Brethren,

A wonderful part of our Divine Liturgy seem to have been lost. In the 1964/1965 Liturgikon (“the red book”) published by our own Byzantine Seminary Press, the First Antiphon is sung as:

Sunday

Shout joyfully to the Lord, all the earth sing praise to His name; give to Him glorious praise.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us.

Say to God: How awesome are Your deeds! So great is Your power that Your enemies cringe before You.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us.

Let all the earth worship You, and sing praises to You; let it sing praises to Your name, O Most high.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and forever., Amen.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us.

I also see in Father Levkulic’s The Divine Liturgy (1978) on page 8 that the complete first antiphon is present and accounted for.

Now, in the proposed new Divine Liturgy, the first antiphon for Sundays reads:

Shout joyfully to the Lord, all the earth; sing praise to his name, give to him glorious praise.

Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever. Amen.

Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us.

Why is this antiphon only partially used?

Two beautiful poetic lines of liturgical text have been discarded.

Where is:

Say to God: How awesome are Your deeds! So great is Your power that Your enemies cringe before You.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us.

Let all the earth worship You, and sing praises to You; let it sing praises to Your name, O Most high.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us.

Why have these beautiful lines been excised?

In Christ,

John

Let's face it - the shrinkage occurred long, long ago. "The Divine Liturgy of Our Father St. John Chrysostom", a booklet for the people published in 1965 by the Byzantine Seminary Press, had first and second antiphons of one verse each, and omitted the third antiphon entirely. The 1978 book from Msgr. Levkulic printed the additional verses, but in smaller type. In the Eparchy of Passaic, we've been singing them this way for what - ten years now in many parishes? (Though Passaic HAS restored the Third Antiphon.)

Many parts of the liturgy dropped out of use in the 1960's, and were only slowly restored - and have not been restored at all in some places. So it's nonsensical to pretend that all of our parishes have been singing these verses for 40 years, and suddenly the Liturgical Commission decided to do away with them. (For that matter, the 1942 Liturgikon, or at least my small Liturgikon, doesn't even provide the text of the antiphons - since they are sung by the people.)

It might be helpful, however, if we sought to have the entire text of the Liturgy printed, perhaps with certain parts marked as optional, and can assure the bishops that that IS the best way. (Remember that even the 1965 and 1978 books, which were WIDELY used, left out the texts of a number of the litanies and hymns.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Anton Baumstark strikes again! Baumstark is like Malthus; they never lose.

Fr. Serge

JohnS:

Since you've been around since 2002, I don't doubt that you remember the previous discussions on the antiphons. But for others, I would summarize some of points made in those discussions.

Three veses represents a big abbreviation. http://www.sspeterpaul.org/antiphn1.htm#Pascha
I don't know when the practice was shrunk to three verses. (I wonder how that shrinkage was greeted. Was it thought that a whole new Rite was being imposed?)

The practice as written in the 2004 draft matches the practice in the ACROD books - for those who like the Instruction that we depart as little as possible from the practice of our Orthodox relatives.

Nothing is actually lost. The 1941 edition is not superceded. And until promulgation it remains unclear if anyone will be prohibited from taking whatever number of verses. The MCI is prinitng addtional antiphon verses (and litanies).

It may be that nothing is gained. While Jeff is correct that for many and perhaps most parishes the 2004 edition represents a restoration of the third antiphon, it has been argued by some that our priests won't do it anyway.

This version was decided by the bishops against the recommendation of the IECL, according to one poster.

It was noted by one poster that the actual time difference between taking one or three versus of all three antiphons was all of about 2.5 minutes. So any idea of parochial brevity didn't make much sense. Of course for congregations that really drag, three verses might take all day, or just seem like it.

In the Byzantine Catholic church are the Typica Psalms sung at Sunday Liturgy?

Not typically.

djs,

That is unfortunate. I find the Typica very edifying and a profound preparation for the rest of the Liturgy. I particularly find the parallelism between the Typica Psalms (Old Testament) and the ensuing Beatitudes (New Testament) instructive.

John,
I often attend Matins (and sometimes Divine Liturgy) at a Romanian Orthodox Church, because my parish doesn't offer them.
They don't say Theotokos in their litanies. They refer to her as The Birthgiver of God .
Thought you might like to know that!
-Wolfgang

I've been told that there was/is a difference between "Prešov practice" and "Uzhorod practice" regarding these abbreviations: in the Prešov eparchy, the antiphons would be shortened, the Little Litanies would be omitted, and so on (hence these were and still are the practice of the ACROD, which was started primarily by clergy from the Prešov region), while in the Uzhorod eparchy these abbreviations were not customary.

Dave

"Say to God: How awesome are Your deeds! So great is Your power that Your enemies cringe before You.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us.

Let all the earth worship You, and sing praises to You; let it sing praises to Your name, O Most high."

Removing these verses displays modern evil Theology. Basically, it is politically incorrect to say anything about how God will crush his enemies or that everyone should sing praises to God. Therefore it is ok to be an atheist, a Protestant Christian, a non-Christian Protestant, a follower of post Christian Judaism, a Muslim, a Commie, etc. And sin is ok too. And if people just don't feel like worshipping God, that's ok too because all the earth no longer must sing his praises. The only thing that is wrong is saying that sin is wrong or that everyone must worship God.

This thread reminds me of the recent thread about the Latins removing punishment for sin, the names of certain sins, etc. from the Sunday Lectionary.

Any theories on Antiphons two and three, InCogNeat3's?

If one of the underlying goals of a true reform of Byzantine Catholic practice is a greater uniformity with Orthodox practice, I would suggest an emphasis on restoring the proper place of the Saturday Vigil as a preparation for DL the following day, together with a restoration of Orthos prior to the DL, and the chanting of the Typica Psalms.

Dear MoE:
I thought that most jurisdictions that do Orthos rather than Hours before the liturgy also take antiphons from Psalms 65, 66, and 94. Is this incorrect? What is your jurisdiction?

And which Orthodox practice? ACROD is most closely related to us.

djs,

1. Yes, you are correct regarding the antiphons;
2. I should have said Third Hour instead of Orthos;
3. By the Typica, I was referring to Psalms 102 and 145;
4. I belong to the OCA.

djs, Mark of Ephesus, and any others,

We seem to be straying off topic here with discussion about Vespers, Orthros, Hours, etc. If you want to discuss these services and how they are implimented in practice, please begin another thread dealing with the merits or practice of using those services.

Let us keep this topic dealing with the antiphons, exclusively dealing with that alone on this thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator