There are a couple of great posts on Amy Welborn's blog about music in the Latin Rite. One comment by a biritual priest bears directly on revisions in the BCC liturgy (near the end) and I quote the comment in full.

Here are the links to the two posts (which deal mostly with the Latin Rite)

http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/10/historical_cont.html#comments

http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/10/sing_a_new_song.html

This article is most welcome. It gives me insight into the demise of Latin singing and offers a warning to us that we must protect our singing. Thankfully, I've never attended a Byzantine Church that avoids singing but I've heard of said. In fact one of our Deacons is on loan for a bit to another Church. Part of his mission is to reintroduce singing.

CDL

Yes, CDL, we must protect our singing, but who is the protector? I have attended several Liturgies at our Cathedral, and have witnessed and experienced the Eparchial Choir singing the responses.....singing Choral pieces. It was not possible to have congregational singing....and these were important events. It felt odd.

Who gives them permission to do this? In my own parish, our choir would sing a harmonized version of the pew book. It was rather easy to sing, and quite fun at times to try to harmonize your part.

In the Byzantine Church, singing is prayer. When you don't sing, it feels as though you didn't pray. I hope our God-loving Bishop takes that into consideration when having the Eparchial Choir sing.

JMHO, Cathy

BTW, my reason for posting in this forum is the comment in the bolded paragraph about reciting the anaphora outloud.

Dear CRW,

I noted that in reviewing your initial post that started this thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I noticed this as a difference between my previous parish and my current. The simple recitation I think has a few factors, and I didn't care for it.

Andrew

Glory to Jesus Christ!

There are so many mistakes in the material quoted that I do not know where to start.

First of all:
"The model of a recited liturgy so much controled the post-Vatican II reforms that the liturgical books we have now were (no matter what the "rubrics" about the importance of music say) NOT intended to be sung. The Office as we have it is entirely constructed to be a private priestly prayer. At each our three (or fewer if they are long) number of psalms "embellished" with newly invented antiphons (thus NO Gregorian music!) and long readings (intended to be read, not sung) with newly invented "responses" for which there was never any music. What was once the great choral tradition of the Church was reduced to "prayer time, study time" for the clergy. A private prayer totally unsuited to sung worship. Shameful."

This is most certainly NOT true. I have used the sung Roman office (transcribed into English) and COMPLETELY sung in Gregorian chant, partially with choir and mostly with congregation. And in Germany, there is an official Antiphoner with music (Gregorian chant) for all the services of Vespers and Lauds in the Liturgy of the Hours, published jointly by the bishops of Germany, Germ-an speaking Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Austria. This priest may never have experienced it (and certainly the US RC bishops have not done much to encourage it) but it certainly exists and has been well done.

"The revised Mass of the liturgists was wholly conceived as a "said" service. The liturgists introduced long (mostly) priestly prayers (Penitential rite, Prayers over the Gifts, spoken canon) that were absent in the traditional rite, where all "public" prayers, excepting a handful of collects, were, at least in theory, sung by the people or a schola."

Not only were these not conceived this way, there is chant for ALL of those portions of the service. Again, people aren't using them, it's not that they aren't there. AND THAT INCLUDES THE RECITATIVES FOR THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER.

"The result is a liturgy in which a "sung" liturgy would have the priest celebrant chanting long, often didactic, texts to minimalistic tones for probably 70% of the liturgy. Yes, the congregation might sing the "ordinary" (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus--forget the Creed!--and a couple of amens and "with your spirits") but these appear as intrusions into the priest's monologue."

Speaking as someone who worked for more than 30 years in Roman-Rite parishes as a musician, I know that this is simply not accurate. The current Roman rite is NOT a priestly monologue.

"And even priests who favor a musically rich liturgy often simply recite their prayers. (I cannot sing; its early in the morning; I didn't learn the tune; etc.) I have been at many Masses where a well-trained choir sings the entire Ordinary, leads the congregation is hymns, AND adds in some of the Gregorian propers, and the celebrant simply recites every word of his "part." And there is nothing to say that this is "wrong." The problem here is that (in spite of occasional documents) priests of the Latin rite are trained to believe that all they need do is recite their prayers for the Mass to be "valid." (Which is, of course, true.) Perhaps it is nice to sing a couple of the collects or even a preface (on Christmas and Easter) but Mass is "valid" if they are rattled off without song (reverently, of course)."

