Is the Present Day Maronite Mass Significantly Different from the Original Maronite Mass?

What are the changes to the original Maronite Mass and who made these changes (was it the Roman Catholic Church or the Maronites who made the changes?) Thanks for your help with this!

That question is far too broad to be dealt with in a forum such as this. If there are specific questions, it might make things more manageable.

I’ve commented on various things of this nature in the past, but suffice it to say at this point that the so-called “changes” amount to nothing more than an ongoing and never-ending series of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations.

Oh, (and I really hate to say this) it was (and is) the Maronite Church itself. :mad: As I said recently in another thread, the Maronite Church as a body embraces all of that (i.e. Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization) to a degree that even the Latin Church does not. (Reminds me in a bad way of the old expression “more Catholic than the Pope” but I digress). :shrug:

Dear Malphono, thanks for your helpful post. Could you clarify the above statement for me?

Also, does the Maronite Church in its General Instruction Book of the Mass (containing the rubrics, prayers, etc.) identify the Consecration as just a narrative, like the Latin Church does? Best wishes!

What I mean is: the words of Christ have been embedded in the Institution Narrative of the New Mass. I did not mean to suggest that the Consecration is just a narrative, like for the Protestants at their services. (However, if a validly ordained priest says the Consecration just as a narrative and not in persona Christi, then we have only a narrative and not a true Consecration.)

Malphono,

If you don’t mind a slight aside - If the Maronite liturgy was returned to an authentic form what would be the distinctive ‘Maronite’ elements that would differ from the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic version?

It actually means just what it says, and I’m not sure how to clarify further. :confused: Perhaps it would be best to attend and pay close attention. :slight_smile:

:confused:

Of course I don’t mind, but that’s another rather broad question, isn’t it. :eek: :slight_smile:

Anyway, for one thing, there is the structure of what I will call the “Foremass” (i.e. after the Rite of Preparation and before the Anaphora). For example, we have the Rite of Incense. In the Maronite structure, it is early on in the Foremass, whereas the SOC have it just before the Anaphora. Some of the prayers themselves also differ to varying degrees, such as the mazmouro before the Epistle (aka first reading) plus parts of the dialogue before the Gospel. There are, as well, some differences in the Order of Service within the Anaphora, including, for example, the Rite of Fraction, and the prayers and rituals before and after communion. Of course, those are just a few examples.

As I’ve said time and again in this forum, the main thrust of the “old” wave of latinizations was in the rubrics. IOW, the “old” (read: pre-conciliar) text was relatively “clean” (meaning that the text itself contained few latinizations), and a good look at it will give a sense of the way things really should be. The current missal, rife with Novus Ordo-inspired neo latinizations, hardly resembles it.

I have a copy of Archdale King’s Rites of Eastern Christendom but the text is abridged and leaves out all of the Rite of Preperation, etc. I am trying to get my hands on Attwater’s translation in full but it is a tad cost prohibitive :P. From the google books preview it looks much more complete, though his historical commentary can be…less than edifying at times.

Yes, Attwater is generally pretty good. There were also a few “hand missals” (unofficial English translations prepared by various priests) from the pre-conciliar days, but it’s quite rare to find them now. There was also what we used to call the “Blue Book” (the people’s pew book – the altar edition was in a larger format and was called the “Red Book”) which was an English translation made in the late '60s by the then-Exarchate for official use. The translation is rather un-poetic, but it does follow the Order of Service as amended shortly before then by then-Patriarch Paul Peter Meouchi. (FYI, the amendments made at that time were relatively minor, and mainly concerned the partial suppression of the Second Canonical Hour in the Foremass.) Again, it’s not easy to find, but I know that some people kept a copy or two so it may be possible.

BTW, there are also several “hand missals” in Arabic which are somewhat easier to find (they had greater circulation). One, in particular, was the “dalil al-mu’men” (handbook of the faithful), and it’s quite excellent.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.