The Metropolitan Cantor Institute website now has music for the Theophany of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ:

- Royal Hours
- Vespers, Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil, and Great Sanctification of Water
- Great Compline (complete service, and propers)

Propers for Matins, and for the Sunday after Theophany, are in preparation.

Although we realize that few parishes may celebrate the full liturgical observance of this feast, we hope that by making the service texts and music available this year, we may assist in the re-discovery of our traditional heritage of worship over the coming years.

Please sent any questions or comments to me at ByzKat@stny.rr.com. May your celebration of the Theophany be rich in blessings. Khristos Khrystyayetsya!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Cantors,
Please note that the materials on the MCI Website for Vespers with Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil, and Great Sanctification of Water are using a translation and music that have not been given approbation by the Council of Hierarchs, except for provisional use in selected settings (such as the MCI courses).

Please discuss with your Pastor before attempting to use this music for services on Thursday Evening, as simply taking these materials and using them could cause confusion with the Faithful who will, most likely, be using texts with the current translations.

If you are looking for a book that has our current translation and uses the common chant settings, please consult the edition that was published by Msgr. Levkulic a number of years ago entitled "Theophany: Vespers-Divine Liturgy and Sanctification of Water" (Priest/Cantor Edition).

-- Cantor JKF

I apologize if I might have stepped over bounds, but many parishes use texts other than those in the 1978 "pew book", etc. - hence the phrase "approved sources" that Monsignor Levkulic and the Sisters of Saint Basil used. Are you prepared to say that Vespers, Matins and Compline MAY NOT be celebrated until the bishops release texts?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but we HAVE no official text of these services, just as we have no official text for this vigil. (Look in the "pew book" and see.) I think you could perhaps find three pages out thirty-eight that have texts for the Divine Liturgy that differ from those in the 1978 pew book - and there are MANY different musical settings in use. (Litanies, etc. for Vespers don't count, as some parishes use entirely different sources for Vespers, whose litanies do NOT match what we use for the Divine Liturgy.)

Also, as noted in Father David's Typikon, Monsignor Lekvulic's service for this feast does not always follow the Ruthenian recension; furthermore, I believe you will find that the MCI texts of the service are more complete than most available (for example, in providing all the stichera, rather than a selection).

Of COURSE one should ask the pastor's blessing before using ANY new materials in church, and if one has texts and music on hand for these services, wonderful! (And there is no reason for a cantor not to use the additional materials that fit parish needs, and supplement from what the parish already has.) But I think you overestimate the extent to which Monsignor Levkulic's service books are "official" in the Metropolia - as well as the amount of "official" or "common" music in use.

Please forgive me if I offend, but Jerry Jumba's words to me ten years ago were very explicit: we do not celebrate Vespers and Matins because (a) we do not have official texts in English, and (b) most cantors know only very simplified, or even incorrect, forms of the chant. The work of the MCI, like that of John Vernoski, Jack Figel, and others, is an attempt to remedy those CURRENT lacks. Unless the bishops order us not to, I see abvsolutely no problem in prudently using whatever materials are available when celebrating occasional services, and I hope and pray that one day we WILL have complete, official service books in English.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Thanks for the clarification! Perhaps I was led astray by the use of bold face to make the point that the text and music were NOT APPROVED for parish use rather than that they are different. I decided it was important to reply, especially since someone here had recently claimed that NOTHING on the website could be used in parishes.

I, too, am glad that more materials for our services are becoming available!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Cantor JKF writes:
I would hope that any cantor leading worship services would prepare ahead of time and have the necessary copies for the people to follow along with, especially if/when combining parts of the various books with the new setting of the propers. For that matter, new materials introduced by the cantor should include copies for the people!

Jeff:
My understanding is that "provisional" or "proposed" materials (such as those on the MCI website) may be only used, subject to the approval of the Pastor and/or Bishop, when no official English translation (or music) exists for that Service.

Things end up in a state of flux, when materials are not necessarily authorized or permanent. We seem to pick and choose what is right for use by parish as a result. That's not all bad, of course.

We still know to rely on pastoral judgment. I think on the matter of copies there can be extenuating circumstances, but it is always necessary to know from the priest what is needed. Sometimes, a pastoral decision is even made to forego copies. A possible example would be the Sanctification of Water where, apart from litany responses, the congregation only needs to have the tropar, and perhaps a hymn during the distribution of water.

As to the provisional or proposed materials, they often contain settings that predate the MCI copy, and which just happen to be unavailable locally. Because they are not necessarily new, pastoral judgment lets us use things we know are not solely from the provisional/proposed materials themselves, instead of disallowing use of everything in them.

Cantor JFK,

You are quick to point out that the MCI materials do not have the approbation of the Council of Hierarchs but you fail to mention that neither does Msgr. Levkulic's. The Metropolia does not in fact have an approved version of a Vespers service other than Msgr. Levkulic's Presanctified, Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday books which do carry the "approved by Eclessiastical authorities" tag line.

