Hmmm…
Are you refering to what they wear as clothes, or their liturgical vestments. As for clothes, both of the two Bishops in the U.S. and the Patriarch wear syriac clothes.
Oh, I am speaking of liturgical vestments only, forgive the absence of clarification.
As for liturgical vestments, what do you consider Syriac vestments? I must plead a little ignorance as to what would be considered authentic Syriac vestments. I only saw one picture of Patriarch Sfeir in vestments and he was in Rome saying a Mass…
No, it was not a matter of “when in Rome.” Latin vestments have been enforced for centuries and anything but those vestments seems counter-intuitive to “tradition” now. Some priestly vestments contain Syriac elements but they are mostly placed on a Latin template. Another example would be seeing Latin vestments with say a cedar of Lebanon on them. Syriac vestments greatly differ the Latin ones, however, one must take into account the isolation of the Maronites; it is believed that the Maronite’s vestments were abstraction of the Syriacs considering their historical context. However, these specific traditions are unknown due to the abolishment of them and enforcement of Latin liturgical vestments. I encourage you to look up the pictures of Bishop Monsour’s (the bishop you pictured) ordination in Lebanon; all Latin vestments. The video of the Patriarch at Harissa, all Latin vestments.
I think a year or two ago, the two U.S. Bishops asked that instead of Stations of the Cross, that for the main Lenten devotional practice, parishes should use a more Maronite devotion - Benediction with the Cross.
For the sake of not causing controversy, I will not comment much on this ‘Maronite’ devotion. This is probably worse than a Latinization; misshaping a Latin practice and calling it our own. Granted, it is not theologically damaging, but for what reason should be adopt a practice that is foreign to us when we have so much that needs to be addressed anyway?
Like I said earlier, this may be a difference of opinion between us. I think a certain amount of intermingling between rites is good and wholesome. We should not be completely isolated and shut off from one another. For instance, I personally think Eucharistic Adoration could be fruitfully used in every rite of the Church. And I think that the reintroduction of iconography from the East to the West is a good thing.
I think that is a noble endeavor, yet it is not conducive to bearing tradition and can lead to theological confusion and identity. For instance, Eucharistic Adoration is counter-intuitive to the entire bearing and purpose of the Holy Qorbono (Holy Offering, or Meal). It is beautiful that one would want to share in the presence of Christ, however, Syriac spirituality does not limit His presence to one devotional.
Also, I believe that keeping one’s traditions to one’s tradition does not isolate and shut off, quite the contrary, in my opinion. Let us be honest, we speak of intermingling between rites, the only intermingling is Roman tradition amongst the Eastern Churches, no Eastern practices have been adapted by the Latins en masse as traditions of their own. Perhaps the Latin Church should adopt leavened bread, share some Syriac and Byzantine vestments, use a Maronite anaphora or two, some Coptic icons, and then we discuss an honest intermingling between rites (I am pleasantly being feciscious and of course do not agree with what I say, but my point is there
). This is the type of honesty I believe has to be admitted to understand why a return to tradition is important.
Byzantine style Western icons were being written up the Renaissance (one of my personal favorites is of St. Francis of Assisi). For what we can say it is but another tradition of your own church, simply an origin for the Western art you know practice with. Latin traditions are not our original traditions, so a reintroduction is mute. The fact is, the only ‘sharing’ of traditions has been Latin onto Eastern.
How much difference is there between the Anaphoras, other than wording and phrasing things slightly differently?
The wording and framing of the Anaphoras is what differs, as well as a fluidity between prayers, petitions, etc. One priest told me that the reason why we have fewer anaphoras now then traditional times was because the currently used ones were so similar and easily adapted for liturgical ‘correction.’ I have been weary of this claim for he is the only individual who has brought up this claim, but something worth researching.
(The article is coming, I did something wrong with the scan, one can hardly read it it is so small. Please bear with me a little longer…
)
Peace and God Bless.
) and probably in their near original form. They have near 80 anaphoras I believe, the Maronites at one time had as many if not more. I would advise looking up the Syriac Orthodox Anaphoras if you are still interested.
