Repeat. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to write letters to Rome and the nuncio in Washington? We want them to be effective. Has anyone ever done this before? We could probably do a petition and send that. I'll bet we could easily get 150 names.

Dear Kapusta,

Since you mentioned a need to be specific (with which I heartily agree) - do you have a list of the changes to which you are objecting, especially since some of the supposed changes mentioned on this forum were taken from fragmentary drafts from several years ago? (It makes little sense to oppose changes which are not actually being made.) Or are you proposing that we keep the 1978 Liturgy Book, filioque and all?

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

As far as I know the final text of the revised translation has not been released. All we have is the prototype that we've seen in various settings. Father David did say this about the antiphons and litanies earlier in this thread:

Whether or not the antiphons should be sung with three verses or whether all the litanies should be said certainly fall under the rubric of “organic progress.” That is, the bishops are simply recognizing a reality that has come to pass in the last 75 years, in many Orthodox as well as Eastern Catholic Churches. One can certainly debate whether this is actually organic “progress.” I myself would be loathe to say that reducing the Liturgy is “good.” On the other hand, it is understandable that one might wish to reduce elements of the Liturgy that once accompanied processions that no longer exist.

"The bishops are simply recognizing a reality..." Does he mean the bishops agree that the Liturgy should be kept shorter?

So far only Father Deacon Lance has said he believes that parishes could continue a fuller celebration of the Liturgy. It would be reassuring to many of us here if someone could tell us if that is true (and I sure hope it is true).

Will the abbreviated antiphons and shortened (or omitted) litanies be mandated? Or will parishes have the freedom to include them?

Nec

Nec,

Glory to Jesus Christ, and thanks for your reply!

There may not be an officially released text, but

1. I already mentioned that there are plans to include the "missing" antiphon verses in a "cantor's companion" book to be published by the Metropolitan Cantor's Institute. I doubt that this would be done if those preparing the books (including the music director for the cathedral) believed it was forbidden to use them!

2. There has been a repeated mention of "five omitted litanies" and, hearing the liturgy at the seminary and cathedral, I just can't find anything like that number missing, unless one is adding the previously omitted litanies between the antiphons, and insisting that the litany of catechumens ALWAYS be used. Even then I can't come up with five. That is why I asked for a list.

3. Inclusive language certainly is an issue. But the Liturgical Commission has taken the Vespers texts from Uniontown - which come as close as anything to "our own" Vespers setting - and changed a number of psalm verses BACK to the non-inclusive language of the original ("Blessed is the man"; "plants to serve man's needs").

And there ARE problems in the current text (dating back to the non-adoption of the official texts and Ordo for the Ruthenian recension back in the 1940's and 1950's), some of which are finally being resolved. So before I could join in a letter-writing campaign, I'd like to see a list the issues we are protesting - unless the campaign is simply asking that a new text not be released until it has been circulated for review (which Father Deacon John told us has already been done).

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

Don’t you attend a parish in the Eparchy of Passaic? If you do then you will know that Bishop Andrew mandated many of the changes to the liturgy about 5 years ago. We lost a lot of people but he really doesn’t care. I think he just wants to leave his mark on the liturgy.

The list of banned litanies that my husband and I came up with is:

1. The litany between the First and Second Antiphons.
2. The litany between the Second and Third Antiphons.
3. The litanies of the faithful after the gospel.
4. The litany before the creed.
5. The litany before the Our Father (only the first few petitions are permitted).
6. The litany after May our lips be filled.

Our priest always used to do #2, #5 & #6 on Sundays and sometimes #3. He was told directly by Bishop Andrew that he was not allowed to take them. #3 and #4 were done occasionally for feasts or once in awhile at daily liturgy.

Kapusta

Dear Kapusta,

Thank you for your reply! Yes, I am in the Eparchy of Passaic, attending services in Endicott, Binghamton and Scranton.

#1 and #2 you list are not in the Divine Liturgy book (1978) that we have been using for years. I have heard them in Carpatho-Russian parishes, but only the responses, sung straight through by the choir ("Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Now and ever and unto the ages of ages, Amen") without a pause, while the priest prays. Neither are in the Divine Liturgy book we used at the Seminary last year.

#3 - If you mean the Litany of Supplication after the Gospel, we always take that, omitting the Litany of the Catechumens unless we have catechumens present. There is a tiny litany after that which is not in the 1978 Divine Liturgy book. The Divine Liturgy book we used in Seminary last year has the Litany of Fervent Supplication, and the Litanies for Deceased and for the Catechumens (the latter two being optional, to be used "if appropriate").

#4 - If you mean the Litany "for the Precious Gifts", we take this. The 1978 service book says it is optional and only gives the conclusion. The Carpatho-Russian book (1988) has ONLY the conclusion (the petition and response are absent.) The Divine Liturgy book we used in the Seminary last year includes petition, response, priest's prayer and amen.

#5 - we take this, but omitting the dismissal petitions (the same as at Vespers). Since no one should be leaving, this doesn't bother me in particular, but it IS an abbreviation. The Divine Liturgy book used at Seminary least year INCLUDES all the traditional petitions, noting that the dismissal petitions "may be intoned".

#6 - We take this. The Divine Liturgy book we used at Seminary includes the litany, but omits the two petitions. This is an abbreviation, but it actually makes the prayer clearer: the deacon calls for us to thank the Lord, we respond Lord have mercy, the priest prays in thanksgiving, without two intervening petitions that are not actually thanksgiving.

So to summarize:

The 2004 Divine Liturgy celebrated at the Seminary omitted two litanies that were not in our old service books anyway, and which the Carpatho-Russians (and our local OCA parish) turn into a hymn, with no priestly or diaconal prayer.

Of the other four litanies, three USED to be marked optional. (Down in Pittsburgh in the 90's, I remember when these were re-introduced!) All four were in the draft "new" translation as of last year, though two petitions were removed from a litany of thansgiving.

So instead of six omitted litanies, I see two litanies that the hierarchs declined to add BACK into our service books, and two omitted petitions.

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

In the original Johnstown Diocese "Blue Book," they appended the responses

"Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. To You, O Lord. Amen."

to the end of the Second (I think) Antiphon, and sung these straight through to the same melody as the Antiphons. I don't know if this is the case in their newer Pew Books.

Also, AFAIK, the Johnstown diocese still says "...now and ever, and forever" and not "...unto ages of ages."

Dave

Jeff,

The responses to the little litany are: Lord, have mercy - twice, to You o Lord, Amen, not what you have above. That is what is sung in the local ACROD parish. The litany is taken here at SVS (as in most of the OCA I think), and is in the old GC service books from Europe I possess.

The little litany is:
Again and again/Paki i paki...
Lord have mercy
Help us, save us/Zastupi, spasi...
Lord have mercy
Having remembered the most-holy, most-pure/Presvjatuju...
To You o Lord
For You are good/Jako blah...
Amen/Amin'

T

Dave,

XB!

Check out the new service books issued this year for Holy Week and Pascha...they have ages of ages IIRC. I am sure Fr Mike would lend you one...

T

I had asked about this practice for the little litanies at the antiphons a couple of times. It's interesting to hear that this practice may be common in OCA and ACROD. I would be interested to hear if this practice is applied to the litany of Catechumens and post-communion litany, as well. And within these and other Orthodox jurisdictions, is this practice considered "taking" or "not taking" them? An organic development or an abuse?

And does anyone know where/when this curious practice began? ( It's not just a US thing.) What was the thinking behind it? How did it gain acceptance?

djs,

I have not seen in another jurisdiction what I have in the ACROD, namely appending the responses to the antiphons. This practice is however present textually IIRC in some Ruthenian GC settings of music which means most likely it was done.

It seems to me that it would be hard to do the same thing elsewhere in the liturgy, to what would the responses be appended for the "litany of Catechumens and post-communion litany"?

The content of the little litany is not different from the other litanies except for the introduction "again and again." The other two litanies you mention have petitions unique to them.

T

Right, let me clarify. My question is not about the practice of going right through from the antiphon to the responses, chanting them all, then going to the next - that is peculiar to the anitphons and maybe peculiar to BCC and ACROD. Rather I am wondering about the "simulcast" of the celebrant and the people/choir, that occurs there and the other litanies mentioned. In the OCA practice that I have heard, as soon as the priest begins intonation of the first petition, the choir begins to respond and they chant together until the last prayer for the Amen. That practice.

djs,

Ah. I find that rather pleasant. I have no idea how common or uncommon it is...I have heard it in the OCA and a while back in one BC location.

I

I do too.
But, is it an "abuse"? Did its institution cause schism?

Dear djs,

I do not think it would be called an abuse, but what do I know.

Its "institution" is interesting, by that you presume it was done otherwise previously. Could be, maybe someone else knows.

The only real schism I can think of that was wholly over ritual and usage issues was the one due to the Nikonian reforms in Russia in the 17th century. Even that was more far-reaching than singing the responses to two litanies.

Hopefully someone can answer those questions for you, I would be interested in seeing those replies.

T