While I agree it would be inappropriate to use the Liturgy of St. Basil protion I can see no reason not to use the Vespers or Sanctification of Water texts if one does not have the Levkulic books.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon:
You raise a good point that many of Msgr. Levkulic's books, while in common use throughout most of the Metropolia, do not have an "approved by Ecclesiastical authorities" tag line. (Perhaps we can infer that the individual Bishops have given provisional approval to some of these simply because of their continued use?)

With regard to the Liturgy of Saint Basil portion of the MCI Materials, there were some changes in the text of the service that seem to represent "innovations" that would further support the notion that using them would have been inappropriate.

Specifically, I am speaking of the following:

(1) On page 22, the prescribed Irmos for the Vesper Liturgy (Jan. 5) was replaced with the Magnification and Irmos for the Divine Liturgy of the Feast (Jan. 6). The Irmos is correctly rendered in other sources (such as Levkulic).

(2) On page 23, the prescribed Pricasten of the Vesper Liturgy ("Praise the Lord from the Heavens...") was replaced with that of the Divine Liturgy of the Feast ("The saving grace of God..."). The Pricasten is correctly rendered in other sources (such as Levkulic).

I also reviewed the music in the materials, and found a choice that the IEMC made for the arrangement of the Troparion of Theophany (Tone 1) in measures 4 and 5 to be very distracting.

Specifically, this can be found on page 31. Musically, the arrangement itself does seem to follow Bokshaj's notation but the phrasing is not correct.

If one was speaking, s/he would not break the statement "...and the Spirit in the form of a dove" and "confirmed the truth of these words" but would, instead, keep them together as a single phase/thought.

By comparison, other "approved" musical arrangements of this Tropar, such as those prepared by John Vernoski in his Liturgical Music Supplements and Msgr. Levkulic in his texts, keep the phasing together correctly, which enables the thoughts to be conveyed following the English language/punctuation.

-- Cantor JKF

JKF:

What I find odd and needlessly tricky, is the lack of consistency on accentuation in the motifs featured in this tone.

For example, the 2nd and 4th measure has the phrase that concludes : sol fa mi re (the last phrase, 6, has the same elaborated motif with the ending re do ti do). In 2 and 6 the phrase peaks on fa; on 4 it peaks on the sol that starts this motif. (The latter seems more familiar to my ear and is more exciting.) So what is the musical motif anyway? Just getting the notes in the right sequence is not the music.

Same problem with the motif that occurs before the repeating note in each phrase (except the last): mi re mi fa (sol...). In 1, 2 it is: mi-re Mi-fa; in 3,4 it is: mi Re-mi fa. Why not, for example, in 4: .... Spi (fa ) rit - (mi-re) in the (mi-fa) ... ?

Finally, a hallmark of the tone is the dramatic articulation that opens each phrase (except the close): da-DUM. There must be another solution to phrase 2 that avoids the strange: wor (half) ship (quarter). Better IMO to omit this motif on this one phrase - and put "worship of the" on the Mi-re Mi-fa - than to introduce this backwards idea that is just alien to the tone.

I can understand the idea of trying to make the same sequence of notes in these phrases sound different by different patterns of articulation, in order to give some variety that heightens musical interest. It is clever composition. But I think such an idea is not a good one for congregational chant. It just trips people up. Maybe there is some good theory to back up these choices. It would be informative if the MCI woudl give a statement of the principles that guide their work.

Cantor JKF wrote:

"With regard to the Liturgy of Saint Basil portion of the MCI Materials, there were some changes in the text of the service that seem to represent "innovations" that would further support the notion that using them would have been inappropriate.

Specifically, I am speaking of the following:

(1) On page 22, the prescribed Irmos for the Vesper Liturgy (Jan. 5) was replaced with the Magnification and Irmos for the Divine Liturgy of the Feast (Jan. 6). The Irmos is correctly rendered in other sources (such as Levkulic).

(2) On page 23, the prescribed Pricasten of the Vesper Liturgy ("Praise the Lord from the Heavens...") was replaced with that of the Divine Liturgy of the Feast ("The saving grace of God..."). The Pricasten is correctly rendered in other sources (such as Levkulic)."

Please note the following:

The 2005 and 2006 editions of "Typikon: a guidebook for the celebration of the Liturgy and Divine Office of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church from approved sources, APPROVED FOR USE IN THE METROPOLIA OF PITTSBURGH" (emphasis added)says on December 25:

"Pastoral Option: A Vesper Liturgy of St. Basil...Instead of "It is truly proper...," the Exaltation and Irmos of the Feast is sung."

If you are in doubt about the authorization of this practice, please refer to the title page of the Typikon, which is given above.

You might be interested to know that this "option," far from being innovative, is listed on page 191 of the "TYPIK" of Fr. Mikita.

It is paralleled by a rubric for the Theophany that says, "all as on Nativity."

As to the form of Resurrection Tone 1, this is not the work of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute. This is the work of the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Michael:
I spoke with a fellow Cantor in the Eparchy of Passaic who looked at Fr. Mikita's Typikon and he did NOT see the reference that you have made above on page 191 in that edition.

He did, however, find a reference to the Irmos for the Vesperal Liturgy of both the Nativity of Our Lord and Theophany in Dolnitsky's Typikon.

The rubric suggests that in place of the hymn, "In You O Woman Full of Grace," that one may sing the Irmos of the Ninth Ode from COMPLINE (Povecerije) for the Vigil of the Feast; it does NOT say that one may sing the Irmos of the Ninth Ode from MATINS for the Feast, as was rendered in the MCI Materials.

I believe that this is what Msgr. Levkulic had in his pamphlets for both Feasts.

-- Cantor JKF

Dear Mr. Ferenchick,

I am posting this also on the Byzantine Forum.

There is much confusion about the Liturgical Vigils of Pascha, Christmas and Theophany.
Part of the reason for this confusion is that it is certain, and I label this Principle # 1, that in origin these Liturgies were considered Liturgies of the Feast and were designed to be celebrated as such at the beginning of the liturgical day, sunset. I say this is clear because:
1) they were attached to Vespers, which was the beginning of the liturgical day (under the Jewish concept of a sunset to sunset day);
2) the Liturgy of St. Basil, which was the festive Liturgy of Constantinople was celebrated. (The idea that St. Basil is penitential is post factum theology, developed when we moderns began to think to stay in church longer was penitential. It was retained in the Great Fast on Sundays, because the Great Fast is almost always more conservative liturgically.)
3) the Liturgies of the Word attached to these Vespers is clearly festive, relating to the feast itself - Great Prokeimena, festive Communion Hymns (for Christmas and Theophany the festive Sunday Koinonicon - the Paschal Vigil has a special resurrection koinonikon from Psalm 77, etc.

I wish to make this point first, because however we wish it to be, in ancient Rome and New Rome (Constantinople), the concept was that these great feasts were celebrated by two Liturgies, one on the eve after sunset, the other on the day of the feast itself. Sometimes we want to minimize the importance of these vigil for a post factum practical reason: either to justify present practice, or to retain the daytime liturgies on the feast day itself as the primary celebration and not to complicate the issue. I don’t like reading back into history. Western theologians did it with confirmation (chrismation). When it got detached from baptism, and transferred to later in a person’s life, a theology of confirmation as a sacrament of maturity was developed to justify the deconstruction of the rites of initiation. Before continuing, then, I wish to make this point: these Vigil Liturgies were festive, and belonged to the feast. I think we are mature enough to transfer them back to the evening, to make them at least a bit more accessible to people who may want to experience them.

Why did they migrate to the morning, even though connected with Vespers? We don’t know for sure. Historically the Pascha Vigil was the major time for adult baptisms. Perhaps it lost importance with the reduction of or even disappearance of large numbers of adult converts. We usually don’t find apologia for the disintegration of liturgical practice, though we sometimes find defenses of new practices. Others have suggested that it was for fasting reasons - in the Great Fast, you fasted until Vespers. In the byzcath thread, it was suggested that the only reason for these Liturgies was to break the fast, but the very point is, you broke the fast because it was now the feast.

The Paschal Vigil was stable, because a Divine Liturgy was never celebrated on Saturday morning (the only time in the year this happened). However, if Christmas or Theophany fell on Sunday or Monday, then on the day before (Saturday or Sunday), there was a Liturgy in the morning, and the fast was broken - though, as in Lent, abstinence form certain foods may remain - and the festive Liturgy of St. Basil was transferred to the day of the feast itself. Observe: Sabbath was a holy day in the ancients’ mind, as well as the Lord’s Day. Our sense of this is not as sharp now. Note that the fast ends because the feast begins (Sabbath, Lord’s Day, Christmas, Theophany, while for Pascha, Saturday is always - the only Saturday - a day of fast).

