New English Translation of the Maronite Qurbono

  • Thread starter Thread starter Denho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are a number of misconceptions about the Maronite Qoorbono and the revised new translation. The MQ represents a fifth tradition, not Roman, Byzantine, Edessan, or Jerusalemite, but Antiochene. It owes something to each of these four, but also has original elements.

The Maronite Church is trying to reinstate a more reverent liturgy, and is united to a degree unthinkable in other churches. We only have one rite, not two. We have no SSPX or similar body, and we have no Orthodox wing. Ad libbing is well and truly reined in. The anaphoras make perfectly clear that the Mass is a sacrifice. The supernatural is in high relief. The second coming and the judgment are taught, clearly and unequivocally, as is the existence of angels and the devil. The role of the priest is clear. Our Lady is reverentially mentioned, and there is much emphasis on sin and the need to seek forgiveness.

We have to then distinguish two things: the revised 1992 Missal which is in Syriac with an Arabic rendition. The Arabic is not simply a translation of the Syriac, but an interpretation of it. It does not pretend to be a simple translation. Good translation requires more than lexical interpretation, it also requires cultural knowledge.

The revised English language translation was mandated from the Arabic with reference to the Syriac where there is a query. Those were the terms of reference. There are some infelicities in it, no doubt. But it is a major advance on the previous one which was not even good English in some places and left many things untranslated.

They have followed the new Latin translation where there is overlap (e.g. in the creed), with one or two departures (e.g. “we believe” for “I believe”). So they are part of the movement away from the hippy era translation of the novus ordo. They do this because so many Maronites who use English are familiar with the Latin tradition.

What is wrong with the St JohnChrysostom and St John Maroun anaphoras? I think that even in the English they’re magnificent. St JM is one of the oldest anaphoras in the world, although not so ancient as Sharar = Addai and Mari with a few differences.

Let’s go back to the 1992 Missal. In many significant respects, it represents a return to authentic Maronite tradition. It is far and away more authentic than the previous four hundred years had to offer. So that should be applauded despite the inevitable errors.

Yours in Christ, Deacon Yuhanna
 
Thank you for your wonderful response, Fr. Deacon!!! I’d love to hear what you have to say in my thread about the Maronite Liturgy of the Hours.
 
Deacon_Yuhanna said:
There are a number of misconceptions about the Maronite Qoorbono and the revised new translation. …

… In many significant respects, it represents a return to authentic Maronite tradition. It is far and away more authentic than the previous four hundred years had to offer. So that should be applauded despite the inevitable errors.
Click to expand...
Yes yes … that’s the “party line” which is repeated ad nauseam. :yawn:

One thing that is invariably absent from the official appologia, however, is the fact that the principles behind what has been (and is being) done are straight out of the Bugnini/Novus Ordo playbook. The same is, of course, true for the actual rubrical and textual changes that have been imposed. Taken all together, the result is most definitely and clearly rife with Novus Ordo-(name removed by moderator)sired neo latinizations.

BTW, none of this is specific to either the 1992 or 2005 versions (albeit that the latter represents a negative development of the former which was bad enough); rather, it represents an obvious and undeniable post-conciliar trend. And lest I forget to say this, be assured that there are actually some Maronites in this world who know the score and who are not amused by any of it.

I could comment specifically on individual points, but will refrain from doing do since I frankly have no patience for it.

There is, however, one minor point that I will remark on:
What is wrong with the St JohnChrysostom and St John Maroun anaphoras?
Click to expand...
Nothing at all. I don’t recall anyone having said anything detrimental about them.
 
Dear Malphono, Thank you for that reply, as charitable as it was respectful. What I wrote about the 1992 missal is not merely the party line, or if it is the party line it’s because it’s correct. The facts are these: the 1992 Missal was based on the earliest extant Maronite texts, which are Par. Syr. 71 from 1454, Aleppo 619 from 1450 and others of similar ilk.

These, the most ancient missals, have a much shorter fore-Mass than is found in any Mass in and after 1592-4, when Rome published its Maronite Missal. They clearly distinguishthe Synaxis (Liturgy of the Word) from the Eucharistic Liturgy. In many other features, too, the earliest Maronite Masses reflect a style untouched by either Rome or the Syrian Orthodox rites. In fact, I find that the failure to understand and mention the Syrian Orthodox influence of the 15th and 16th centuries is what marks the amateurs from the professionals in this field. The 1592-4 Missal was at first excommunicated because it represented such a departure from tradition. Only under Roman pressure was it accepted. That missal was the basis for all Maronite missals until the 1992 version. And those are the facts. I have had the privilege of studying Syriac and Karshouni Maronite manuscript Missals in the Vatican Library and the library at USEK, Lebanon. If a scholar uncovers the the facts, and that makes you yawn, why should that concern me?

