The Jacobite Syrian Church

Syrian Malabar Nasrani people vs The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Syrian Churches of Kerala

In the same manner "Maronites" article should be created to reflect demographics, while this article to concentrate on religious aspects.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't big enough to warrant a split. Those examples you posted had to be split due to size. Add to it, then you can split. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better example would be Chaldean Church and Chaldean Christians. I support such a split if both articles get extra materials for example a section about Marada and the civil war of 1860 and more information about its dioceses especially its spiritual centre in Qadisha valley. On the other hand the article is tiny compared to the Arabic version.--Rafy talk 12:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to wikipedia, but I am a Maronite. I was reading this page, and saw an incorrect Scripture passage. Above the population listings, it says:

"The saying "The glory of Lebanon was given to him"(Isaiah 2: 35) has been applied to the Maronite Patriarch."

This is incorrect. The correct passage is Isaiah 35:2.

I'm not sure how to go in and edit this information myself, so if someone who is a little more wiki-friendly could please do so, thank you.

God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkhael (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! I figured out how to edit it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkhael (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current article reads as Maronites are the misunderstood informal majority of Lebanon while my western media influenced memory associates "Maronite" with darkness and forsakenness: Sabra and Shatila massacre and Kataeb Party. These items are missing but important in the history of the Maronites. If referenced apologies and renunciations are added, then so be it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is about the Maronite Church. Sabra and Shatila massacre and Kataeb Party are important facts of recent Lebanese history (as well as 2006 Lebanon War and other events) but were not directly tied or organized or supported by the Maronite Church, thus they rightly shall not be included in this Article. An Encyclopedia shall be NPOV and not follow any western media influenced memory. The reader who is interested in Phalangism can read the proper Article Phalange or the relevant articles about politics in Lebanon.

It could be written a separate article about the Maronites as politic group of people, not as an ecclesiastic entity (Maronite church), but also here we cannot make generalizations, for examples many Maronites vote for Michel Aoun who have always fought the Phalangits. So let us not confuse Maronites with Phalangists A ntv (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, why is the Damour massacre exists in the article? 77.31.138.118 (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Maroun04.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The richest person in the world, is a Maronite from Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.93.16 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes he is, but he's not a priest or bishop, feel free to add him to the Maronites wiki page. This article mainly discusses the Order of the Maronites, in the sense of the Church itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.173.96 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it stated the 9th century. However, the Maronites of Cyprus arrived there in the 7th centry and already had Arabic as their community language (of course, Syriac was the liturgical language). In fact, Cypriot Maronite Arabic is still spoken by Cypriot Maronites. The population itself, according to ethnologue, consists of 6,240 people, of which only 140 (all elderly) can still speak it due to forced community displacement, divided resettlement, and forced adoption of Greek and Turkish.

I have editted the article to say "9th century o earlier" until a source can be found. Al-Andalus 12:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Maronites arrived in Cyprus after the crusades.
• Some Maronites were already Arab (Ghassanids) who spoke Arabic before the rise of Islam. The Ghassanids became concentrated in Lebanon after the Muslims Armies Garrisoned Hauran. However the Ghassanids were already present in Syria since the 3rd century AD.
• The majority of the Maronites are either Arabic or Aramiac speaking settlers from Syria.--Skatewalk 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Arabisation occurred during the Ummayyad Conquest which imposed laws unto the Maronites. However it was the Civil war which caused the decrease in Syriac language use. For it was widespread in the Mountains until only recently, in the 1950's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.173.96 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine mentioned the quality of this page, and specifically referred to the Monothelitism subject. As an outsider with no knowledge of the subject, I must say, there seems to be a lot of recurring statements of this Monothelitism subject throughout the article, even though it's controversial.

The subject is notable. But I feel it is refereed to too many times, and that it's not informing, rather, just trying to push a POV down someone's throat, when it isn't even proven to be completely true or false.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Nomardll769 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to a long-term understanding with their Latin counterparts in North America, Maronite priests in that area are expected to remain celibate." But according to a link off of the website for the Brooklyn eparchy (http://www.stmaron.org/The%20Priests,%20Vocation%20and%20Formation%20by%20Archbishop%20Youssef%20Bechara.pdf) The Maronite Synod of bishops took notice of this situation and a few years back made a decision that will preserve the tradition while taking in consideration the new developments. It decreed that the one who chooses marriage should not be ordained before the age of 35 and after many years of married life during which he had found a suitable source of income for his family and managed his household. If this is the current case, it sounds an awful lot like the situation for permanent deacons in the Latin Rite.AloysiusZimmerfloss (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should remove this section 'Identification / definition'. This Phoenician and so on stuff is extremely debatable (and debated, but I won't go into this). Moreover it points to rather aggressive sources (this is always easy to find such 'news' websites spreading all possible opinions). I am neither Maronite nor Lebanese but I used to live in Beirut and know plenty of Maronites which are strong believers and involved in the Church, and at the same time plainly consider themselves as Arabs. I know also plenty who think differently, but this article is about the Maronite Church, not these ever lasting debates. I plan to remove this section and the related sources, just waiting a bit for your opinions. Mbaudier (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to say that Maronites are in any way unique in being "Eastern" Catholics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches Monkeybot2000 (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be revised... It's ridden with baseless revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.73 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but isn't it quite anachronistic to talk about the Maronite Church (as distinct from the Maronite ethnicity) before John Maroun? Of course the people who became the Maronite Church existed for many centuries before this, but the formation of the Antiochene rite all began with John Maroun did it not? It seem this article has failed to distinguish between Church history and ethnic history. F.Tromble (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Antiochene rite existed for 5 centuries before John Maron - John Maron has nothing to do with liturgical development, he was simply considered the "first" Maronite hierarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.75 (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is saturated in historical revisionism fabricated in the last century (e.g. "monophysites slew 350 monks" - the very idea that the Syriac Orthodox are monophysite and therefore do not believe in Jesus being both fully God and man is revisionism). These "facts" needs to be reviewed and cited to something other than websites that just endlessly cite other websites that ultimately derive their histories from folklore and revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.75 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claims about the murder of 350 monks are somewhat earlier than the 19th century. It's a hopelessly complicated story, and the sources are very limited. Moosa, in the book in the references section does demolish the claim, or at least cast massive doubt. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this from the lede since it wasn't really discussed in the text, and may be more appropriate in the Maronite article rather than the one on the Church.
"The members of the Maronite Church are part of the Lebanese people, who are the present day descendants of the Phoenicians, a Canaanite people. The cultural and linguistic heritage of the Lebanese people is a blend of both indigenous Phoenician elements and the foreign cultures that have come to rule the land and its people over the course of thousands of years. In a 2013 interview the lead investigator, Pierre Zalloua, pointed out that genetic variation preceded religious variation and divisions:"Lebanon already had well-differentiated communities with their own genetic peculiarities, but not significant differences, and religions came as layers of paint on top. There is no distinct pattern that shows that one community carries significantly more Phoenician than another." ^[1] A number of Maronite historians assert that their people, along with their non-Christian countrymen, are also the descendants of the Arameans, Ghassanids, Assyrians, and the Mardaites; though they have, over time, developed a distinctive Maronite character, this has not obscured their Antiochene and Syriac Christian origin.^[2][3]"
Mannanan51 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having slogged my way through a large chunk of Moosa's The Maronites in History, I'm forced to agree with his conclusion that most of the stories are just wrong; we really don't know the history of the Maronites. The question is whether Wikipedia should continue to report the founding myths of the group as is (because they are important myths), emphasis they are probably not true, or refuse to mention them. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope Wikipedia decides to eliminate ahistorical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.106.42 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section (like the entire article, unfortunately) has a definitive biased for presenting a narrative in defense of how Maronites are not Latinized. There is an abundance of claims without citations, as well as clearly biased language (e.g. "venerable anaphora of Sharrar;" what makes it factually venerable and the title isn't even officially Sharrar). I initially created it, as well as have edited it from time to time, only to have such edits removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.188.22 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased in so many ways ... Article titled "Maronite Church" should be used as disambiguation pointing to two different churches: Ancient Maronite Church (that existed originally in middle ages) and Maronite Catholic Church (that exists since early modern times to the present day). This article is written from the perspective of Maronite Catholic Church and therefore is obviously biased. For example, one of the main issue is not even mentioned: for centuries (13th-18th) Ancient Maronites resisted the attempts of Roman Catholic Church to force them into accepting the Filioque interpolation and doctrine of double procession of the Holy Spirit. Numerous papal decrees have been issued demanding from Ancient Maronites to accept Filioquism. Why is this article treating that issue with silence? There are many scholarly works and discussions on the question of introducing Filioque and other foreign doctrines and practices among Maronites. In spite of all that, some modern Catholic Maronites are still avoiding to acknowledge the fact that Ancient Maronites were not Filioquists and the present state of this article reflects such biased views. Therefore, Wikipedia should have a separate article on Ancient Maronite Church, simply because IT EXISTED in history, and it is not the same as modern Maronite Catholic Church. Sorabino (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maronite Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221180735/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128143503/http://www.omm.org.lb/ to http://www.omm.org.lb/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204100514/http://ololc.org/index.html to http://ololc.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Syriac Maronite Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this one a review; looks like it has had to wait some time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am going to have to fail this article as a GA at the present time. The main reasons for this are as follows:

• There are large swathes of this article that are not referenced.
• Of the references that are used, quite a number are perhaps not WP:Reliable Sources. Websites like "Marionite History" for instance are potentially rather partisan.
• The formatting of the sources is all over the place.

Hopefully more work can go into this article and it can be improved to the extent that it will warrant GA status in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syriac Maronite Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128143503/http://www.omm.org.lb/ to http://www.omm.org.lb/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maronite Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150520200602/http://www.stmaron.org/marhist2.html to http://www.stmaron.org/marhist2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520231028/http://www.stmaron.org/marhist8.html to http://www.stmaron.org/marhist8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723144318/http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=39&Itemid=90 to http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=39&Itemid=90
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009235031/http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/ to http://www.bkerkelb.org/english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other small churches claiming descent from Maroun? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: What was the reason for the revert at [9]? It looks like it's a legitimate attempt to add Wayback Machine (not some weird service) archive links to references. Granted, some aren't dead (yet), but considering the speed with which some web pages disappear, it seems reasonable to have archive links available. --Closeapple (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, adding archives may be a reasonable course of action, but adding archives to every link is usually counter-productive. It makes the text more difficult to edit, and it drowns links that do need an archive in a sea of links that do not. My edit here was part of a series of undoing a series of actions by Manabimasu facilitated by an automated tool. After I explained my rationale, he agreed. I have no opinion on which particular links in this article would need an archive, and I do not intend to further intervene. — JFG ^talk 06:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I needed to remove some of the foreign-language translations here, because they have been changed and nobody changing or adding them has provided a reliable secondary source that we can verify their accuracy. When adding translations, please provide a citation to a reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]