A COMMENTARY on the massby THE NESTOR1 AN QE0R6E,BISHOP OF MOSUL AND ARBEL-v5., „ % v>‘ V • \ ' *oTranslated by Dom R.H. ConnollyEdited by Fr. Robert Matheus€x Uibnsiu'ti) Jtlarbutbo Uibrarpt? ^LisThe Malphono George Anton Kiraz CollectionAnyone who asks for this volume, toread, collate, or copy trom it, and whoappropriates it to himself or herself, orcuts anything out of it, should realizethat (s)he will have to give answer beforeGod’s awesome tribunal as it (s)he hadrobbed a sanctuary. 1 ,et such a person beheld anathema and receive no forgivenessuntil the book is returned. So be it.Amen! And anyone who removes theseanathemas, digitally or otherwise, shallhimself receive them in double.A COMMENTARY ON THE MASS(which has been attributed to, but it is not really)BY THE NESTORIANGEORGE,BISHOP OF MOSUL AND ARBEL(10TH CENTURY)Translated from the Syriac by R.H. Connolly(1909)Edited by F. Robert MatheusNo 243OIRSIDepartment of Publications of Paurastya VidyapithamPontifical Oriental Institute of Religious StudiesVadavathoor, Kottayam, IndiaTitle: A Commentary on the Mass (which has been attributed to, butit is not really) by the Nestorian George, Bishop of Mosul andArbel (10th century)Translator: R.H. Connolly, O.S.B.Editor: Fr. Robert Matheus© Copyright by the editorPublished by: OIRSI, Paurastya Vidyapitham,Vadavathoor, Kottayam, IndiaFirst published: 2000Printed at: Nanjil Offset Printers,Nagercoil, India. Ph. (04652) 33853ISBN: 81-86063-80-3AcknowledgmentI am happy to present to the public this non published trans¬lation by Dom Connolly of the “Expositio Officiorum” of the anony¬mous author, attributed to George of Arbela (10th C.), a work,very detailed, but in a mystagogical style. As the Most Rever¬end Abbot, Richard Yeo, of his abbey, has already said in hispreface, this translation, originally made in 1909, was only in¬tended as a tool for his Latin translation. So, we cannot con¬sider it as a completed work. Nevertheless, Dom Connolly wasan eminent scholar not o...