As for what other people think, again, let’s judge by reasons not bald references to opinions - why should I accept their opinions?

Then the Bugnini-Novus Ordo matter. This is Eurocentrism. The significance of Vatican II and the liturgical changes which followed was different for Eastern Catholics. We need to discuss specifics. Let’s take one. The removal of the high altars in favour of the freestanding altars. This is in accordance with Maronite tradition, as Doueihi attests and as Mons. Charbel Abdallah proves in his two volume thesis. The periti may have been wrong about the West, but the Maronites were right about their East. And so we’re restoring free-standing altars? Good, even great. It makes possible the restoration of awesome rites such as the threefold circumambulation of the altar with the coffin of deceased priests.

Finally, there was a comment criticizing the two anaphoras I mentioned. That is why I drew attention to their majesty.

Deacon Yuhanna
 
Deacon_Yuhanna said:
Dear Malphono, Thank you for that reply, as charitable as it was respectful. What I wrote about the 1992 missal is not merely the party line, or if it is the party line it’s because it’s correct. The facts are these: the 1992 Missal was based on the earliest extant Maronite texts, which are Par. Syr. 71 from 1454, Aleppo 619 from 1450 and others of similar ilk. …

If a scholar uncovers the the facts, and that makes you yawn, why should that concern me?
Click to expand...
Whether the “party line” is totally correct or not is debatable. Admittedly there are certain things which are, but at the same time there are others that are not. I’m quite well aware of the 15th century (and earlier) manuscripts that survive. I am also quite well aware of the resistance to the Missal of 1594 as well to the latinizations foisted by the “Black Council” in the 17th century.

I’m leaving it at that.
Deacon_Yuhanna said:
Then the Bugnini-Novus Ordo matter. This is Eurocentrism. The significance of Vatican II and the liturgical changes which followed was different for Eastern Catholics.
Click to expand...
It can be said that the Lebanese, and in particular the Maronites, have been infected with “Eurocentrism” for many years, and so it would come as no surprise that they readily adopted the “Bugnini principle” of antiquarianism and the Novus Ordo mindset.
Deacon_Yuhanna said:
We need to discuss specifics. Let’s take one. The removal of the high altars in favour of the freestanding altars. This is in accordance with Maronite tradition, as Doueihi attests and as Mons. Charbel Abdallah proves in his two volume thesis. The periti may have been wrong about the West, but the Maronites were right about their East. And so we’re restoring free-standing altars? Good, even great. It makes possible the restoration of awesome rites such as the threefold circumambulation of the altar with the coffin of deceased priests.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that the altar should be free-standing. There is also no doubt that it should not be a versus populum table.
Deacon_Yuhanna said:
Finally, there was a comment criticizing the two anaphoras I mentioned. That is why I drew attention to their majesty.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I missed that comment.
 
Another feature of the new Maronite Mass (qoorbono) which links it to the most ancient liturgies of our tradition, restoring what had been lost between implementation of the Latinized Missals, is the presence of the ancient Liturgies of the Word (this liturgy is also known as a synaxis).

In fact, the Maronite Missal of 1992-2005 has no fewer than 45 different synaxes, chosen from the offices of the phanqito. These are basically the parts from when the priest is first brought incense for his blessing through to the Qadishat. When our local translation committee here in Sydney checked the new draft translation, we found that the specimens we examined needed no comment. It is isn’t that we would not perhaps have done some things differently, but all divergences were legitimate. After all, no two translators will ever translate a lengthy text the same way. The restoration of this variety is, for me, wonderful, because it is a substantial advance on the present translation (which omitted some spiritual and even mystical material). Now, for the first time, the English only congregations will hear what the Arabists have always heard.

Also worthy of note is that effectively since 2008, the the third anaphora of St Peter (Šarar) has been restored to us for regular use (with its use mandated on certain feast days). God grant me to work on the English translation of this extraordinary marvel, after I had the privilege of studying parts of it in Syriac with the learned Fr Eli. It was the second Roman edition (1716) which made Šarar a communion rite for Lent alone. From being one of the defining marks of the Maronite liturgy, it was expelled from the eucharistic celebration. What a tragedy. But we’re now reversing that. And, may God hear my prayer, I would love to work for the preparation of other ancient anaphoras such as John of Lehfed, Ignatius of Antioch and Dionysios the Areopagite.

A final point: the 1992-2005 Missal represents the final unravelling of the mischief done by the Roman censor of 1592-4, Fr Thomas di Terracina, a Dominican who, without any consultation, changed the prayer of consecration at the epiclesis.

