Let me guess, the text and music of the traditional para-liturgical hymns have to be rewriten, is that correct?

Ungcsertezs

Not printing a hymn, or prayer, or portion of the service just "because it's assumed that everyone knows it" or "it is not officially part of the service" is not in line with the open-ness and inclusivity we purport to have in our new books. Is it being welcoming to the many visitors in the assembly, by making them feel "left out" or "outsiders," if something is taken/sung but not printed, especially in Slavonic?

I'm sure that each parish has a melodic variation for Preter'pivyj. Every Polish RC parish that I've attended for Gorzkie Zale has different melodies for "Któryś za nas cierpiał Rany, Jezu Chryste, zmiłuj się nad nami." That didn't stop those who compiled Polish hymnals from printing one (or more! in one hymnal I know of) version(s) in hymnals or service books.

I'm sure that many parishes had or have variations for tropars, kondaks, and prokimena as well, but that didn't stop anyone from mandating one melodic version to be official in the new pew book.

This is all so silly. An organic development in Lenten liturgies of the Rusyn/Ukranian Greek Catholic/Orthodox churches has occurred over time, where Preter'pivyj is sung at the end of the service. To deny that, and pretend that it is not there by not printing it because it's "not official" is disingenuous and frankly a slap in the face, not to mention confusing to those who expect to see it in new "complete" service books, and to visitors who end up flipping around looking for what's going on and end up feeling "left out."

This type of tactic is going to draw people how? Is it going to make us more authentically Rusyn Catholic?

I'm sorry to spout, especially so soon after Pascha, but I can't understand the thought process going on in "the Committee."

just one of "us all," John K

I can just imagine that "O Marije, Mati Bozha" will probably be rewritten as "O Mary, Theotokos"? That would be a copyright issue with the Slavonic original text.

By the way Jeff, my registration didn't go through on the MCI Forum, so I only read and not post.

U-C

For someone who has often written about his love for Church Slavonic, you must not know the language all that well if you would ask this sort of question.

The Church Slavonic equivalent to "Theotokos" is "Bohorodice;" the para-liturgical hymn you've cited above would, likely, continue to be translated "Mother of God."

All of the anger and innuendo on this Forum is really disheartening. It is such as shame that so much energy is given, on a daily basis, to people trying to "break down" rather than "build up" our Church.

I bet it becomes "Theotokos".

U-C

That's a good bet.

I pulled the text of the Preterpivyj from the web site of St. Michael's in Binghamton so I could learn it in Slavonic.

What Professor Thompson said was that the Music Commission planned to reprint (not revise) most of the hymns on Levkulic. And the Liturgy Commission did a consistent job of using "Mother of God" and "Theotokos" to consistently translate the corresponding Greek/Slavonic title of the Vigin Mary; in fact, it led to some sly complaints here that the Commission screwed up and "forgot" to use "Theotokos", when the original text did NOT have Theotokos / Bohoroditsa.

On the other hand, for years we're been singing "O Godbearer Virgin", NOT "O Mother of God Virgin" - and as Father Serge and others have pointed out, "Godbearer" is more properly a title for certain saints, and not for the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary.

I have not yet received a single request to add "Preterpivyj" to the Presanctified Liturgy PDFs we put out for draft, just a lot of snide commentary. Much of what has been put out came from requests from cantors who asked for particular materials. And I DO apologize for not including more devotional hymns on the MCI website; Professor Thompson has been asking me for some time to add that to my agenda. The emphasis on Vespers and Matins comes from a perceived need on our side for those services to be more widely celebrated, not from some sort of attempt to "suppress" anything. (And since the point of the Presanctified drafts was for people to see and comment on texts and music that most cantors HAVEN'T seen before, it made sense to put the service proper out for review as when we had a chance.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. The only "inclusive language" in the Presanctified Liturgy text is the consistent translation of "celovikolubce" and its variants as "lover of us all" etc. I would be happy to see that change rolled back, but there IS no other "inclusive language" that I have seen - no "inclusived" psalms, hymns, readings, etc.

John,

Please note that, as I tried to make plain on the website, the draft Presanctied music did NOT come from the music commission; it was the work of Professor Thompson and the MCI. It was not intended for actual parish use, nor does it have materials like propers that would go into a printed edition, and I would expect that a hymn supplement would be part of that.

I do understand and agree with your point about completeness. My understanding is that there were plans for a hymnal to accompany the new service books in January, but that it did not get done. I would love to see something along these lines happen, possibly in concert with our Carpatho-Russian brethren.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Only? Is this not enough?!?

The "lover of us all" translation is a travesty--in my opinion it is an insult. Our Lord has always been the "Lover of Mankind". It is a proper title--that is why it is always capitalized. It makes me very happy that you feel this should be rolled back.

Since you are somewhat of an "insider", do you know the motivation for eliminating this ancient and Traditional title for Christ?

Is there any talk of rolling back this change?