ou shlomo 'amokh. brikh d’étho beinothan.
tawdi lokh oH rHeemo. weno of fSeeHoyo no deet ‘amkhun.
The first is Novus Ordo and looks to be some sort of bier garten festival more than Mass. I would not have been present. Well, enough said about that.
The second, of course, is according to the Usus Antiquior, and for me that is the only choice.
I hear your brother. I am against all Latinisation efforts within our Church, but I fully respect the Latin Church’s rites within its Churches. My preference is also for the Second video.
The first is from Harissa, and these days, that seems to spell trouble right from the start, even with Mar Beshara presiding. In any case, I wasn’t impressed with the applause at the beginning of the video, but beyond that, I don’t know how much difference there is between the two.
LOL!
I still don’t know how the construction of that Church got approved (or how St. Charbel Church at ‘anneya was also permitted.) It has no redeeming quality when held against the Antiochan Syriac Maronite Tradition with regards to the construction of a Church.
Excluding all exceptions that have been permitted:
-The High Alter in the Syriac Maronite Church should be towards the East with the Tabernacle in the Middle (like in the second video) – the Holy of Holies.
-Here’s the instruction from the Teaching of the Apostles in Syriac about facing the East: som hokhil shleeHe dalmadenHo waw mSalen. meTul dakh barqe dboreq men madenHo wmetHze ‘damo lma’arbo hokhano tehwe meteeteh dabreh dnosho dabhode neda’ wnetbayon dmen madenHo metHze men shelyo.
-According to Patriarch Douhai, the Alter shouldn’t be connected to wall, so that the priest can go around the back when required, but definitely should not have a seat behind it.
-The nave should be below the High Alter.
-In the middle of the nave there should be a Beema (AKA. Hoosoyo) that is raised a step above the nave, but not higher than the Alter.
-The Service of the Word should be carried out in the Beema, and the Gospel should be read from the “goghulto” in the Beema.
-The priest is supposed to face the East (towards the Light of Christ) along with the people, as he is offering the sacrifice on behalf of the faithful; and not concelebrated.
-The word “qurbono” has the joint meaning of “offering/sacrifice”.
-The musical instruments are supposed to follow the voice and not the other way around.
-The Church is supposed to be divided between men (on the right) and women (on the left) representing the created children of God; it also plays a part in how the hymns are hymned and what they signify.
-There are a lot more unacceptable exceptions, but like you said it might be exhaustive for people on this forum.
Both follow the neo-Maronite Novus Ordo, both are basically Syriac-free, and both contain their share of neo-latinizations and arabizations. Notice, e.g., that both have the Novus Ordo-style “offertory” procession, and that both have that incessant and infernal strumming on the 'oud etc. The fact that the second video is ad orientem is an important difference (and exceedingly rare), but while that is commendable in and of itself, it doesn’t much redeem the whole.
Actually although the Qurbono has been Arabised (very sad
), the structure of the current Qurbono is a lot closer to the pre-Jacobitisation and the pre-Latinisation w/Arabisation, but there’s still some work to be done on it. The best example of how the Syriac Maronite Qurbono should look like: see the Tekse dashHimto (for the Service of the Word) – those hours that are mentioned in the “ktobo dhudoyo” and the Anaphora of “sharar” for the “qoorob qurbono.”
The offertory procession is actually an ancient Syriac Maronite practice that occurred at the time of the pre-Anaphora. The preparation of the gifts according to the ancient Syriac Maronite tradition is done in the “beth dyoqun”.
They also both contain their share of abuses: for example, in the second video, the housoyo is sung by a layman in the presence of several concelebrating priests.
Yes they do, but unfortunately the rubric now permits it. Our Church followed the Latinisation practice of diminishing the different levels of the deaconate and has given way more roles to the laity than they should have as per the Syriac Tradition.
I could go on and on, but I’ll spare the forum a major liturgical rant which would probably put the non-Maronites and non-Syriacs in coma.
I hear you brother, it annoys me as well, and these abuses even annoy many of the Maronite faithful who aren’t that well versed on these subjects.
My preference is to pray the various Tekse (shHimto, fenqito, etc…) fully in Syriac and in Church to respond to the teshmeshto dqurbono (in Syriac in a low voice.)
The Latin Church has a choice. The Maronites, in practice, do not.
That is true, but the Church is divided between those who support the Antiochan Syriac Maronite Tradition
and those that support the Latinisation/Arabisation/Vernacularism imitator of the West Tradition
.
aloho nbarekh lokh,
keefa bar morun