Here, unfortunately, I must concede that this peron is correct. Inadequate instruction in Roman seminaries, and a more-or-less "individualistic" approach to the priest's responsibilities in the Liturgy have brought them to this pass. But you CANNOT read the documents and the Praenotanda and the General Instructions on the Roman Missal and the Liturgy of the Hours and claim that this is the mindset of the Church, for it is not.

"There is a culture of worship in the Latin rite, and (as one who served in a Byzantine commuity) creeping into the Eastern Rites, and Orthodox, I might add, in which simple recitation of prayers seems more "pious" than singing. In both Eastern Rites and Orthodox services, I notice two clear indications of this. First, the move to recite (without singing) the previously silent parts of the anaphora ("so that people can hear them") and the almost universal move to a congregational recitation of the prayer "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God" (previously a quiet prayer of the priest and ministers) by the whole congregation."

This is coming from someone who doesn't understand the dynamics of the Eastern Liturgy as it is celebrated in many places. Apart from the Old Believers, the Galicians and Carpatho-Rusyns, and some of the Greek Old Believers, congregational singing is almost non-existent in Eastern Orthodox worship and has been for many centuries. The custom of "pious listening" is extremely intrenched, for example, in parishes of the Russian Orthodox churches.

And the communion prayer, far from being a private devotion of the clergy, was said TWICE in the old days in all Eastern churches: once privately by the clergy before their communion, and once out loud before the distribution of the Eucharist to the faithful.

"The sense that the liturgy is a joining of voices in song to the praise of the Lord has been lost or is degraded. Forget the words of St. Augustine "Qui cantat bis orat.""

This quote, which is ascribed to St. Augustine of Hippo, is in fact misquoted. The Latin is "Bene cantat, bis orat." He who sings WELL, prays twice.


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

Cathy,

Such is our chant tradition. :rolleyes:

Certainly, the people don't permit it to happen.

My parish has a schola whereby we sing Plainchant. Sometimes, folks harmonize.

I don't know who is trying to sell whom a mistaken impression here. But it is an easily verified truth that choral singing is definitely a historic part of the Ruthenian tradition of liturgical music. This is not intended to be an argument against congregational singing; both styles can coexist not only peacefully but pleasantly. Some pieces cannot be executed well without a choir; other pieces can be done by a congregation but the congregation will learn them better and gain more confidence if the pieces are introduced and supported by a choir.

Moreover, those who want the "Byzantine Catholic Church" to be what that sounds like would do well to receive the totality of the Byzantine musical tradition, instead of restricting themselves to the southern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains.

Fr. Serge

Hear, Hear! Fr. Serge. Thanks for your voice of reason and balance.
Music does not exist in a vacuum isolated from other influences, nor does it stand still.

Also, histoircally, there have always been differences between the music of the city cathedral and the village parish with the faithful diak, who often played a dual role as the village teacher in the 2 year primary school and congregation.

Yes, there is a place for both. However, on these occasions I speak of, the entire Divine Liturgy has been sung with only choral music. When you don't have the music in front of you, it's difficult to sing along. It's like trying to sing a duet with someone who can't read music, but you do. At some point, someone is going to have to shut their mouth, and just hum along....................

JMTC,
Cathy

My parish alternates between harmonized singing from the pew book led by the choir, and plainchant led by one of the cantors.

The parish is Pod Karpatska Rus' in origin.

Andrew

Pod-Karpats'ka Rus' has some excellent Church choirs. The choir of the Greek-Catholic Cathedral in Uzhhorod has won prizes in international competition. I really do not recommend writing the Cathedral and demanding that the choir should disband, or stop singing in Church.

Fr. Serge

No one is asking the choir be disbanded. Rather, that diligence be used in making sure the Divine Liturgy is a mix of pieces so that the congregation doesn't walk away feeling cheated. The "Lord have mercys" were even in choral.

I might add, other people who attended with me were as dissapointed as I was, and couldn't believe they did the entire Liturgy the way they did. I hope you'll agree Fr. Serge that there has to be balance. Just as there has to be balance with regard to using Slavonic during the Divine Liturgy.

JMTC,
Cathy

You mean about 98% should be in Slavonic, correct?

I agree!

Andrew

Pamjati!

Nothing whatever against musical balance (or against Church-Slavonic).

Musical balance could very well mean accepting a choral celebration of the Divine Liturgy on occasion.

Have you considered joining the choir? You might learn some nice music!

Fr. Serge

I suppose someone should point out that the sort of choir singing that we are used to, obviously Western in origin, entered Orthodox practice in the 16th century in Galicia, Bielarus', and neighboring regions. It antedated the Unia, and spread among the Orthodox, against some resistance, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; it was taken by the Greek Catholics as part of the tradition they inherited, although not a tradition of any antiquity. The Russian church adopted it only after Alexei Mikhailovich took eastern Ukraine and Kiev from the Poles.

But it should also be noted that in Russia the choir loft became the only locus of real singing; the kliros was reduced to a place for *reading*, and the d'iak became a d'iachok. This did not happen in the western regions, except where the indigenous tradition was suppressed in favor of Russian practice. The older tradition was maintained in Russia by the Old Believers, of course; and in the state church it was better preserved in monasteries and to some extent in cathedrals; but in the parishes the choir loft was supreme and the kliros was reduced to a pale reflection of its former glory. Congregational singing is claimed by some as a product of the Unia, but Herbinius certainly heard it in Orthodox Kiev. In North America, the tradition, caught between Latin and Russian millstones, has been sadly ground to bits.

If you are interested in preserving and renewing the traditional church singing, then you must realize that any claims to do this without Vespers and Mattins are fraudulent. You cannot decouple the chant from the services. The current neglect of Vespers & Mattins is makes a mockery of professed loyalty to the prostopinije tradition. If you doubt this, look at the Popovich Velikii Sbornik; in the middle of the 19th century, Rusyn parish practice was Vespers Saturday evening and Mattins & Liturgy Sunday morning. This is where you encounter Znamenny melodies; this is where you encounter Bulgarian melodies. Yet both Orthodox and Greek Catholic Rusyns have allowed Vespers and Mattins to decay, while the services are well maintained by the Russians, who however have only a dumbed-down, impoverished musical octoechos with which to sing them.

It is a disgrace.

Stephen

If you are interested in preserving and renewing the traditional church singing, then you must realize that any claims to do this without Vespers and Mattins are fraudulent. You cannot decouple the chant from the services. The current neglect of Vespers & Mattins is makes a mockery of professed loyalty to the prostopinije tradition.

Not only does it limit the use of prostopinije, it also limits the congregation's understanding of what each day of the Menaion is all about. A full Vespers service (and Matins for that matter) includes many stichera which tell details of the feast itself, details that help educate the laity, that are not contained within the Epistle or Gospel reading at Liturgy.

MCI has really thorough Vespers and Matins books for congregations that are interested in having congregational unison singing of these services, as opposed to choir settings.

(In addition, changeable propers for Vespers are available from MCI via email for reproduction locally. All of these are arranged in prostopinije tones, and Vespers is usually available in podoben as well as samohlasen settings.)

The biggest hurdle in the long run for me as a cantor is not implementation of these services, however. There is still the erroneous thinking, both Orthodox and Catholic, that if it isn't Liturgy, it isn't worth going to regularly. And the East has a bigger problem, that of missing out on the full lectionary by omitting Vespers and Matins. The readings for Sunday Liturgy are mostly the same year after year, excepting certain feasts when they happen to fall on Sunday, but if you attend Vespers and Matins you can receive a much greater fullness of the Word, especially since our lectionary does not change annually.

Jim,
Please accept my complete agreement (well, almost complete - I prefer the form "Orthros" to "Matins", but my reasons have nothing to do with music!).

I've never recovered from a priest's funeral many years ago. The service-book calls for the chanting of the Canon "The Waves of the Sea . . .", which is very beautiful. I managed to chant the first Heirmos, whereupon the presiding Bishop toild me to stop, because the people didn't know this Canon. Well of course they didn't know it - if it's never used, how could the people be expected to know it? But if we read the supporters of prostopinije, they are apt to appeal to the Canon melodies in particular to substantiate the claim that prostopinije represents an old variant tradition of znammeny chant. True, so far as it goes - but if no one sings those Canons, it doesn't go very far.

Again, thank you for your well-chosen and accurate words.

Fr. Serge

Jim, excellent points, and this one in particular:

Indeed Vespers and Matins are traditional and essential part of our liturgical cycle, and in fact in terms of content far outweigh the remainder combined (including the Divine Liturgy) in their catechetical, doxological and hagiographical content. You are right on the money about the observation of reductionist tendancies to make DL the only "significant" liturgical celebration, and one that any of us who have been at this for a while have a great deal of direct experience with.
FDD

The problem is that whenever all the people can sing together the responses and hymns to the liturgy, a choir will sing for them and render them mute. Not once here or there, but all the time. When a temple or cathedral is packed with standing room only (at ordinations or episcopal consecrations) and everyone there knows how to sing robustly and harmoniously, Plainchant will be given very little room, if at all.

It is wonderful to hear the entire congregation sing. It is a strange thing to see many participants(?) standing as passive spectators.

It is strange to hear everyone sing Plainchant out loud and beautifully and then die a quick death when a few old ladies and men begin to sing opera-like renditions. Yawn.

Why can't the "choir" sing Plainchant and in harmony? Why opera? Have you ever heard a packed temple reverberating with Plainchant melody? It is more chilling than a good rendition of Plucharchowkowskiovichenky.

Choirs are like clergy who wish to keep the liturgy for themselves. What happened to "the work of the people?" Again, us little people get the shaft even at our own worship service by elite liturgists. It gives them impression that "real" participation in liturgy is a gnostic or cliquish thing, not meant for the rank and file. Why not stay home and listen to a CD of the Divine Liturgy or maybe watch "Mass" on EWTN? The people's participation, even at important services, means diddly squat. This is unfortunate.

Who, may I ask, is responsible for singing, "Axios!" ???? Even here, the people's voice is rendered mute. T'is sad.

Personally, I sang in a parish "choir" for seven years. Never learned a darn thing about our Plainchant for cantoring Divine Liturgy, vespers, Matins, funerals, weddings, etc. "Low Mass" was for cantorheads like me. But I did build up a collection of banker boxes full of music so I can lead the congregation in a fuller participation of their role as 'active' worshipers. Thank God for the copy machine and hymn books marked "for private use only".

Cantor Joe Thur

Thank you. My sentiments excatly!

Cathy

Someone has had a bad but not necessarily typical experience. It is by no means impossible to arrange things so that the congregation and the choir support one another.

I also - LONG ago - grew weary of cantors telling me "oh, the people can't sing that - they don't know it!" This, of course, turns out to mean that the cantor doesn't know it and doesn't aim to learn.

Better yet, I remember this gem, from back in 1968, heard from a gentleman who had been reader and music director in a certain parish (of Carpathian derivation - the parish, that is) since the Russian Revolution: "You know, I was trained in Moscow, and, therefore, I know very little of the traditional Christmas songs." He said this with a sober face and voice, and no trace of a smile. He had been in that parish for half a century and never bothered to learn what the people felt was the most important musical expression of the Christmas - Theophany cycle.

I believe the term for this sort of mind-set is "invincible ignorance".

Fr. Serge

Anybody who was at Otpust at Uniontown and heard the Slavonic Liturgy knows our people still love Slavonic. The liturgy seems to be more electrified and uplifting sung in Slavonic. Too bad it's only used occasionally. I realize we need English, but to me there's no reason to not have a Slavonic liturgy at least occasionally in each parish. JMHO

With regard to the anti-Archieparchial Choir comments, I must submit my two cents and I apologize in advance if I am offending anyone. Individuals posting without sufficient knowledge or information, has been the downfall of more than a few important topics of conversation on the Forum.

As Fr. Serge has stated, choir music has a steeped history in Ruthenian tradition. I can state without hesitation that the choir is very aware of the balance it must maintain between Plainchant and “choir” renditions when it is requested to serve at any liturgy in order that there can be congregational participation. Those individuals criticizing the choice of selections which the choir uses should be aware that in some instances the type of liturgy dictates certain responses (as in the case of “Axios” and others). Also and perhaps most importantly, the list and order of music is reviewed and approved by either the archbishop, his representative or the celebrant prior to rehearsals beginning for any celebration in which the choir attends and is asked to lead the responses.

The earlier poster mentioned an Eparchial Choir; it was not clear to me which choir was referred to, in any case.

I wasn't the poster and I don't know, but I can offer the information that at various times different eparchies have organized Eparchial Choirs, youth choirs, women's choruses, men's choruses, and you-name-it.

Fr. Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

May we all stop for a moment?

First of all, Zeeker, the comments were not about the Archeparchial Choir; they were about the Eparchial Choir in the Eparchy of Parma.

Second of all, this thread did NOT begin as a commentary on choral vs. congregational singing. Cathy's comments sort of derailed it. Now, however, that this has become a major controversy (not, it might be noted, a new one in the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Province), it is important to state some of the issues it presents:

(1) In the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Province, it is understood by most clergy and musicians that the faithful are the primary "choir" in the liturgical services of the Church.

(2) The volunteer choir is designed (in our churches---not talking about anyone else's) first and foremost to act as support of the congregation's singing, and only then to do attendant music.

(3) In certain circumstances, it is a good and joyful thing that the choir sing portions of the divine services in settings that do not admit the congregation's participation, in order to enhance the solemnity of the occasion. When this is done, it is essential that the music be appropriate to its liturgical function. In a time of change, when (for example) the Anaphora is being taken aloud by the bishop or priest, it is not appropriate to have a choral "Holy" or "We praise you" which brings the recitation of the Anaphora to a halt.

Pace Fr. Serge. You are not in our jurisdiction, and you really don't have a right to be telling our priests or choir directors or cantors what is "what." And we don't have the right to dictate that to another sui juris Church, either, so these comments are intended only for in-house use.

And having said that to Fr. Serge, I have to agree with him that the Cathedral Choir of Uzhgorod is an outstanding ensemble which sings very prayerfully indeed, as well as tunefully. It was a privilege to be with them on Jun. 28 for the Feast of the Translation of the Relics of Bl. Theodore. Even outside, they did a magnificent job in leading the Divine Liturgy. What was sad was that they weren't there to take part in Matins, which was led by seminarian cantors---and sung fervently by all the faithful in attendance (singing things like the Irmosi which were mentioned someplace above <G>).

Choirs have a place in our church. That having been said, it is better for us if they don't crowd out the singing of the assembly. We can definitely have BOTH/AND, rather than either/or.

And, while we're at it: charity is always a good idea.

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

Michael:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!

You've motivated me to break my silent, occasional reading of "The Revised Liturgy" discussion on here with your latest post.

Don't you believe that your comments to Father Serge above border upon the "uncharitable?"

Father Serge is a well-respected, accomplished Liturgiologist of the Eastern Church and should certainly welcome to offer his opinions.

In other words, Father Serge has just as much of "a right to be telling our priests or choir directors or cantors what is 'what.'" as anyone else who reads or posts on this Forum (including you).

During the early stages of the discussions to revise the Divine Liturgy and music for our Metropolia, one can only assume that the only opinions heard and considered were those of the members of the IELC/IEMC.

As information has been shared about these proposals with a larger audience of Clergy, Cantors, and Faithful (via various channels), one should expect that different opinions will be voiced. Some will be supportive, others will be constructive, but all should be chartitable - on this point, I agree with you.

While it is true that some opinions may be considered "more informed" than others in such discussions, everyone should still be welcome to share their personal perspectives.

~ Cantor JKF

I am going ask all to take a deep breath and cool off here. There are some merits in both Professor Thompson's post and Cantor JKF's post. The point of choral vs congregational singing was not part of the premise of this thread, and it should not be discussed since it has little to do if any with the liturgical revisions proposed. It should be started as a a new thread in either Faith and Worship or Kliros Forums. We seemingly are trying to bring in issues that have nothing to do with the revisions that are proposed. This section is not a dumping ground for all that may be preceived as ills or problems in the church.

Next, I do not believe that in the above posts (going back to the top of page 2) Father Serge was making any direction to either clergy or cantors, but rather giving an observation of his priestly experience. This section is not a restricted section except for topic content. All posters may offer posts as long as they deal with the thread subject and they are offered according to the rules of ByzCath. If you have an issue with someone, deal with it via the Private Message system.

I am going to ask that all posters follow the rules regarding posts, and that this thread be kept on topic.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

My thanks both to Father Anthony and to Cantor JKF.

I certainly have no authority to impose anything on much of anybody outside my own parish (and let me assure you that I make few efforts to impose anything on my parishioners - you catch flies with honey, not with vinegar!). However, our varying experiences of this and that can help us to understand how things have developed, scholarship can help us understand how things have developed and perhaps should develop - and it is not uncommon for someone who is a tad distant from the fray to have a slightly more objective view of whatever the argument is about.

That said, anyone who dislikes my postings is under no obligation to read them!