Yours in Christ, Deacon Yuhanna
 
Believe what you will. I’m out of this. It’s not worth my time.

Ciao. 👋
 
I’ve been curious why the Maronite bishops haven’t looked to the Syriac Orthodox for inspiration for a more authentic interpretation of their rite free from Latinization.
 
Well, we do in fact speak amicably with to the Syrian Orthodox, and study their liturgy, but not because they have the same liturgy, only free of Latinizations. So that assumption, although reasonably widespread, is wrong.

First, we do enjoy good relations with them, and our hierarchy are quite aware of their liturgy and their views on the issues affecting Christians today. In fact, I had the honour to help with some translations for one such very high level meeting of many Catholics and Orthodox at Bkerke (our Vatican). But it isn’t because we imagine that they can tell us about the more authentic Maronite Liturgy - our liturgies and theirs diverged after the Council of Chalcedon. Their liturgy has undergone substantial development, and so is no longer a witness to the pristine liturgy.

There are certain practices which they have maintained which we have not, e.g. the practice of celebrating the Mass only on Sundays. This is the original Christian practice. The Latin West departed from it, and we eventually followed them. Other practices of theirs, e.g. the curtains for the sanctuary, are not original and we did not and never have followed them.

You might be surprised how close we were: we used to share Missals, and we even used Missals which had anaphoras such as John Saba which were never permitted for Maronites. We even used to share churches - building a wall down the middle and having two altars. In fact, there are still such churches in Hardine.

The best witnesses for our ancient liturgy are the 30 pre-1592 manuscripts, which fall into four classes - and one of these classes does indeed bear Syrian Orthodox influence.

So we are not cut off from them, in fact, we are reasonably ather close to them, and not only in the Middle East. Regards, Deacon Yuhanna
 
I posted that last note rather quickly: I’d like to clarify a few things. The Orthodox “screening” I referred to is, so far as I have seen, a curtain in the Syrian tradition. But the Maronites never had either this or an iconostasis.

Next, two of the four categorys of pre-1592 Maronite Missals have Syrian Orthodox influence, not just one. MS Bkerké 115 (from 1501) and two others, in their fore-mass and anaphora are said to be a Syrian Orthodox liturgy adapted to Maronite usage. They were written during the mid 15th century to mid 16th century, when many Maronites became Syrian Orthodox. The second category is represented by Vat. Syr. 434 (from 1541), Bkerké 117 (16th century) and 118 (from 1580) and some others. In these, the fore-mass is expanded by prayers and hymns from the Syrian Orthodox liturgy.

Finally, I should note that the great Patriarch Douaihy believed that we were from the Syrian Orthodox by doctrinal issues, more than liturgical. He considered that the anaphoras of Marūta of Takrit and Jacob of Eddessa, although Syrian Orthodox, could be used by Maronites, but as I mentioned, for others, he said not.
 
While the Maronites never used an iconostasis? Was there ever a time when the Maronite Church followed the Syriac Orthodox/Church of the East practice of using the curtain?

And will Maronites ever drop the filioque?
 
That’s right, the use of curtains and iconostases has never been Maronite custom.For the research, you need to be able to read French. As for the Filioque, why would Maronites even want to drop it? But, no, I haven’t heard of any plans to do so - not that I would necessarily know! Regards, Deacon Yuhanna
 
As for the filioque, it is a Latinization. All of the Byzantine-rite Catholic eparchies have dropped it.

Vatican II told Eastern Catholics to return to our liturgical traditions free from Latin influence.
 
Hi Deacon Yuhana,

Was the Maronite Liturgy celebrated versus populum long before the 1970’s?

Has the Offertory always been where it is currently at?
 
But it makes good sense: the trinity acts as a trinity, During Jesus’ life his earthly relaton to the spirit changed - it had to. I wonder who these theologians who want to drop the filioque are - any names? If I have names I can ask my conctacts in Bkere. Deacon Yuhanna
 
The extraordinary thing is that the Maronite churches ALL FACED EAST and the PRIESTS all faced GOD with the people at their backs. But it was not perceived as that: it ws perceived as all of us facing the same way. Do modernists think that it is a sham that one person sit in froat of another? NOt really. And it was like that with is. Until people told us it was improper, the so-called “impropriety” never occurred to anyone.Vatican II did two things: it sent the Latin Church away from the central aim of the Eucharist, but it sent the Eastern Catholics towards it. The catch is that some of the Easterners are wistfully looking West, but they’re numbers are limited, esp. in the seminaries. They’re on the way out. Let’s keep it that way and not relax our vigilance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top