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.

Glory Forever!

Jeff,
To the best of my knowledge, the Council of Hierarchs has not given general approval to use the provisional text and music publications on the MCI website in all of the parishes of the Metropolia.

For example, all of the materials published by John Vernoski carry a statement at the bottom: "Approved by Bishop Andrew Pataki, J.C.L., D.D., Eparch of Passaic." (Note: No similar statement exists on the MCI Materials.)

It is clear that the text and music in the Vernoski materials may be used by Cantors and Faitful in the Eparchy of Passiac and, as such, I do review them prior to using them in the Parish Setting for a Feast.

Certainly, if the MCI materials are made available on the Web early enough, I suppose that one could review them and provide the feedback; I still conclude that there is a bigger question that must be answered about whether these materials should even be used in the parish setting at this point.

- Cantor JKF

That is correct, the Hierarchs have not given any approval at all, general or specific, for these texts, translations and musical settings, and they may not be used in the Churches.

Nick

Nicholas,

Interesting...

Ungcsertezs

Nick,

You go to far. The MCI materials were translated by the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission and set to chant by the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission. They at least were used with permission in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. You will question the use of materials that the Hierarch's commissioned but say nothing about using Msgr. Levkulic's booklets or the Sister of St. Basil books which also do not have approbation? According to your logic then everbody but Passaic should not be having Vespers or Matins at all because there are no books with the official seal.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thank you, Father Deacon Lance, for putting the approval matter into better perspective.

Our priorities ought to be effective worship by our communities, not who has written approval to use materials and where they are approved. Given the limited resources we all have, there is a need to be more pragmatic- to use what works best in our local churches- which DOES differ from place to place.

Father Lance makes a very good point. The Council of Hierarchs gave specific direction to both the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission and the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission to prepare these new translations and musical settings. The bishops have also paid for this effort, have directed (or at least permitted) its use at the seminary, have directed (or at least permitted) its use at the Pittsburgh cantors school, and have directed (or at least permitted) the publication of these materials on an official website of an official organization of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. None of this means that this material is formally approved and/or mandated, but it does certainly demonstrate the direction that the bishops have set for our Church. Where other official translations or editions do not exist, it seems that these materials would be at least acceptable for use at this time, if not the preferred texts and musical settings. Where other official translations or editions do exist, it seems that they should still be preferred, at least until the bishops give specific blessing to the new materials. Ultimately, until the bishops give a specific directive to the Church on the matter, the clergy will have to use its own judgment. Cantors will need to continue to defer to the direction of their pastors.

As I have now stated numerous times, there are a number of corrections to the texts that I welcome, but I strongly disagree with the changes to the rubrics for the Divine Services as well as those changes to the texts which go beyond actual correction to errors (and possibly standardization). The music, however, is another matter. I repeat that everyone should welcome and encourage anyone providing their ideas for new settings. Each should place his gift in this area on the altar. Ultimately, the Lord will bless what He will bless and what is best will be embraced by the Church.

Two more things (again, both are simply my opinions). While much of the Levkulic material does not have a specific blessing from the bishops, it does outrank everything else. Metropolitan Judson noted (I think in the clergy newsletter) that Msgr. Levkulic’s materials have been blessed through use and parishes should continue to use them until official editions are promulgated. AFAIK, the current bishops have not spoken to overrule this (but I am certainly not privy to how they direct their clergy!). Additionally, while most of my own work does carry the blessing of one of our bishops there has never been a directive that it is to be preferred over other editions. They also seem to have been blessed through use over the past 25 years (if only because they have always used the traditional texts, been faithful to the received tradition as documented by the Roman editions of the Ruthenian Liturgical books, and have gained acceptance by the Church at large). Also, an approval for use is not the same as the giving of a new, normative edition.

In the end, this is not an issue that we can resolve here on the Forum. Cantors need to look to their pastors for guidance and pastors need to look to their bishops.

Our Administrator wrote:
Where other official translations or editions do exist, it seems that they should still be preferred, at least until the bishops give specific blessing to the new materials.

In parishes where some services are being introduced for the first time, I am less certain of the advisability of the above. It could mean having to change to another order of service later on.

Ultimately, until the bishops give a specific directive to the Church on the matter, the clergy will have to use its own judgment. Cantors will need to continue to defer to the direction of their pastors.

Fortunately, this most always seems to work. No matter how strident discussions get on the Forum itself, life in the parishes goes on.