Fr. Serge

Let's see:

1. Priests take the major part of the Anaphora silently, thereby not permitting the people to "hear".

2. The choir sings the responses FOR the people, thereby not permitting the people to "sing". When people CAN respond (even during the SILENT ANAPHORA!), professional worshippers and artisans in a-capella choral arrangements (and other operetta-like melodies) hog the work.

3. In some churches, Old Slavonic is used, thereby not permitting the poeple to "understand". Yeah, yeah. I can hear it now ... "Joe doesn't like our hushki papushki language."

And why are most "choirs" only versed in the Divine Liturgy ... err, the "Mass." Is that all there is?

I grew up in such a parish, but was more accustomed to being a passive spectator rather than an active participant. My family members prayed the rosary instead. There was nothing for them to do. Where did I learn to sing at the Liturgy? Not in my church. I learned at a Latin seminary during daily Masses. How wonderful to learn to give glory and praise (words that are sooooooo liturgical) in another church rather than one's own. After graduating, I didn't even know how to chant the Epistle. I read it like the Latins do. This situation was/is in many churches and cathedrals. No wonder why many youth go where they can participate in more preppy music. Our 'tradition(?)' is cliquish, gnostic, and ethnic-centered.

It is wonderful to teach children (or hand down/tradition) the faith with a melody of praise. Several times when my allergies acted up and I had to leave the temple, I was heartened to hear so many voices, especially children's voices, singing the responses. Our schola is made up of Byzan-teens, not old babas and papas who protect their turf like some snobbish clique. Our children 'work' at worship. If a dozen of boys are attending the altar, a group of girls are chanting the Psalms, singing the responses, and leading. Choir churches are basically spiritual welfare churches where many dependents rely on the talents and gifts of more professional voices.

Let the children come to the Lord!

Unfortunately, "Liturgy" is not the work of the people.

Anyway, why admire and cherish the art work of one's six-year old daughter when one can admire instead professional art at the museum?

Lift up your voices! Sing! Give glory and praise to the Almight One! Bring back the liturgy to the people!

Cantor Joe Thur

Suggestion: get a good recording of Sergei Rachmaninoff's choral Vigil (there's a wonderful one if you can find it - the St John Damascene Choir from Germany and the Russicum Choir from Rome) and treat yourself and your friends to an incomparable experience. Best way of all to do this (short of finding a church where they actually have a good choir and will use this music for a real Vigil) is to get copies of the scores, pass them out to your friends, turn on the stereo, and encourage everyone to sing. Splendiferous! It has been recorded at least once in English, but I don't know where - or if - the score is available.

Then, for two changes of pace, get on your seven-league boots or the modern equivalent, and make two pilgrimages:

first - a Saturday night Vigil at Saint Vladimir's Seminary (during the school year, obviously - and best to phone ahead and find out what time the service is). Mostly in English, sung magnificently, and no one is likely to object if you join in the singing (unless you have the kind of voice that could throw the Mormon Tabernacle Choir off key). Most people at service sing (it's done in double choir, by the way), a few prefer to listen, everyone prays.

second - a feast day Vigil at Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville. This will require some preparation (read carefully through the changeable parts of the service several times in whatever English version you prefer, bring along a prayer-book for the parts which are not likely to change, wear comfortable shoes, and get to the monastery early enough so that you can browse in the bookshop - I recommend not doing this in the dead of winter, when the roads can be a bit dangerous). Attune your ears and heart to Church-Slavonic for this one; if you have prepared adequately, you won't find it a barrier to intelligent and deeply prayerful involvement. Don't be in a rush; this is not a short service. But enjoy it and savour it.

The monastic chanting is enough to make you wonder whether this is not, perhaps, the vestibule of Paradise.

Fr. Serge

Dear Joe,

I also like congregational singing, and I do prefer it most of the time.

However, I don't think there is just one way that is acceptable. I have attended many liturgies that were in Slavonic, where there responses were made by the choir, and where the anaphora was taken silently. At some of these, I have been deeply moved, prayefully involved, and been intimiately connected to the action of the Liturgy. I don't think it can be so easily dismissed as misguided or wrong. It is certainly different, if you are used to praying with congregational singing. But for those used to choir Liturgies, perhaps congregational singing is distracting?

the unworthy,
Elias

I would like to ask those wish to continue the discussion on the merits of choral versus congregational singing to post on the thread started in Faith & Worship by myself.

Faith & Worship Thread

I would like for this this thread to remain on topic from here on out. If you have any question as to the topic's original question, please read the initial post.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator