Maronites

MARONITES. - A Christian people of Syrian origin, distributed especially in the Republic of Lebanon, in Syria, Palestine, Cyprus and Egypt.

I. ST. MARON

Of St. Maron it is known that he lived as an anchorite on a mountain situated probably in the region of Apamea. The gift of miracles spread his fame and caused people to flock to his hermitage. At his death, since a fierce dispute had arisen among the neighboring villages over possession of the venerated body, the inhabitants of the larger village prevailed and built around that precious relic a very sumptuous temple (Theodoret, Religiosa hist.: PG 82, 1418). There St. Maron is called "the Great," "the Supreme," "the Divine" (loc. cit., 1395, 1431, 1454, 1491). St. John Chrysostom sent him a letter written, as appears from its content, between 404 and 407 and Theodoret, writing his work between 423 and 458, speaks of a church of St. Maron that had already become most sumptuous, and of the cult paid to him, which makes it reasonable to hold that St. Maron died ca. 410. The date of his birth remains unknown.

II. THE MONASTERY OF ST. MARON

Many saints are called disciples of St. Maron by Theodoret. It was probably around the aforementioned church that a monastery was erected, because that church is no longer mentioned after Theodoret, whereas many documents speak of the monastery. Abū 'l-Fidā' (d. 1331), in his pre-Islamic history (ed. H. Fleischer, Leipzig 1831, p. 113), says that the monastery of St. Maron was enlarged by Marcian in 452. Abū 'l-Fidā, who governed Homs, had near or within the scope of his jurisdiction the region of Apamea in which the monastery was located. According to Procopius of Caesarea (De aedificiis Dn. Iustiniani, V, Venice 1729, p. 9), Justinian made some restorations in the same monastery, and according to Eutyches, patriarch of Alexandria, Heraclius visited it in 628 and bequeathed goods to it (PG 111, 1089). During the reign of Heraclius, many churches of the Jacobites passed to the Maronite monks and Heraclius did not want them to be restored (Bar Hebraeus, Chron. Eccl., I, Louvain 1872, pp. 270-74). In the London ms. Brit. Mus. add. 17, 169, f. 126ᵛ one reads that it was acquired in 745 for the monastery of St. Maron (cf. F. Nau, Bulletin de st Luis des maronites, 1903, 3469). Timothy I, Nestorian patriarch, wrote in 791 a long letter to the monks of St. Maron (Vat. Borgiano 81). The Jacobite patriarch Dionysius of Tellmahrē (d. 845) says: «the M. remained as they are today: they ordain patriarch and bishops from their monastery» (Chronique de Michel le Syrien, trans. J.-B. Chabot, II, Paris 1910, p. 511).

There are letters published by Mansi (vol. VIII), whose date varies between 517 and 536, in which the place or the terms of the signatures of archimandrites or monks of St. Maron prove that that monastery in Syria Secunda was the principal one or the exarchate. From what precedes it results that, from the middle of the 5th century until the middle of the 9th, the monastery of St. Maron was flourishing and pre-eminent.

Thomas bishop of Kefartāb (11th century) says that this monastery rose on the banks of the Orontes and that 800 monks dwelt there (Syriac ms. of Paris 203, f. 97 v.

in al-Manārah, 7 [1936], p. 97). al-Mas'ūdī says the same, but elsewhere specifies that it was situated to the east of Ḥamāh and Ṣajzar, today Ṣajgar (Le livre de l'avertissement et de la revision, trans. Carra de Vaux, Paris 1897, p. 211). An ancient manuscript published by F. Nau (Opuscules Maronites, II, Paris 1900, p. 22) is a confirmation of this. The monastery «consisted of a grandiose building surrounded by more than three hundred rooms inhabited by monks, and possessed objects of gold, silver and precious stones in great quantity. It was destroyed by the raids of the Arabs and the injustice of the sultan»

Syro-Maronite. Historical notes on the p. 114).

III. EXPANSION OF THE MARONITES

The monastery of St. Maron and other dependent houses gave the name of M. to those Aramaic Christians who began to form a compact community around them (H. Lammens, in al-Mašriq, 6 [1903], p. 131). At first they spread, according to al-Mas'ūdī (loc. cit.), in Apamea, Ṣajzar, Homs and Ḥamāh, and according to Bar Hebraeus (Chron. eccl., I, pp. 270-74) and Eutychius (PG 111, 1078) also in Hierapolis, Qinnašrīn and al-'Awāšim. In the second half of the 7th century the emigration of the M. toward Lebanon begins, owing to strong rivalries with the Jacobites (H. Lammens, in al-Mašriq, 2 [1899], p. 267). Later the caliphs also persecuted them (Dionysius of Tellmahrē, in Chronique de Michel le Syrien, II, p. 511). At the beginning they must have lived in the district of Batrūn, whence they spread into that of Ġubajl, and they were numerous, as is attested by the churches they erected in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries. There they found and absorbed many Christians, who like them spoke Syriac and had been evangelized by the monks of St. Maron (H. Lammens, in al-Mašriq, 4 [1901], pp. 728, 1018; PG 82, 1428). In Aleppo too the M. are very ancient, since Dionysius of Tellmahrē (loc. cit., pp. 429-96) speaks of a struggle between them and the Melkites. Before long they were also found in Mesopotamia. Bar Hebraeus (Ta'rīh muḫtaṣar ad-duwal, ed. Ṣalḥānī, Beirut 1890, pp. 219-220) speaks of the Maronite Theophilus of Edessa, chief of the astrologers of al-Mahdī (775-85) in Baghdad, who wrote a history and translated the Iliad and the Odyssey into Syriac; and Riccoldo da Monte di Croce (Peregrinationes Medii Aevi quatuor, ed. Laurent, Leipzig 1873, p. 126), a writer of the 13th century, met between Mosul and Baghdad a community of M. headed by an archbishop. As for Cyprus, there are two inscriptions, one of 1141 and the other of 1154, which concern the M. of that island (M. Le Quien, in Oriens Christianus, 3 [1740], pp. 49-76). According to L. Macheras (Chron. de Chypre,

French trans., Paris 1882, pp. 15, 16) they came to populate 30 villages there.
From Jerusalem, where they were very numerous and had several churches, the M. emigrated to Cyprus, as has been said, to Rhodes in 1310 and to Malta in 1530 (P. Mas'ad, ad-Durr al-manẓām, Lebanon 1863, p. 158; H. Lammens, in al-Mašriq, 6 [1903], p. 170).

IV. THE INSTITUTION OF THE PATRIARCHATE

In 685 the M. elected their first patriarch. This was affirmed by the Maronite patriarch ad-Duwajhī, elected in 1670 (on whose authority or lack thereof cf. P. Sfair, La Messa siro-maronita, p. 120 ff.) and confirmed by the text cited by the annals of Dionysius of Tellmahrē (d. 845), preserved for the most part in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian (ed. cit.), which was found in 1887. The Maronite patriarch bore the title of "Antiochene" before Innocent III, as appears from a passage of the bull Quia divinae of the same, dated 3 Jan. 1215 (but on the title of the Maronite patriarch cf. P. Chebli, in Rev. de l'Orient chrétien, 8 [1903], pp. 138-39; G. Dib, in DThC, X, col. 28).

As for the see, the patriarchs changed it thirteen times between the year of the institution and 1440 (Synodus Montis Libani, year 1736, III, VI, 5). From that year onward, the see was Qannūbīn, first in fact and then later by decree of the aforementioned Synod of 1736. The Synod of Bikurli in 1790 transferred it to that same monastery, and the S. Congregazione di Propaganda Fide confirmed this decision on 11 June 1793 (P. Sfair, Codificazione can. orientale. Fonti, 1st series, XII, no. 1155).

