Talk:Maronite Church

164.58.84.42

It is incorrect that journalist Anthony Shadid is a Maronite Catholic. Mr. Shadid was raised in the Eastern Orthodox faith. The Shadid's of Oklahoma were Eastern Orthodox immigrants from Lebanon. Mr. Shadid continues to practice this faith.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.84.42 (talk • contribs)

Crusades Century Corrected

The Crusades section had the following text: It was in the 16th century AD when Western religious groups started settling in Lebanon. The migration began in 1626 with the Capuchins, followed by the Jesuits. I believe 1626 is the 17th century AD, not 16th.

Updating the page

Hello,

It appears that the existing sections of this Wikipedia page are scarce. At a minimum we should attempt to update and rewrite certain paragraphs, while adding new subheadings relating to topics that are yet to be discussed. Furthermore, a lot of statements in this page are ambiguous and could be expanded for clarity, for example, under the 'Latinization' heading it states Patriarch Stephan al-Duwayhî (1670–1704)... re-vitalized Maronite liturgical tradition. How? Expanding on important sections like this with referenced information will greatly benefit Maronites and non-Maronites alike.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maronite98 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Maronite98 kindly reached out to me off the wiki to discuss a general revision of this page to align it better with the modern consensuses on this topic. The objectives of this revision would be to remove/contextualize ethnopolitical POV issues, apocryphal narratives, and update with perspectives from experts both ecclesiastical and secular. As such, I encourage editors to review the below list of sources we intend to consult. The addition of further sources is greatly appreciated. A tentative completion date should be included, so I move for the end of June. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

References to be consulted

• General history

• Stanley, History of the Eastern Church. 1884. Note: This source is rather old, supporting the consensus that the Maronites are part of the Syrian tradition, including liturgically.
• Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary (3rd ed.). 1962. Note: This source is somewhat more modern, but terribly limited in scope. Included material also greatly relevant to liturgy, including sourcing approving of Maronite liturgy as a distinct Syriac "rite," notable since Attwater was a proponent of the term "use" when applicable.
• Attwater, The Catholic Eastern Churches (Revised ed.). 1937. Note: Attwater's more general discussion of Maronite history can be found here. He is rather disapproving of the standard 20th-century intra-Maronite historical consensus.
• Labaki, The Maronites in the United States. 1993. Note: As the title suggests, almost exclusively about the American Maronite diaspora.

• Liturgy

• Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship. 1945. Note: Less than comprehensive, but useful. An earlier source than his dictionary, Attwater identifies the Maronite liturgy less independent from the general Syriac liturgical family.
• Book of Offering. 2012. Note: Most recent approved pew-edition English translation of the Holy Qurbono. Preface material is hardly adequate for comprehensive study, but covers some of the developments post-1965.
• Qurbono: The Book of Offering [...] Season of the Glorious Birth of the Lord. 1993. Note: Earlier translation, merely useful as a high-level reference, but perhaps still applicable in a future article on the Maronite Rite.
• The Maronite Liturgical Year: Volume 1. 1982. Note: Includes minor preface noting lateral reversion to earlier Maronite practice. Again, would be largely useful on a new Maronite Rite page.
• Maxwell E. Johnson & Stefanos Alexopoulos, Introduction to Eastern Christian Liturgies. 2021. Note: A recent survey of Eastern Christian liturgies. Includes an analysis of the Maronite Liturgy and characterizes the Maronite Rite as a distinct rite from West Syriac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maronite98 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A nun with 'jilbab' and 'hijab'?

