Maronite "Prayer of the Faithful"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kyrillos_NY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kyrillos_NY

Guest
Does anyone use the Maronite Divine Office “Prayer of the Faithful” in English?

I have listened to the podcast available on the Hidden Pearl website, but what I heard didn’t seem to have the Syriac flavor I was expecting. Are these prayers translations of the traditional Syriac office or a new work?
 
Briefly, it’s not exactly a translation of the traditional Syriac shhimo. Essentially what it is is an English translation of an Arabic version of the Office. Some things were added in that version, other things deleted. The resulting product is more of a mishmash than anything else. It certainly does not quite meet any criteria for being a “restoration” but rather, as is the case with most things Maronite, is but another example of post-conciliar neo-latinization. 😦
 
Forgive me what is almost certainly an ignorant question, but as a non-Maronite I must know: How is it a neo-Latinzation if it is based on the Arabic form, not ultimately derived from an imposition of Latin practice or norms? Is that Latinizers within the Maronite Church are those whose support the Arabization of the liturgy, or some other factor?
 
dzheremi said:
Forgive me what is almost certainly an ignorant question, but as a non-Maronite I must know: How is it a neo-Latinzation if it is based on the Arabic form, not ultimately derived from an imposition of Latin practice or norms? Is that Latinizers within the Maronite Church are those whose support the Arabization of the liturgy, or some other factor?
Click to expand...
The point is that the Arabic version was itself not a true translation of anything. The additions (and the deletions) were done without consideration of the Syriac original. (For a very loose parallel, let’s say it’s something along the lines of the ICEL English version of the OF, but it goes much further than that.) For example, psalms were traditionally done in a particular way: one verse from the psalm, followed by one from a “hymn” for the feast or day. That form was trashed: what is left is only the psalm (same as the Roman usage). The unique hymns, patrimony of the Syriac Churches, were dispensed with.

As I have said in a variety of other threads in this forum, the neo-latinizers within the Maronite Church are not only that but are Novus Ordo-inspired on top of it.
 
malphono said:
Briefly, it’s not exactly a translation of the traditional Syriac shhimo. Essentially what it is is an English translation of an Arabic version of the Office. Some things were added in that version, other things deleted. The resulting product is more of a mishmash than anything else. It certainly does not quite meet any criteria for being a “restoration” but rather, as is the case with most things Maronite, is but another example of post-conciliar neo-latinization. 😦
Click to expand...
Thank you for the comment. Is there a usable version of the shhimo available in English?
 
Kyrillos_NY said:
Thank you for the comment. Is there a usable version of the shhimo available in English?
Click to expand...
Not that I’m aware of, no. While it’s not exactly the same, (among other things, the structure of the hours is a bit different), there was a translation (as I recall, unofficial) of the Syriac OC shhimo, but I don’t recall who printed it, nor do I know if it is even still in print. (I have a copy from years ago but cannot seem to find it, and have no idea where it might be. It will probably turn up when I move.)

BTW, what is it about the “Prayer of the Faithful” that you found lacking? Just curious.
 
malphono said:
Not that I’m aware of, no. While it’s not exactly the same, (among other things, the structure of the hours is a bit different), there was a translation (as I recall, unofficial) of the Syriac OC shhimo, but I don’t recall who printed it, nor do I know if it is even still in print. (I have a copy from years ago but cannot seem to find it, and have no idea where it might be. It will probably turn up when I move.)
Click to expand...
Is this the same book published in English with a yellow paper cover called THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER OF THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH?
 
malphono said:
BTW, what is it about the “Prayer of the Faithful” that you found lacking? Just curious.
Click to expand...
It was just an impression. I seemed very modern, a lot of “God you are really good”, but lacking in the sense of awe and humility that are usually present in Eastern Prayer. I was just listening, rather than reading, but that was what I came away with.
 
Kyrillos_NY said:
It was just an impression. I seemed very modern, a lot of “God you are really good”, but lacking in the sense of awe and humility that are usually present in Eastern Prayer. I was just listening, rather than reading, but that was what I came away with.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, I understand now, and I think you can easily see what I meant with the reference to the ICEL.

Strictly from the point of view of language (in other words, disregarding the modifications in structure, placement, etc), the Arabic version from which the English derives is, in this case, only partially the cause. Some parts of the Arabic are acceptable translations of the Syriac while others are ICEL-like re-wordings. Similarly, parts of the English text are reasonable renderings of the Arabic while others take further ICEL-like license. It’s all rather reflective of the post-conciliar fixation with “relevance” and such. In other words, the “spirit of Vatican II” (which is still rampant in certain Maronite circles) run amok.

Again, strictly from the point of view of language, the same true in the 1992 and 2005 versions of the Mass, where the Arabic texts have progressively become more ICEL-like. The English “translation” of the 1992 version comes from the Arabic and is more of the same ICEL-like drivel. From what I understand, though, the English text of the 2005 version (which again comes from the Arabic and has not yet officially appeared) is somewhat better insofar as it cleans-up the poor English usage of the 1992 version. Of course it is but a translation, so while it corrects some issues of bad grammar and poor rendering, it does nothing about the inherent weakness of the of the Arabic text itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top