V. UNDER THE CRUSADERS

Having occupied Tripoli in 1098, the Crusaders asked the faithful Syrians of that part of Mount Lebanon, who had come down to congratulate them, which was the best road to reach Jerusalem, and then they followed the coastal route under the guidance of some of those faithful (William of Tyre, in PL 201, 198-99). As has been seen, those faithful could only have been the M., and the same William elsewhere (PL 201, 855) calls them M., adding: "... and they were strong men and valiant in battle... and were most useful to our men." Having settled in Jerusalem, the Crusaders undertook to occupy the coastal cities that they had passed by without capturing them. In the occupation of Tripoli and Beirut, they were helped by the M. (H. Lammens, in al-Mašriq, 6 [1903], p. 214; G. Darjan, Nabḍat ta' riḥijjah, Beirut 1919, pp. 79-80, where he cites Arab authors). Under the Crusaders the M. lived peacefully, built churches and convents (H. Lammens, in al-Mašriq, 4 [1901], p. 170; id., La Syrie, Beirut 1922, pp. 261-262; E. Renan, Mission de Phénicie, Paris 1864, p. 227) and began to make use of bells (G. de Vitry, Historia Hierosolimitana, I, 1094; ad-Duwajhī, Annali, 1112), and their bishops to wear miter, pastoral staff and pectoral cross (G. de Vitry, ibid.). In Lebanon the Crusaders found the feudal system and maintained it (G. Darjan, loc. cit., pp. 81-82). When the crusader kingdom declined, "a wretched remnant of the clergy and faithful people withdrew among the inaccessible mountain ridges of Lebanon inhabited by Catholic M.... The patriarch Simon lovingly welcomed the scattered flock, wrote to Alexander IV and obtained from him the title of Antiochene" (B. Terzi, Siria sacra, Rome 1695, p. 52). Benedict XIV in the Consistory of 13 July 1744 spoke in the same sense.

VI. IN THE MAMLUK ERA

Under the Mamluks (1291-1516) Syria and Lebanon together were divided into five parts called vice-kingdoms. In Lebanon, in every large settlement, there was the Maronite muqaddam (prefect), who governed under the authority of the nā'ib or viceroy of Tripoli. The muqaddamīn (pl. of muqaddam) were almost independent in their fiefs, received the subdiaconate and held the first place in church after the priest. From this one can understand what importance the patriarch had at that time. For fear of a return of the Crusaders, until the middle of the 15th century, the Mamluks kept watch over the coasts; this made relations with the Holy See difficult (ad-Duwajhī, Annali, 1439 and Kitāb al-iḥtiǧāǧ, of which there is a Latin translation in ms. Vat. lat. 7411, ch. 11, under the title Vindicia Maronitarum). Later, it seems that the situation changed, and Fra' Gryphon was among the M. as pontifical legate from 1450 to 1475.

VII. AFTER THE TURKISH OCCUPATION

In 1516 Selim I occupied Lebanon. In 1527 the patriarch and the episcopate invited Charles V to liberate the country, promising him the help of 50,000 fighters, but in vain (A. Rabbath, Documents inédits, II, Paris 1910, pp. 616-23). From Ġubajl southward, Lebanon was divided into three parts governed by three non-Christian princes. Fahr ad-Dīn II of the Ma'nites received the government of Sūf in 1585, but he succeeded in extending the territory he controlled from Antioch as far as Aǧlūn and placed over the districts governors from the Maronite family Hāzin, which had educated him, and others besides. This Druze prince built convents for the Capuchins in the Sūf (A. Rabbath, op. cit., pp. 464, 494), and Abū Nawfīl Hāzin built the first house of the Jesuits in Lebanon at 'Ajnūrā (Kisrawān: Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, I, Paris 1829, pp. 221-23, 232 ff.).

The Ma'nites were almost entirely independent, Turkey being satisfied with the tributes. There was, however, some persecution, but not on the part of the Ma'nites, who dominated until 1697, but rather on the part of the Turkish pasha of Tripoli. Thus the most influential M. notables, Abū Karam al-Ḥadati (1640) and Jūnis Abū Rizq (1697), mounted the scaffold after repeatedly refusing to abjure (ad-Duwajhī, Annali, 1840 and 1897; J. De la Roque, Voyage de Syrie..., II, Paris 1722, p. 263). In 1695 the order of the M. Antonians arose, and in 1700 that of the Antonians of St. Isaiah.

When the Ma'nites declined, the Muslim Šihāb succeeded them, and they governed Lebanon until 1841. Under these, who took M. as ministers, counselors, secretaries, etc., the M. enjoyed peace and security (C.-F. Volney, Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte, I, Paris 1825, p. 467). The Melchites converted to Catholicism in Aleppo in 1725, the patriarch Tanās in 1726 and the Syrian patriarch Ġarwah in 1783 took refuge in Lebanon to escape persecutions. The Armenian Catholic patriarchs from 1730 until the second half of the 19th century resided in Kisrawān. In 1736 the Maronite Synod was held, whose acts are to this day the official code of the patriarchate. Benedict XIV approved it in a special form in 1742. There is inserted in it the privilege that the patriarch in his Synod elect the bishops, and the ordinance of Innocent III (Quia divinae, 3 Jan. 1215) that priests use the Latin vestments. After the fall of the Šibāb, Turkey established in Lebanon two prefectures (qā'immagāmāt), one Druze and the other Maronite. But there were disturbances, which culminated in 1860 in massacres of Christians, among them the three Massabki brothers beatified by Pius XI (10 July 1926). In 1861, following the intervention of the European powers, Lebanon was given a new organic law, whereby the M. lived in peace until the First World War.

In 1865 the Congregation of the Lebanese missionaries was founded, also called Krsimites from their place of origin. For the present state v. LIBANO.

VIII. THE QUESTION OF THE ORTHODOXY OF THE MARONITES

The thesis that made the M. in antiquity defenders of Monophysitism has by now been abandoned. In fact, to say nothing of the "monks of St. Maro" made martyrs by the Severian Monophysites in 517 (v. Mansi, VIII, 426), there survive letters of the 6th century (ed. F. Nau, op. cit., pp. 343 ff., 367 ff.) in which Monophysite monks call the M. "shoots of Leo" and adherents of the Council of Chalcedon. Moreover Bar Hebraeus in the Chron. eccl., p. 269 f., drawing on Dionysius of Tellmahrē (d. 845), speaks of disputes between the M. and the Monophysites.

On the other hand there are still many scholars who admit that the M. were once adherents of Monophysitism. It seems, however, that the witnesses cited are not so valid and that the proofs to the contrary carry their weight.

Timothy of Constantinople (PG 86, 65) is adduced, but he wrote ca. 600, that is, before Monophysitism blazed forth: he makes the M. opponents also of the IV Council, which cannot be true, as has just been seen. St. Germanus of Constantinople agrees in the same assertion, though he then contradicts himself by admitting that the M. reject the V and VI Councils while accepting the IV. Add that the author, over a hundred years old (PG 98, 82), wrote these recollections in prison without the help of writings. St. John Damascene swears that he wishes to have nothing to do with the heterodox, especially with the M. (PG 94, 1432), and in a letter, alluding to the "qui crucifixus est," he says: "We maronize if we add..." (PG 95, 33). It is strange, however, that the same author in his list of more than 100 heresies (PG 84, 679-80) does not mention the M. Moreover the first citation seems hardly in keeping with the context (v. G. S. Assemani, Bibl. iuris orientalis canonici et civilis, V, Rome 1766, p. 502), and the second is reported in mss. 1829 and 2442 of Paris and in the manuscript that served for the Basel edition with παραννήσαμεν "we rave" instead of μεραννίασαμεν. Still less certainty is offered by the doubtful testimony of Abū Qurrah, not free from contradictions and handed down in a copy made in 1735 by the Melchite bishop B. Finān (ed. C. Bāšā, Beirut 1904). Negligible, then, is that of Eutychius (Sa'id ibn al-Bīṭrīq; cf. PG 111, 1078), on whom depends William of Tyre (PG 201, 212) and many later writers, who mixes evident errors concerning the M. (PG 201, 845-56), converted according to him in 1181, precisely when the Latin kingdom was declining. Innocent III, in the bull Quia divinae (3 Jan. 1215), speaks instead of the conversion of the M. in 1203 before Card. Peter. The M. would have admitted the primacy of the Pope, the Filioque (but no one ever attributed to the M. the heresies opposed to these dogmas); the two wills, etc. Note, however, that this bull is addressed together to the Greeks and the M. Nor is it to be excluded that at that time the popes were not well informed about the doctrine of the M. (v. G. Dandini, Missione al Patriarca e M. del Monte Libano, Cesena 1656, p. 98). Bl. U. de Romanis, general of the Dominicans, in an encyclical reports to the Order in 1256 that the Dominicans had converted the M., schismatics for many years (B. M. Reichart, Monumenta Ordinis Praedicatorum historica, Rome 1897). Thus there would be three conversions in less than a generation! As regards then the Annals of Dionysius of Tellmahrē (op. cit., II, p. 412), it has been wished to accept (cf. S. Vaillhē, L'Eglise maronite du Vᵉ au IXᵉ siècle, in Echos d'Orient, 9 [1906], p. 261) that Heraclius proposed to the Jacobite patriarch Athanasius the Chamberlain (d. 631) the acceptance of the Ecthesis, at the Synod of Mabbug, obtaining it also from the M. monks. Note, however, the anachronism, since the Ecthesis was promulgated in 638. Bar Hebraeus instead, depending on the same Dionysius, affirms that Heraclius obtained from them adherence to the IV Council (Chron. eccl., col. 274).