This bring us to the issue at hand. What about the Nadostoinik for the Vigil Liturgies. The Slav term here can only be translated as “Instead of “It is truly proper ... ‘” I will coin a new term for the purpose of discussion here: the Anaphoral Theotokion. We are dealing here with an element that entered relatively late into the Liturgy, when the Vigil Liturgies were in decline. Early history of the Anaphoral Theotokion is very diverse. It seems in Southern Italy, they sang the Theotokion known in its Western form as “the Angelic Salutation,” which we usually call the “Hail, Mary ... “ - “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos ... “ Constantinople eventually settled on two hymns: 1) It is truly proper ... “, and 2) “More honorable ... “ (which is actually the Irmos for the Ninth Ode of the Good Friday Canon. On feast days, in an even later practice, it began to be replaced by the Irmos of the Ninth Ode of the Feast day Canon. For St. Basil’s Liturgy, which was the solemn and festive Liturgy, it was replaced by the last in the series of sidalens (sessional hymns) for Sunday Orthros (Matins) for the eight tones - that it the theotokion of the second Sessional Hymn of Tone 8. That this particular hymn has a privileged place can still be seen in the Octoechos today, where the rubric is, (the following) we do not sing sitting, but standing, and with fear and reverence: “In you, all creation rejoices ... “ What happens, then, at the Vigil Liturgies - for the Paschal Vigil, the Anaphoral Theotokion came to be the Irmos of the Ninth Ode of the Saturday Canon, “Weep not for me, mother ...,” which was sung again at the Compline (for the Slav tradition, with the removal of the Burial Shroud) after sunset on Holy Saturday. However, there was no Canon at the Great Compline sung after the first Liturgy and before Orthros of Christmas and Theophany, since it was replaced by the litija and apostichera displaced from Vespers. The result: since these were Liturgies of St. Basil, the festive, “In you, all creation rejoices ... “ was retained. Here we come to the nub of the problem. I acknowledge that the standard Typica prescribe the “In you, all creation rejoices ... “ for the Liturgy of St. Basil on the eves of Christmas and Theophany. However, in Dolnitsky’s Typicon (not Mikita’s, as this thread supposes - I always find Mikita difficult, because his work is rather disorganized - but I can, with a quick survey, find no place where he treats of this question) - to return, Dolnitsky, p. 191, paragraph 11, reads: “Instead of “It is truly proper ...” we sing, “In you, (all creation) rejoices”: or, according to later Typicons of our Liturgicons, the Irmos of the Ninth Ode of the Canon found at (lit. positioned) the Compline of the Vigil. I used this for my typicon at Christmas, but didn’t follow through at Theophany. I also admit I didn’t read it closely enough - that it was the Irmos from Compline (i.e. the Compline from Jan. 4-5) and not from the Orthros of the Feast. I will correct this in future typicons, and at present I am inclined to note the standard tradition - the “In you, all creation rejoices ... “ with the option of using the festive Irmos. I don’t see this as a crucial issue - no matter what I do, principle # 1 remains firm, and the festive irmosi are sung before the feasts of Christmas (from November 21) and Theophany (from January 2) as katavasia for the Canon, a situation that does not occur with the Paschal Vigil Liturgy. I hope this helps to clarify the questions raised.

With the exception of "All Creation Rejoices" - and one or two modern paraliturgical inventions - the "Anaphoral Theotokion" is always something related to the Ninth Ode; that's simple enough. For certain days, some books seem to indicate a choice between All Creation Rejoices and a portion of the Ninth Ode if one is serving the Liturgy of Saint Basil. But this is not really an earth-shaking question.

Certainly the Vesper-Liturgy of Saint Basil on Christmas Eve and Theophany Eve is festive; who could think otherwise? The texts at Lord, I have cried, and the readings all bear that out. But the ultimate example is the Vesper-Liturgy on Holy Saturday, with its dramatic change of vestments after the Epistle.

There is a long-standing pastoral problem among the Slavs; both Christmas Eve and Theophany Eve are strongly associated with some traditional observances which take place primarily in the home. That can make it difficult to come to Church at a suitable hour for Vespers. In the diaspora, it gets worse if one expects people to come to Church, go home, have a special supper, and come back to Church, all in the same evening. Having stated the problem, I do not, alas, have any particular solution to offer.

Incognitus

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Yes, the MCI followed the indication in Father David's Typikon that the irmos of the feast should be used, rather than the irmos of the prefeast. If this was a slip of Father's pen rather than an intentional specification, then of course we will handle it differently next year!

The reference to the page in Dolnitskiy (my fault for bringing up Mikita when Professor Thompson and I were discussing it) was not originally intended to distinguish between the prefeast and feast, but to justify the fact of singing the Irmos at all at this service, rather than which irmos is to be used. Our tendency in the MCI publications has been to use festal materials, podobny, etc., where appoined OR where permitted as an option, in order to allow the people to hear and sing MORE of our tradition. (Recently, we have included music for BOTH podoben and samohlasen melodies in the Vespers materials, to allow the wider choice of music.) The Typikon, of course, should be followed, and in this case Father David's is normative for much of the Metropolia.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. It might be helpful if people who have issues with choice of text appoined in the Typikon, or used in the MCI materials, to bring them up in the time before the feast is celebrated; this may allow such issues to be either explained (if intentional) or corrected.