Just to clarify, I have nothing against using Msgr. Levkulic's booklets, my parish does, or the Sister's books just the idea that the MCI books are unallowed/unfit for use.

Fr. Deacon Lance

That has been my understanding: "Provisional" texts and music may be used, with the approval of one's Pastor and/or Bishop, in those situations where an existing edition (carrying official approbation or "tacit" approbation simply due to widespread, long-standing usage across the Metropolia), does not exist.

Using that logic, the MCI Materials for the Vesperal Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great for Theophany should not have been used in any parish of the Metropolia (except in those situations in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh where Metropolitan Basil has specifically approved it) because the Levkulic Edition exists and is the current normative edition for the Metropolia.

The materials for the other services could probably be used by Cantors, subject to the appropriate approval (Pastor, Liturgical Commission, or Bishop) - but, again, there may be a need to specifically clarify that in each Eparchy to avoid this confusion.

It is of the utmost importance that we, as Cantors, do not put the Faithful in a position where they will have difficulty participating in the Divine Services with which they have become familiar because we are using "provisional" music/text settings - some of which may change before (and if) they are promulgated.

Flexibility and patience are key in all this, I believe.

A factor that does have to be considered when using MCI materials is whether it is likely to be easier to revise it later, or to wait to introduce a final MCI version in place of some older service material. Which one is easier to learn, AND is less likely to have to be replaced? Sometimes, tweeking an existing document is easier than a total makeover.

In parishes where a service is being introduced for the first time, I can see that going with MCI materials may be easier, from the standpoint of future revisions. Of course, pastoral judgment should be involved in such decision-making, just as it is when deciding to use materials not officially approved outside the Eparchy of Passaic. Clearly, that does not necessarily mean obtaining approval from one's bishop, but from one's priest who functions as persona christi for the parish. He may or may not need to consult the bishop. That's his call.

The trouble with being reluctant to use things for fear they may end up being changed, is that lots of things end up that way, whether planned for or not. For example, I was surprised to learn that SJK Press is revising its monthly menaion series, which is very expensive. I never thought I would see that happening.

So, we can all count on change, whether we want, like, or need it personally, or not. At least with sound pastoral judgment changes ought to occur with minimal agita.

"very expensive" is a relative term. Personally, I consider the Saint John of Kronstadt Press Menaion an excellent bargain and well worth having. It was said from the beginning that the bound editions were still provisional, and that the entire translation would be revised - AND that those who purchased the provisional editions would be able to purchase the revised edition for 50% of the price, which is also a good bargain.

Incognitus

I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement. The above is also true when the spiral-bound Octoechos (the complete English translation from the Slavonic by Isaac Lambertsen (many years!!!) becomes hard-bound and finalized.

I have found no better texts than these, certainly none more complete. The Octoechos works very well with either Obikhod or Samoylka (I haven't had the pleasure yet of using the new Old Rite Octoechos).
DRLB

I don't question the intrinsic value of the SJK Press menaions. However, $1000 to 1200 for the set is not cheap in my book. There are parishes that cannot afford that outlay, or could not use the menaion because it lacks episcopal approval, but there are patrons who have been known to donate whole sets for use, too. Personally, it is the most complete text-form menaion I know in English.

It seems that would cover nearly every work discussed on this thread.

Exactly.

It all depends on attitude and priorities.

As for not having episcopal approval - there is 'Papal' approval. We are advised to use texts from our Orthodox brethren when we ourselves do not have them (see below).

Are these books worth the price. Yes, but only of they will be used. If a parish is content with Divine Liturgy only (except for the end of Great Week), and to use 'generic' propers (Except for Sundays and Great Feasts) it would be pointless. The money would be better spent familiarising people (beginning with the pastor) with the neglected traditions of the East.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον ηµάς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Superb, Andrij, simply superb. Use that Instruction...and often.
DD

Thank you, Father Deacon.
As I keep telling certain people: "I'm just being a good Catholic and doing what Rome says we should do! "

In my previous post, I had meant to include a link to Eastern Christian Publications . There you go.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον ηµάς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Within the U.S. Ruthenian metropolia there exists already the books from the Sisters of St. Basil (Festal Menaion, Triodion, Pentecostarion, Vespers, Matins), as well as monthly menaions set to music and produced by MCI. Were there no internal resources, I could see going to something like the SJK Menaions, but we have our own resources. Other jurisdictions may not have them, however.

