The eparchy of Parma now has a webpage upon which may be found a sung version of every revised chant. It would really help if people here could give a listen and then write some feedback here, as I do not know too terribly well how this music compares.

I just gave a bit of a listen - it's gone! The Litany of Offering is all gone! It has been reduced to "may God remember in His Kingdom all you Christians of the True Faith" sung twice. "Now and ever and forever" is now chanted in a like manner to "forever and ever" in the Roman Rite; completely ear-grating! I am sorry, but those chants seem very artificial; the Liturgy has definately lost some of its life.
Lord, have Mercy!

-Uspenije

Dear Uspenije,

I would be interested in knowing WHICH "now and ever and forever" you are referring to; we sing it to literally dozens of different melodies in the various services. In paticular, there is no "canonical" melody for the priest's and deacon's exclamations; to some extend each priest has his own melody, since this is (and has been) very much an oral tradition. (The same applies with the melodies for reading Scripture other than the psalms and canticles.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

There are very few hymns of the Divine Liturgy that are the same. The new music is very different. It is very difficult to sing. I know this post will be deleted because the people here only allow you to praise the Revised Liturgy. If I hear "new translation" one more time I'm going to puke. It's a whole new Liturgy. It's all new music. Everything is different.

Want to hear how bad the Revised Liturgy is? Visit St. John Cathedral. We left because no one sings anymore. We are at St. Elias right not but if Father Eugene is forced to take this Revised Liturgy we're going to St. Nicholas in Homestead.

Thanks Archbishop Schott for wasting $1 million of OUR money on something no one wanted.

I refer to the chanted forms during the reading of texts. I would think that this singular form would become mandatory, given the other documents.

-Uspenije

Where's the link?

This whole business is so sad. This process could have been a means to revitalize but it has been turned into a source of consternation. Lord, have mercy!

CDL

Carson, the Eparchial page just links back to the MCI recordings.

It is the MCI who is in the driving seat, not anybody else.

And they were meant to lead our Church in prayerful singing uniting us like never before.

But they've launched a missile, dividing us like never before. This music is terrible, the cantors say so, and I say so. It has accents in the wrong syllables, more notes than are necessary, idiotic innovations that achieve no useful purpose other than to tell the people, we want 'professionals' in charge, music pros. who are paid to do this. Singing from the heart, from the congregation, the way my grandmother taught me to sing, is now no longer wanted here. You're voices, you're opinions, amount to nothing. We're just going to use your money to pay for these 'professionals' to sing instead of you.

It is a cluster bomb, that is going to do damage, long after it is fired.

Nick

I'm not a trained singer but I notice that it sounds like Latin Monastic chant and far less robust than what I'm used to. Does that make sense?

CDL

I think you're just reacting to the CDs. The group singing on those recordings are not Byzantines. They are professional musicians. And the interpretation is given by the director, Prof. Thompson (also a Roman Catholic).

Dear Carson,

The recordings are intended for cantor education; one of the recurring requests for cantors was that the recordings be extremely "clean" (no harmony, no vibrato, nothing that would get in the way of learning the melodies). As a result, they are NOT going to sound like a recording of a parish service.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. The claim that Professor Thompson is a Roman Catholic has been dealt with elsewhere; the schola he directs has a long history of singing Eastern chant. (I first ran into their recordings being played at the ACROD seminary in Johnstown.)

P.P.S. If the bishops REALLY wanted to turn over the singing to "professionals", why did they produce books with complete music?

Maybe they had to hire Roman Catholics and professionals to do this tape, because ordinary people can't sing it, it is so badly done?

Trying to fit the words to the music, IMHO, is not the correct approach. It's the words that are important and not the music. The music should serve to highlight them, and not the other way around. It's like trying to translate antiphons from Latin into English and then expecting to sing them to the Gregorian chant, unaltered from how it was sung in Latin.

It will take time I guess, and there will be a lot of stumbling, both by the cantors and the people who sing. Eventually it'll get there.

Dear John,

The prostopinije melodies are almost ideally designed for use in singing ANY text. The only real issues are:

(a) whether one adapts to the text by counting syllables from the beginning or end (the FREQUENT method in Slavonic, but which produces bad accents in English) or by matching text accents to musical accents. The latter method was used in both the 1970 and 2006 musical settings, but the accents in 1970 were applied inconsistently and sometimes ignored.

(b) whether one simplifies the melodies; this was done a LOT in the 1960's. In the proces, the features that made all instances of a given tone sound "the same" were often dropped; for example, different notes were eliminated in the prokeimenon and alleluia in each tone, making two very different versions of the same melody. In my experience, this makes it actually HARDER to sing any text except the ones that have been memorized - which in turn is the primary reason the music for Vespers and Matins has been thought "hard." (Remember that between the World Wars, our people in Europe sang the SAME melodies for all different texts, without particularly abbreviating or "simplifying" them, and even now many of our cantors naturally use the unabbreviated melodies.) The MCI settings of the tones were done with consistency AND adaptability to the text in mind.

