Ah, so you're now decided I am a dogmatic sedevacantist and you've accused me of making "shoot from the hip hurling of heresy accusations".  No, not shooting from the hip, but thanks for your shooting from the hip accusations.
  
How about you just do a search for those words for the context you so sorely need.  It's simple.....CtrL F.  

It is interesting how you're so quick to defend a JPII Code of Canon Law.  Do you really think the 1983 version is the only one infected with Vatican II theology?  Do you really think that if he promulgated this code that the correct understanding of those words is being used?

You've mentioned that you won't go to an una cuм Mass, which is a dogmatic SV stance.  And, yet, even the Dimonds say that it's OK to go to an una cuм Mass, so you're now to the right of them on that issue.

Searching for "words" is insufficient, since, as I pointed out, those words have legitimate meanings even if they've been abused by the Modernists.

There were no substantial changes.  

I find it interesting that no one ever says that there were no changes.  The claim is always that there were no substantial changes.  It seems that anyone who has knowledge of the Eastern Rites agree that there have been changes.

As to the Maronites, they butchered the liturgy by essentially translating popular Arabic hymns and texts. They sort of did the equivalent of using the st Joseph sunday missal as official liturgical text.  The reformers of the Maronite liturgy were not modernists like those of the Latin rite. They were essentially Syriac iliterate Arabs who 'inriched their tradition with harmless drivel. They had faith so hell, sin, evil and damnation as well as sacrifice, and the true teaching about the Eucharist are contained in the liturgy unlike the NO