'1779 painting of a Maronite nun from Mount Lebanon, with brown jilbab, blue headscarf and black hijab'

The article on jilbab explicitly says it is 'any long and loose-fit coat worn by Muslim women', and if this is a correct definition, the term doesn't seem appropriate, given that the nun is obviously not Muslim. The hijab is likewise known to be a specifically Muslim, religiously mandated item of clothing. As for the material characteristics of her clothes, I am not an expert, but I don't see anything specifically Muslim about the way the nun is dressed. This rather looks like, well, one possible kind of attire for a Christian nun, maybe more typical of the Eastern Churches than of the Western ones, but in no way evocative of Islam. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The massacre of the 350

This is in response to the paragraph referencing a massacre of Maronites by “monophysites”; specifically, the fourth one under History:

“The Maronites subscribed to the beliefs of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Monophysites of Antioch slew 350 monks and burned the monastery in an act of sectarian violence among Christians. Later, Justinian I restored the community. Correspondence concerning the event brought the Maronites papal and orthodox recognition, indicated by a letter from Pope Hormisdas (514–523) dated 10 February 518. Representatives from Beth-Maron participated in the Constantinople synods of 536 and 553. “

The extremely biased phrasing of this paragraph aside, the event described almost certainly did not take place. It relies on three letters that have significant issues, affirmed only by the Maronites themselves and later Catholic traditions, which automatically accepted them as authentic based on shared communion. Neither contemporary nor significant later sources mention them or the associated event, such as Evagrius or the Council of Constantinople in 536.

The three letters are:

1. Monks of the monastery of St. Marun to Pope Hormisdas of Rome, 517 AD
2. Monks of the monastery of St. Marun to the Synod of 518 AD
3. Pope Hormisdas to the monks of Syria Secunda

These letters were promulgated by Istifan al-Duwayhi, an 18th-century Maronite patriarch, whose works contain a plethora of faulty and inconsistent information, not only regarding this event but also on various other topics.

Letter 2 (of 518) appears for the first time as a footnote in Sacrosancta Concilia (Paris, 1671), included in the minutes of Cple. 536, eighteen years after it was allegedly written, “although there is no evidence that the members of this council deliberated on it.”

“Since Binius and the editors of the Sacrosancta Concilia do not present evidence to support the existence of the letter of the monks to Pope Hormisda, we are left with no alternative but to conclude that this letter is without historical support.”

In reality, two indices exist for the Concilia: in one, the acts were “edited [by] Severinus Binius in 1618, after a manuscript now in the Library of Heidelberg, which, according to Charles Joseph Hefele, was in many places defective and in others ‘erroneous and incoherent.’” It is in this manuscript that we find Letter 2. The other version, described as “much better,” is missing this letter. “In brief, the original source of information regarding the massacre—the source on which all writers on the subject have relied—is highly dubious.”

Furthermore, as it appears in the minutes of Cple. 536, it was “neither discussed [...] nor deliberated on it. Had the members of this council deliberated on this letter, they should have at least expressed shock or grief for the slain monks. In fact, there is no evidence that they condemned Severus of Antioch and Peter of Apamea for causing the massacre of these monks or for attacking the faith of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. From the postscript appended to the letter we learn that Pope Hormisda had already condemned Severus and Peter for 'their manifest errors,' but not for killing innocent monks who died for the faith of Chalcedon [...] From this postscript we learn that Pope Hormisda and the bishops of parts of Italy were not informed that hundreds of monks in Syria Secunda were massacred at the instigation of Severus of Antioch and Peter of Apamea. The postscript contains no information other than the fact that Severus was condemned for attacking the Council of Chalcedon and the letters (meaning the Tome of Pope Leo) in his writings. The only reference to the killing of monks in Syria in the acts of the Council of Constantinople of 536 is the letter of the monks to the Synod of 518. It is indeed surprising that a document relating such a heinous crime did not receive thorough deliberation by the members of the council.”

Letter 1 of 517? Completely absent. It does not appear in any major  synod that follows it, including the 518 synod in Constantinople, and it  is missing from the minutes of Cple. 536, according to the Concilia  of 1671 - both councils specifically held to condemn the most prominent  anti-Chalcedonians of the time, including the alleged perpetrators of  this massacre, Severus and Peter. Both letters were written by the same  monks one year apart, yet only one appears (and extremely questionably  at that).

Letter 3 by Pope Hormisdas has many arguments against its validity, but even if we were to assume it is authentic, it is not associated with the event at all, and certainly not in response to the previous two letters. In it, Pope Hormisdas makes a general statement directed toward *all* the faithful in Syria, especially those who subscribe to his creed (of Chalcedon), urging them to remain steadfast against other doctrines and to align themselves with Rome. He neither addresses the monastery nor its abbot Alexander, nor does he remotely hint at the calamity, showing no remorse or disgust. Either Hormisdas was a cold-hearted, unfeeling man with total nonchalance for the brutal persecution of innocent monks, or he had no knowledge of such an event.

Moreover, there are many discrepancies between the letters. Important to note that it was the very same monks who allegedly composed both, including the abbot, a certain Alexander. First, Letter 2 does not mention Letter 1 to Pope Hormisdas at all. Second, the number of monks massacred is stated to be 350 in Letter 1, but Letter 2 makes no mention of this. Third, Letter 2 states that they were attacked while traveling to the potter's village, while Letter 1 claims this happened near the “village of the vines” - two places that are nowhere near each other. Fourth, Letter 1 says they sent messengers to the emperor who were unfairly detained, but Letter 2 makes no mention of this either. Fifth, Letter 1 is missing much critical info present in Letter 2, such as unsubstantiated accusations against Peter bishop of Apamea, describing him as everything from a serial killer to a pimp. Finally, Letter 1 provides a firsthand account of the event in the 1st person, while Letter 2 presents a distant story of ‘other’ monks being killed (remember, they are allegedly the same authors).

It was Severus himself, one of the most well-known men in all of Rome, with enough enemies to populate a country, who allegedly undertook the brutal murder of 350 people, looted their churches, paraded the monks around naked, turned the monastery into a brothel overnight, and even procured prostitutes for “reckless young men” - all the while not one person in all of Syria noticed, not one complained, neither the nearby townspeople nor any authorities. Not even Emperor Justinian himself - Severus’s own enemy - who invited Severus to Constantinople to stay for a whole year. Even when Justinian later issued the most severe punishments in various forms to Severus, Peter, and their followers, it was purely for doctrinal reasons - not for any murder, which Justinian would have had a field day with had it actually happened.

Not a peep from the staunch enemies of Severus either, who spoke negatively about him in just about every way - Evagrius, Theophanes, Joseph Assemani (1688-1768; Maronite bishop), Clement Yusuf Dawud, and many more - all were erudite scholars & historians who had very colorful things to say about Severus but failed to mention such a significant event that would discredit him above all else.

I have furthermore checked the cited work, The Christian Churches of the East, in both its volumes, including the sections on Maronites (V1, pp.165- 176) & Jacobites (V2, pp 204-210) and it makes no mention of the 350 whatsoever. So unless I’m mistaken, it is still not cited within the article.

Additionally, the veneration of the 350 was only established in the 18th century. This stands in contrast to how Christian martyrs were typically venerated soon after their deaths became known, and further alludes to the ignorance & insignificance of this event in the history of Maronites until much later in their history.

There is much more to be said, including aspects related to the signatories, the faith of Simeon the Stylite as it pertains to the content of the letters, and the character of Severus of Antioch. But to dissect these topics further after having written so much would be inappropriate. I believe the evidence presented thus far is sufficient; nonetheless, I am more than happy to engage in further discussion if needed.

None of this is original research; I am simply highlighting what I believe to be the most significant points. Among others, Matti Mousa provides a detailed account of everything here and more. The overwhelming amount of evidence presented strongly argues against, if not entirely refutes, the actual occurrence of this event → The Maronites in History. (1986) Moosa, Matti

TLDR: the massacre of the 350 hinges upon weak evidence and is anywhere from questioned to refuted by modern scholarship. Hogshine (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti You can find the reason here. You were the one who initially suggested that I post this.

The similar sources I supported were for different reasons and in different contexts that do not apply here. A parish website can provide the explicit teachings of the church, but it does not offer a PhD thesis on secular historical events.

The older citation does not mention it at all.

Please refrain from using the edit summary to chat or discuss complex edits/revisions. You have consistently undone nearly all of my recent edits, both fully and partially, while not giving the same consideration to other editors, including this one. Regardless of the content's inclusion, the language used is clearly biased and sensationalist. Hogshine (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Hogshine. I have this on my watchlist, so you can reply sans ping below. Your explanation here is a bit on the long end, so forgive me if I don't address each point in detail. Your TL;DR asserts that there is modern scholarship that challenges the validity of the sources, but you appear to cite a 19th-century bishop to make this claim. I would recommend a more recent piece of scholarship on that point. If you have other points you think are more pertinent, please summarize them in a response. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't actually cite any 19th-century bishop for my claim. I primarily rely on The Maronites in History by Matti Mossa [1] after paraphrasing relevant parts of his & a few others' works.

You may be referring to my mention of Istifan al-Duwayhi, an 18th- 17th-century Maronite patriarch who propagated the event in question and on whom all later academia relies - yet, as shown, is rejected by modern ones.

I believe I have provided ample reasons, both positive (directly refuting it) and negative (against all 3 citations given so far). Thank you for keeping an eye on various Christianity-related pages. Hogshine (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, Matti Moosa! Well, unfortunately, we run into an issue here. Moosa's book on the Maronites is, to put it in the best light, an argument that the Maronites were Syriac Orthodox Christians and should return to that fold. It's not a wholly unfounded premise and I'm glad someone went in for it, but it does mean we need to read his arguments as partially apologetics. Moosa dismisses the massacre's veracity as lacking both contemporaneous and modern mention. This doesn't really hold water, as we do have the letter (and associated literature discussing its contents) and modern scholarship does read 6th-century Maronite–Monophysite relations in the light of the letter's contents (eg. page 305 of The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity that we've previously discussed, or this, or ). A multiplicity of academic sources contradict Moosa's view. If you require additional clarification, please let me know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Moosa's book on the Maronites is, to put it in the best light, an argument that the Maronites were Syriac Orthodox Christians and should return to that fold.

This is not the case at all. Matti Moosa was professor of Middle East history; this book outlines the entire history of the Maronites from late antiquity to modern-day Lebanese republic. Multiple sections include acknowledgments of their veneration of the 350, after which he delves into the historicity of the event described the 2 letters and a third attributed to it.

we do have the letter

Correct, and Moosa lays out the 3 letters and dismantles their authenticity, as I paraphrased in the top reply. This is something none of the sources thus far have actually done. All they did was present the letters and automatically accept their authenticity. Interestingly, Blackwell briefly mentions it in passing in one sentence: "according to a letter which was addressed by the Maronite monks to Pope Hormisdas II in 517, the fratricidal fighting between the two sides was very brutal." It doesn’t specify that it was Jacobite-on-Maronite violence. Attawater does not mention it at all, yet it remains in the citations despite my multiple protests.

You seem to view his work as some sort of Oriental Orthodox apologia, when it is actually an objective analysis of historical documents that concludes with the event's nonexistence.

Re: your last revert

you have only made references to a handful of extremely old sources — 1986 is hardly "extremely old"

to support what appears to be a POV issue. — As explained, these are scholarly works, not Oriental Orthodox apologia, even if they disagree with your POV. On the contrary, it is your and the other editor's insistence on including a parish website as a legitimate affirmation of the event's historicity that reflects that very bias. There are statements by Syriac Orthodox bishops denying the event; where do we go from here?

you have yet to acquire such a consensus — You have defaulted to your position being the consensus, as you have done in the past. This is a relatively niche topic that will not gain much traction to begin with.

Pbritti, you have consistently undone many of my edits despite them being perfectly valid and sourced, only relenting once when other users have intervened. At times, it was clear you were just checking my contribution history and changing my version for the sake of changing. At other times, you’ve removed content without bothering to investigate further [naming difference of Eastern vs.‌ Oriental in non-English literature e.g. French]. You have shown inconsistency in dealing with historical material, rejecting genuine scholarly work when it doesn’t fit your view, while accepting a parish website as legitimate when you’ve completely rejected them altogether before (I have pointed out, in this discussion and the OO one, that this is generally not accepted [including here] but acceptable there for the very specific context of that discussion).

It is crucial that we try to be neutral regarding content and consistent regarding sources, and also verify the sources we use instead of blindingly trusting them just because they look nice and fit our view. I also hope that any consensus reached is genuinely a consensus, not just one administrator's personal stance versus a relatively new user's input. Hogshine (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Accusing me of...something?...for addressing edits you made to articles on my watchlist is unproductive, especially when the changes you are concerned about resolved actual issues. I would discourage you from thinking that there is some sort of personal problem. Regardless, Moosa did have an agenda—most historians do, and that's part of why talk pages exist: to determine how best to address conflicting sources. The most recent source we have, a journal article from 2024 that goes into some detail on the letter, does not dismiss it or its contents as erroneous. Other reliable sources again contradict Moosa's argument. As phrased now, the article does not explicitly claim that there were absolutely 350 monks killed, but instead reports that a letter contained that information. Moosa's chapter is, on its own, insufficient to overturn the scholarly consensus that there was likely an incident of Monophysites killing Chalcedonian monks in c. 517. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You've still not addressed any of the issues, namely the contention of the event, especially since none of the other sources actually address the authenticity of the letters. Many of the citations given still do not mention it altogether. The inclusion of this paragraph in the 'History' section is questionable, and even in its current form, it appears biased. I will at least rephrase it, and I hope this compromise will help resolve the issue for now, with possibility of future changes. Hogshine (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You will note that I included two new superior academic sources – including a well-edited volume published by Blackwells and a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Religion–that affirm the support treat the letter as accurate. There is not only an academic consensus opposed to Moosa's interpretation of the letter, but also no encyclopedic basis for contending the fine details of a 1500-year-old document on this particular article. Your edits will be reverted (again) should a consensus fail to emerge in your favor. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Blackwell does not say what you want to include in the article. I have mentioned this already. Even with multiple concessions on my part, the fact that this event is historically contested by modern scholarship deserves a mention.

Should a consensus fail to emerge, it makes no sense for your point of view to be published. You are in getting close to a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. Your multiple attempts to revert to the version with sources that we have already established as invalid, inapplicable, and irrelevant further alludes to this. Hogshine (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The content in the Blackwell source—"according to a letter which was addressed by the Maronite monks to Pope Hormisdas II in 517, the fratricidal fighting between the two sides was very brutal"—is essentially exactly what we should say (sans the typo post-nominal). I'm not an administrator, you're not being punished for being a new editor (you're actually fairly well along in the average editor's active window), and I have offered a pair of superior sources that consider the letter indicative of events in the early 6th century. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

So sorry for the late reply. I've been awfully busy.

To summarize what we have so far:

1. The event is described in two letters (and a third allegedly in reply).

2. The authenticity of the letters, and by extension the event, is disputed by .

3. a) Another source affirms the letters without delving into their authenticity, despite also citing [3]. Another one [Blackwell] barely touches upon it. [4] also questions the veracity of letter 3 by Pope Hormisdas just as well.

3. b) Other sources presented either do not mention it at all [Attawater], or it's an unscholarly parish website featuring hagiographies . (My objection to the latter is not contradictory to an earlier statement; I can elaborate if needed). So they can be discarded.

4. Since none of the sources discuss the authenticity or address the letters in any meaningful way - especially Blackwell - it stands to reason that this is not the "scholarly consensus."

5. Whether these sources are newer or older is irrelevant when considering that the issue raised in point 1 has not been addressed, and it's really not that old.

6. The "History" heading describes just that - the history of the Maronite Church, not its saints, praxes, liturgy, etc. Therefore, the mention of mere "letters" is misplaced and does not directly correlate with the actual history of the church.

If you still believe that the event described deserves a mention, it should at least include the scholarly objections noted in [3] - essentially what the article has now, more or less (though the text likely needs some refining).

Thank you for sticking around thus far, and ‌I hope to conclude this discussion soon. Hogshine (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)