What is learned from the sources is that dyotheletism penetrated only in 727 and not by an official route into Lebanon, which was occupied by the Arabs and did not communicate with Constantinople before that time, and that between the M. and the Maximalists there was a certain misunderstanding, because the latter were accused by the former as upholders in Christ of two wills capable of discord, whereas the thesis of the M. accentuated the moral unity of the wills without prejudice to their physical duality. Such is the doctrine, for example, of the celebrated Kitāb al-hudā (ed. P. Jahed, Gunjh 1935), a true code of the M. during the Middle Ages.

IX PRINCIPAL WRITERS

H. Lammens (La Syrie, p. 111) states that the document concerning the dispute between the M. and the Jacobites before Mu'āwijah, published by Th. Nöldeke (Mansi, VIII, 426), is the oldest in Maronite literature. But there is also the letter of the M. monks to Pope St. Hormisdas, likewise cited. From the aforementioned letter of Timothy I it further emerges that the M. monks had written to him, and that before him they had been in correspondence with his predecessor. All these letters have been lost, as have the works of Theophilus of Edessa mentioned by Bar Hebraeus (loc. cit.) and those of Qajs, of which al-Mas'ūdī speaks (loc. cit.). Also belonging to Maronite literature are the above-mentioned Kitāb al-hudā, translated in 1058 but written earlier by an unknown author who is described in the translator's preface as "the holy father"; the cited Ten Chapters of Thomas of Kefartāb; the works of G. Ibn Qilā'i (d. 1516); and those of Farhāt (v.). A great contribution to culture was made by the Maronite College of Rome (v. COLLEGI ECCLESIASTICI) together with the patriarch S. ad-Duwajhī (d. 1704), Abraham Ecchellensis, P. Benedetti (v.) or Mubārak, the Assemani, Fausto Naironio (d. 1711) and many others. Of the 19th and 20th centuries, worthy of mention are Fares Sidjāq, the Bustānī family, the Sartūnī family, the Carmelite Father Anastasius (Anistās), the bishops G. Debs and G. Darjān, G. Gubrān and A. Rīhānī.

Pietro Sfair

X. THE MARONITE RITE

It is a branch of the West Syriac rite. In its origin a particular rite of the monastery founded on the tomb of St. Maron, at the beginning of the 5th century it developed there similarly to the rite of the Antiochene region; but remaining orthodox, during the Christological struggles, in the midst of many monasteries that had passed over to Monophysitism, it had to preserve a character of its own. From these ancient times an anaphora proper to the Maronites has been handed down, called from its first word: Sarrar, published in the Missal of 1592-94 with the full text, and used from the edition of 1716 onward on Good Friday in the Mass of the Presanctified (cf. the study of the text by H. Engberding, Urgestalt, Eigenart und Entwicklung eines altantiochenischen eucharistischen Hochgebetes, in Oriens Christianus, 7 [1931], pp. 32-48); moreover, probably also the properly Maronite recension of the anaphora of the Twelve Apostles (cf. A. Raes-A. Rücker, Anaphorae Syriacae, I, Rome 1940, pp. 205-27).

It is certain that this rite was not Byzantinized like that of the Melkites, but as regards formulas, gestures, and the construction of offices, it regulated itself according to the long-evolving usage of the West Syriac rite. Documents for tracing that development are lacking. In the 12th century, through contact with the Crusaders, it underwent the first Latin infiltrations, fairly easily recognizable: form of Baptism, Confirmation reserved to the bishop, mitre and ring for bishops, amice for priests, use of bells (cf. the bull of Innocent III of 1215, Quia divinae sapientiae and other documents in T. Anaissi, Bullarium Maronitarum, Rome 1911).

Liturgical manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries manifest a marked influence of the Syriac rite, made evident by a series of prayers and hymns in various offices that make double use with the ancient formulas (in particular in the Pontifical), from the 16th century onward, after the foundation of the Maronite College in Rome and the formation of priests in Western seminaries, in a new Latin influence: a kind of confiteor in the Mass, words of the consecration translated literally from the Roman Mass, a change in the epiclesis in such a way as to make this formula lose its primitive sense, new feasts in the calendar, blessing of a church distinct from its consecration, use of the corporal, of the pall, composition of a new anaphora, shorter, and inspired in some of its prayers by the canon of the Roman Mass and therefore entitled, by its author A. Iscandar, Anaphora of the Roman Church. The Synod of Mount Lebanon of 1736, after those of 1580 and 1596, despite a weak attempt at correction, due, among others, to the patriarch ad-Duwajhi, could not stop the movement. It was necessary to wait until these last years to find courageous men, imbued with liturgical spirit, to bring about under the guidance of the hierarchy a radical change of direction; proof of this is the Ritual of Beirut of 1942, which restores in very large part the rite according to the ancient codices. The edition of the Pontifical and of the Missal according to the same principles is being prepared.

The general ordering of the Mass and many of its formulas and customary gestures are identical to those of the West Syriac rite. The Ordo communis or fixed parts, however, is its own (cf. E. Renaudot, Liturgianum Orientalium collectio, II, Paris 1716, pp. 12-20); the beginning is a little intricate; only two scriptural readings; use of eight anaphoras in the latest editions; the prayer of the fraction separated from the fraction itself, placed after the Pater noster, as by the Latins; Communion of the faithful under one species, hosts like those of the Latins and of unleavened bread, but this particularity could be ancient.

For the Sacraments there often exist formulas proper to the Maronites, even if the structure of the Office is similar to that of the Syrians.

The divine Office, divided into seven hours, is composed of few psalms, of many poetic compositions that belong to the same genre as the Syriac ones: qālā, bawtā, madrālā, sāgītā. A festal Office is distinguished, which was printed only once and only in part, and the ferial Office, which, printed often, serves for the private recitation of the Breviary, but contains only a few Offices. One can compare a calendar of 1673 (cf. R. Griveau, Un ancien calendrier de l'Eglise maronite, in PO 10, 345-56) with the current Calendar (cf. N. Nilles, Kalendarium utriusque Ecclesiae, I, Innsbruck 1896, pp. 485-89) to observe how today the saints fill many, though not all, days of the ecclesiastical year. This is divided into liturgical periods like that of the Syrians. The first liturgical language is Syriac, the second, at least in theory, Arabic (v. the legislation of the Synod of 1736, in Mansi, XXXVIII, 120, part 2, ch. 13, no. 11).

The Missal and the Sēhimtā (= ferial Office) have had many editions; the other liturgical books far fewer; the Pontifical, the Proper of Lent and the Tešmet (it contains about fifty Offices for feasts) still none.

Stefano ad-Duwajhi, Manārat al-uqdās (= Lamp of the sanctuaries v.), 2 vols., Beirut 1895-96; there exists in Arabic an explanation of the rites (Māna'ir at-uqdās, ibid. 1909), attributed to the patriarch John Maro, who would have lived in the 7th century: it is inspired by the explanation of the Mass of Dionysius bar Šalibi and was not composed before the 13th century. Latin version of many texts in J. A. Assemani, Codex liturgicus, Paris 1902. For the anaphoras cf. E. Renaudot, Liturgianum Orientalium collectio, Paris 1716; Rome 1940. For all the Sacraments: H. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium..., Würzburg 1883; S. Buringer, Die verschollene dritte römische Ausgabe des maronitischen Missals von Jahre 1763, in Jahrb. für Liturgieussensik., 8 (1929), pp. 239-46; J. M. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de rithus orient., II-III, De Missa, Rome 1930-32; G. Cachin, Mode facile di seguire la Messa siro-maronita, ibid. 1943. On the Arabic versions of the Maronite liturgical books: G. Graf, Geschichte der christl. arab. Literatur, I, Vatican City 1944, pp. 193-92, 657-61; excellent version with notes by P. Sfair, La Messa siro-maronita, Rome 1946; A. Racs, Introductio in liturgiam orientalem, ibid. 1947; M. Rajji, De la liturgie Maronite, in Proche-Orient Chrétien, 1 (1951), pp. 71-85.

Alfonso Racs