Certainly the words have priority, but the melodies should not be - and need not be - distorted in the process. They have more than enough flexibility to make that sort of "dumbing down" unnecessary. In many cases the Music Commission DID shorten the melodies, but in most cases they did so in a natural manner rather than arbitrarily.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

After listening to the B & C melodic renditions of the New Liturgy, it appears as if most of the music replicates what we have been using here at St. Nicholas in Orlando for years. I'm looking forward to moving back towards our Easter(n) Roots,

Alex Cooke

Does anyone feel that this whole "revised" Divine Liturgy issue will cause a schism in the Ruthenian Catholic Church?

Not trying to be facetious, but there usually needs to be a strong enough opposition to create a schism. Looking around at our parishes down here, it is hard enough to pay the electric bills, due to the aging of the parish members, and the attendance of those who are or are not members. I don't think schism is very likely.

In my cantor training at my parish, our cantor uses the Bokshaj "Prostopinije" quite a lot, and as a result, my Slavonic is quickly improving.

That being said, I've noticed, and discussed with my cantor, about how closer the melodies in the New book are to Bokshaj than in our other 1960-70s books.

Listen to Jeff -- it's true. The Music Commission has done the Metropolia a service by re-introducing a more faithful Prostopinije. If cantors don't like it, it's because it's different and unfamiliar. If they regularly use the old "Prostopinije" book, then they should have noticed that the music isn't so different afterall.

Sure, there's bits where I would like to sing a tone a bit differently, but I've taken the time, as is my job as a cantor, to look into it and think about it, and pray about it, and I've come to see that many of the changes are for the better.

I'll say it again, I like the new books. I'll say it again, those who say they're leaving, including cantors, over the new translation or new musical settings, are probably folks who have been looking for a reason already.

And I'll say it again--those of us who are legitimately upset by some of the liberties that have been taken with the Liturgy, are told not let the door hit us in the rear end on the way out. This condescending attitude is unfortunate.

I do think it's an over generalization that people are looking for a reason to leave their church. There are many, many reasons why people are against this translation -- inclusive language included. For many that have come to our Byzantine Church from the Latin Church, it is remisicent of Vatican II -- the very reason they are with us to begin with.

Recluse,

I hear you. I too was upset and disturbed by what I initially heard. For me, however, I've come to a different understanding now.

What I don't understand is why we all think our opinions matter. I don't like that my church has pews, and we don't do Vespers or Matins, but it's not causing me to leave. I go to a different church or hang out with the local OCF for vespers, but I return to my parish for Liturgy and Communion. I am not called to question the Church, I am called to obey. Am I not?

If anything will prompt me to leave Catholic communion, it will be the lack of true monasticism and the lack of communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. It will be the lack of a strong married clergy. It will be the obedience to a Rome who doesn't understand us, and our forced belief in un-Eastern Theology, including the role of the bishops in the Church with regards to Rome. It will NOT be a few words and melodies that may grate against my ear.

The Church is not a democracy, and sure our cries may fall on deaf ears. We do have recourse, however. Encourage vocations, and the like, and we can transform our Church the proper way.

Stephanie,

I don't disagree with you. However, I'm from the Latin Church and joined the Byzantine Church because of a call to the East, one I've felt for more than a decade prior to coming over to the Eastern Church. I didn't leave Rome because of anything Rome did -- I'm not fleeing Rome, like so many of my brothers and sisters.

I embrace all that the Eastern Church has to offer, and often lament that our Byzantine Catholic Church doesn't seem Eastern enough!

Those Latins who are in "exile" as it were, too often give us true-hearted Latin converts a bad name.

The comparison between Vatican II and the Revised Liturgy might be a little of stretch. The end results of Vatican II (although not what was specifically prescribed) was a wholesale language, structural, and interpretive change of the Mass. The Revised Liturgy keeps the composition, re-introduces some the original Orthodox terminology (from our Othodox roots), and the musical character remians consistent.

In addition, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed occurred after the Council of Nicea, and was not a result of a Universal Church Council. Its removal from the Creed is therefore proper and to be expected in the Revised Liturgy. We have not included it in our parish for quite a few years as a result.

"I embrace all that the Eastern Church has to offer, and often lament that our Byzantine Catholic Church doesn't seem Eastern enough!"

You see, my parish celebrates the Red Book and has for almost four years straight. I wish you could all experience it! I don't understand why my parish now has to have less, so others can have more. Why can't we all celebrate the Red Book, and all have the full recension?

To alexcooke, what orthodox terminology do you speak of? Certainly not the use of the word orthodox? I attended the Canon of St. Andrew at an OCA parish, and they managed to use the word catholic without any discomfort.

The term for someone who changes particular churches that are in communion I don't think would be convert.

Same here Stephanie. We have been reduced!

I am glad that the opinion of St Athanasius eventually prevailed else we would be Arian today!

Blood has been shed and martyrs have been created over "a few words".

Stephanie, I was simply referring to the implementation of "Theotokos" in exchange of the term "Mother of God" in the Revised Liturgy.

Any advancement towards returning to the roots of our Faith, rather than watering down even further for the purpose of modernizing is progress, at least in my book.

Change isn't always something to be feared, especially if its intent (and its pratice) is for correction and edification. Historically, most of the Church Councils were convened to correct errors or mistaken beliefs and practicess which had already become inherent and widespread in the popular liturgies.
I find it refreshing that we are able to make our own corrections and help make our Liturgy more perfect without the necessity of another Church Council.

Dear AlexCooke:

Please reread my post again, I will quote it here:

For me, and a hundred or so other parishioners at my church this is not advancement -- this translation waters down our Red Book Liturgy. And in case you haven't looked closely, your Revised Liturgy has horizontal inclusive language -- a modernization in progress. It appears, that which bothers you, is now part of your Liturgy.



This is an absolutely correct statement. And it's good to see that the Hierarchs are finally addressing the issue of standing. Because as you point out, it is only proper to correct mistakes which have become inherent in our Liturgies. Specifically, Canon 20 of the First Council of Nicea states, "On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing." So, I guess, you're right, not all is lost.



In my heart, there is nothing perfect about horizontal inclusive language. Experience the Red Book, that's the closest thing the Byzantine Church has to perfection to date.

Amen, Amen, and Amen!

Okay, well at least we can come to some agreement. I must confess my ignorance regarding this that you mentioned:

"In my heart, there is nothing perfect about horizontal inclusive language. Experience the Red Book, that's the closest thing the Byzantine Church has to perfection to date. "

To what "inclusive" language in the Revision do you refer? Spent a little time scanning it, and didn't see anything that struck me as inaccurate.

I may be coming in a little late on the curve of the discussion... If you can enlighten me regarding this, I would be much obliged.

Carson, no, it is simply the fact that the people haven't become totally used to the changes. Once they are taught how to properly chant it it will flow better. Yes it does sound different than the old chant, but it is essentially making the chant fit english better. If you can sing Slavonic, sing something in Slavonic then in English. In many cases the english was choppy. As prostopinije was not written for any language other than Slavonic it is going to take some work to get it to "fit" English. Of course everyone could go back to complete Slavonic. While it will be easy to sing, no one will understand a word of it.

In my parish, it flows just fine now, thank you! We didn't ask for our songs to be changed, and we don't want them changed.

I think it is worse. I think it is the other way around, and the english is being forced to accomodate more complicatedmusic. It doesn't sing easier, or they would not have hired and paid professional singers to sing it on the cds. Ordinary people could have sung it, if it was easier to sing, and better.

It is the arrogance of the 'few', that they know better than the 'many' who have been singing from their hearts all these years in the parishes.

We didn't need 'professionals', it may be the Roman Catholic tradition to hire 'professional musicians' but it isn't our tradition. In my parish, we sing, and we should be left to it!

We didn't ask for a new version of the music, we didn't ask for a revised Liturgy. 'experts' have hijacked my Church, while we weren't watching.

Nick

"We didn't ask for a new version of the music, we didn't ask for a revised Liturgy. 'experts' have hijacked my Church, while we weren't watching."

What's the ransom demanded by the hijackers? Obedience of a flawed Liturgy? No thanks!!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I, as a Latin-Rite Catholic, apologise heartly for what my rite has done and is doing to your much more lovely rite. "Experts" have run our Church for a while, and we have come to expect that; but now, apparently, our "experts" feel that your Church needs their advice, and are beginning their systematic annihilation of all that is beautiful in your rite.

Perhaps this chant does "sound" more like the Slavonic chants - but it is not them. Perhaps it is based upon the old form - but it is not the old form. This is a trick of the "experts", in my experience, to appeal to sense rather than tradition.

Our Latin hymnals have one bit of chant left in them; but it is not Gregorian chant, though it sounds like it. Gregorian chant is the codified chant of the Church as contained in the Graduale Romanum; everything else is modal music composed in the Gregorian style. Do not lose your authentic Ruthenian chant to Ruthenian-style chant, and do not overlook the difference.

-Uspenije

Who is we?

St. John's Cathedral has been the chief experimental parish for the new music. Now no one sings anymore. We used to sing really good. Especially when Metropolitan Judson was just a priest. Now no one sings except the cantor and someone else upstairs. It was so bad we now go to St. Elias. When they are forced to take the new liturgy we will probably to to St. Nicholas in Homestead.

If you don't believe how bad nonexistent the singing at the cathedral has gotten go visit any Sunday morning. You will leave crying at what they have done with our liturgy. We won't be there. We will be at St. Elias.

Thank you Archbishop Schott for wasting $ 1 million of our money.