I find it very intersesting that on the Ruthenian Metropolia's Metropolitan Cantor Institute there is a request for comments by cantors concerning the Draft copy of thr Revised Presanctified Liturgy (text and music). Why were such requests for imput concerning the text and music for the Draft copy of the Revised Divine Liturgy not collected?

U-C

Dear Ung-certez,

Actually, what is solicited on the website are comments on the settings - i.e. the music. This has been Professor Thompson's practice since he came to the seminary some seven years or so ago. For example, he arranged for the first two sections of the new People's Book (the ordinary parts of the Divine Liturgy, and the Sunday Octoechos) to be in the hands of all students of the Cantor Institute in Pittsburgh for 18 months before the new book was released; the Octoechos and the bulk of propers (300 pages, 3/4 of the entire book) were posted on the website for review for a year. Quite a number of comments on the music were received AND INCORPORATED into the new music; at the cantor school sessions, all music was sung through multiple times and discussed.

I certainly would have preferred that the Intereparchial Liturgy Commission make new texts available to the clergy and people earlier, but as far as the MCI is concerned, when we have had materials available in draft form, we have made them available for review - Vespers, Compline, Matins, selections from the Divine Liturgy, and propers for the liturgical year.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Seems very inconsistent, leading many to distrust the whole revsision process.

U-C

Dear Ung-certez,

The bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Church established commissions to prepare official liturgical translations and musical settings. There is no way the Music Commission has the time to prepare all the music that might be needed for all the services a parish might celebrate in a full liturgical cycle, or for the Liturgy Commission to prepare the corresponding texts. As a result, Professor Thompson and other cantors working with the Metropolitan Cantor Institute have been preparing, distributing and revising unofficial musical settings, based either on the texts currently in use, the texts expected to be promulgated by the bishops in the near future, or on the "best" non-copyrighted texts we can get (sometimes from Eastern Catholic sources, often from Orthodox ones), and using prostopinije melodies from the oral and written traditions.

SOME of this music will eventually be reviewed by the Music Commission, and some of THAT will eventually be made "official" by the bishops. In the meantime, the MCI is making available as much as it can of those materials in draft form - realizing that textual changes from the Liturgical Commission, or decisions by the Music Commmission, may supplant them in whole or in part.

The two alternatives to this process are to convince the bishops' commissions to do ALL their work in "open session" - something that was certainly not done with the music settings in 1964 and 1970! - or for the Cantor Institute to release NOTHING until it is "official". I think the quality and quantity of the "unofficial" publications produced so far by the Metropolitan Cantor Institute are good enough to warrant accepting the inconsistency you note.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Leaves the parish priest out of the loop entirely and at the mercy of the parish cantor. Some might say that too is the heart of our tradition as well, and was recovered along with all those entirely faithful, professionally assembled, settings, but it does not comport well with healthy ecclesiology.

By the same token, we have the best of modern liturgy, designer liturgy assembled by certificate. The professionalization of theology. Prayer by the numbers. Music by design.

So we have a warped ecclesiology and a modern liturgy.

Have you seen the Emperor's new suit?

Mary

Dear Mary,

Pardon me, but is this really apropos? One of the lessons instilled into cantors, year in and year out, at the MCI sessions, is that the pastor is the local authority on how the liturgy is to be celebrated, and that the cantor is to take his lead. A number of priests and deacons have attended the Cantor Institute sessions, and the materials on the MCI website are open to review by all - we have had at least two dozen priests send in comments or requests for particular services.

Unless you want every parish to have the priest and cantor work out their OWN local version of the liturgy and chant - or make the priests responsible for ALL the music - you are pretty much left with the singers taking responsbility for the music that it not used solely by the priest, with input from the clergy as they care to make it. That is what CANTOR-L and the MCI have been about, and it matches pretty well what goes on in most of Orthodoxy. I'm trying to understand here what you want the MetropolitanCantor Institute to do differently (since you mention cantors being in the loop and priests being out of it, I doubt you're talking about the private nature of the Liturgy and Music Commissions' work). Should we hold off on preparing music for Vespers and Matins until our priests unanimously decide to ASK us to?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Dear Jeff,

It is tragically apropos when one looks at the realities and not the ideal, which is why I happened to mention the Emperor's new suit.

And two dozen is a drop in the presbyteral bucket when it comes to being representative.

Mary

Jeff--while the above may very well be true, the majority of Greek Catholics had no idea all this was coming, or that there is a MCI, or that the MCI has a website with newly revised music on it to look through (and comment on? I must have missed that request!). And, yes, I did actually find some of the music on the website as it was posted for Sundays and feasts to be distrbuted as handouts and finally realized that not only the music was revised, but so were the words.

I think that it's disingenuous to imply that there was open-ness widespread opportunity for anyone to view, review, and comment on the music or the wording.

Just my $.02.

Well exactly, John. For example I understand that the priests from each diocese are to be brought together to discuss the new Byzantine order. To have done that a year ago or two years ago, or once a year as the committee was doing its work...that would have been a pastoral action on the part of the bishops with their priests.

After what has happened, if I were a priest in the Byzantine Metropolia, I'd send my Cantor to presbyteral meetings from here on out...to make a point of course....but I'd want to be independently wealthy before I opened my mouth at all... ...but that's just a personal opinion.

Mary

I have just reviewed the Presanctified revision. It has been rewritten with inclusive language--completely nuetralized.

Litany of peace it reads:

Evening, morning, and at noon we praise you, we bless you, we thank you, and we pray to you, Master of all, Lord and Lover of us all

The blessing with light reads:

The light of Christ shines upon everyone instead of The light of Christ enlightens every man who comes into the world.

The litany after the hymn at the entrance reads:

That our God, who loves us all, may receive them on his holy, heavenly and mystical altar...

At the prayer of thanksgiving it reads:

We pray you, Master and Lover of us all, protect us by the shadow of your wings...

At the dismissal it reads:

For Christ is gracious and he loves us all.

Be watchful my Byzantine Catholic brethren, this campaign is continuing!!!

kumbaya!

This time I will write my letters to Rome before it is promulgated and I suggest everyone do likewise.

I will go down swinging!

Now, why I am not surprised???

In Recluse's list of inclusive language citations, he notes:
"The blessing with light reads: The light of Christ shines upon everyone instead of The light of Christ enlightens every man who comes into the world."

All the other instances in his list deal with the translation of "philanthropos." However, in fairness, the blessing with the candle does not, and it is not a case of inclusive language. The Greek has "Phos Christou phainei pasi," which is accurately rendered in Slavonic, "Svit Christov prosvishchajet vsich," which in English is, "The light of Christ shines upon [or illumines]everyone [or all.] There is no word for "men." This was mistranslated in the Levkulic edition, because the translator was thinking of John 1:9. The words used in Greek, however, are entirely different from John 1:9, and while the Slavonic uses "prosvishchajet" in John 1:9, the word "celovik" is not used in the liturgical text. I know this will not stop the complaining, but at least in fairness it should be noted that this is not a case of choosing "inclusive language."

Bless Father,

Yes, I am a complainer, and you are correct, I will not stop fighting until there is a retraction.

I have still not heard a reasonable explanation for the neutralization of our Liturgy.


The Pope does not neutralize his language--why should we?

Are you sure? The phrase, "The light of Christ enlightens every man who comes into the world", would be inclusive. Is not the word "man" here used to represent "mankind"? And it sounds so much more beautiful and poetic.

I have found this translation for the Orthodox Church:

The light of Christ enlighteneth all men.