There was a time when I could not obtain an edition of the Bridegroom Matins, so we resorted to using one from the OCA, adapted for our traditions. Now that MCI has produced Bridegroom Matins, we no longer need to do that.

Pastoral judgment in one's own jurisdiction is really the determining factor as to how broadly parishes are permitted to interpret the canons on books and ecumenism mentioned above. It all depends on how much leeway is granted for using other sources locally.

?? Resources are resources, Jim. They do not belong to any one "jurisdiction". I am a bit confused considering you've worked hard to make the argument there is no "standard" or "approved" works in this thread. Seems a bit circuitous.

All of the works you have cited have various deficiencies. If something like the SJKP is available, and it works for the particular parish situation, it is ABSOLUTELY compatible with the Instruction from Rome. It often takes Rome to remind us that we do need to be conscious of not overtly creating additional liturgical differences between ourselves and our Orthodox brethren.

I do agree that each pastoral situation is unique, and the clergy need to decide what is best in each parish situation. I do not want a snafu like last year on Good Friday when a book said "no other text is to be used on this occasion" when (1) that was not the case and (2) it did not agree with the normative Typikon for the Metropolia. Each local situation is different and the clergy need to decide what is most beneficial for the parish community.

n.b. It's interesting Fr. David in his Typikon makes reference to the SJKP works, and specifically refers one to the "Book of Akathists" on certain feast days and occasions.
DD

Diak, being circuitous is part of the deal. The selection of a resource requires viewing from many angles.

Are there many Ruthenian parishes that sing the SJK menaion to prostopinije chant? Maybe someone from the northeast does this. Anyhow, pastoral decision-making does not mean that I as a cantor choose the resource for use, whether I think it is more useful or not. Maybe I can influence the decision, though.

I see the SJK menaion being used in places where little singing is done, where it is read solo, and in Russian, ROCOR, OCA or Ukrainian parishes. Is it used routinely elsewhere?

There is more to resource selection than how good, complete, etc. it is.

I don't know about "part of the deal", but life in any Byzantine parish, Orthodox or Catholic, requires a certain liturgical and musical economia and boxing yourself into one set of works is like a car in the Ozarks late at night with a stuck accelerator and no brakes.

I was complemented recently at Sat. Night Vespers when I sang the three stikhera to the Theotokos of Paul of Ammorum from the SJKP Octoechos, not only for the quality of language but the theological content (it certainly wasn't because of the quality of my singing).

I have never, in 20+ years, ever had the same specific type of comment for a specific set of stikhera from other sources with the exception of some of Raya's Vespers stikhera settings and some OCA settings. This comment originated with a Latin person who said this who is leaning Eastward.

When I hear "we can't do that" or "we don't do that" it is often the first symptom of a dying church.
Fr. Deacon RLB

Diak, I have to say that we are at sixes and sevens when it comes to this matter of resources, you and I. I offer resources to my priest and vice versa, and we discuss what is best for the parish. We use what works for most of our parishioners. Ultimately, he decides what we use. There is an abundance of resources to choose from and, depending on budget, some are more easily usable than others. Ours is not a dying parish, but a young one that is growing. Your observations about stuck accelerators just does not apply to us, but may apply to older congregations where change is less acceptable, and apparently has application in some parishes you may have attended. A parish that does not use SJK menaions is not necessarily a dying one, just a parish with limited resources.

I am glad that your use of many different resources is being met with compliments, but
like I said, there are many angles. It is not simply either/or when looking at different parishes.

About the only other thing I can add is that I approach this ministry from the standpoint of helping the entire congregation to worship as fully as possible. My role is more as a facilitator with our priest's blessing.

Sometimes these discussions really need face to face interaction in order to make more sense. The Forum has its limits, too. I am sorry if there is anything I have said that may have misled you. If so, that was not my intent at all.

Oh, not at all Jim. Your comment about face to face is all too true - as all too often people are really saying about the same thing but talking past each other, and I am guilty myself of that. I think we are pretty close, actually.

One uses what works, what is pastorally prudent, and does not limit himself to one tool when another might work better. It's an incredible balancing act that often takes a Solomon's wisdom and the patience of Job to pull off.

With our diminishing numbers, and minimalized liturgical life in many places, something has to be done. We are all trying to bring as much to beautify the "lex orandi" as we can in our own way, and certainly in generalities we all will (hopefully) agree, and to which end our Holy Father has given us a road map in the Instruction. In particulars often there will be disagreement. Tak samo. If an Orthodox set of extant texts works better for a particular situation, that's where I will go.
DD