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.

In my post, I gave the Greek and Slavonic original. The translation "The light of Christ enlightens every man who comes into the world" does not translate the original. Yes, I am sure.

Father, bless.

Thank you for that explanation!

Will you please explain the choice of shines upon over illumines? To illuminate seems to confer an internal presence whereas to shine upon seems to confer an external presence. I am curious how one was chosen over the other. I very much appreciate your taking the time to explain such things!

The spirituality of Vespers is that as the sun, the physical light of the world fades, we are still "illumined" by the spiritual light of Christ. Hence the choice for a more external term, [when the sun is gone] the light of Christ shines upon us.

Father, bless.

Thank you again! I am truly interested in and appreciative of your response.

Your explanation makes a great deal of sense. From a literary standpoint, it seems to make a bigger statement to say when the physical light of the sun no longer brightens the world, the spiritual light of Christ instead brightens our souls. Of course, my own poetics do not matter in the least compared to the original manuscripts. Do you believe that the external presence of the sun's light vs. the Son's light was the fullness of the intention? Knowing the very little I do, it seems to me that the deeper meaning of the soul's illumination would have been intended as well. I am open to correction, though.

I thank you again for making yourself accessible and for taking the time to explain these smaller details to us.

Dear Recluse,

After reading your above reference I spent the last thirty minutes trying to verify it. After going through the official Liturgikons in English for the Antiochians, ACROD, GOA, OCA, and ROCOR, all use as the official translation “illumines (or in some cases shines/shineth on) all."

The only priest’s service book that I could find that states “all men”, is the Priest’s Service Book printed for the OCA Diocese of the South, and translated by Archbishop Dimitri of Dallas and the South. Unfortunately this book does not carry the official endorsement for use throughout the OCA as their official “black or green” books printed by Saint Tikhon’s hold.

In other words, this is a minority wording possibly in use as opposed to the primary texts used throughout the American Orthodox jurisdictions and published in the their official Liturgikons. I believe in being fair in reporting what the liturgical usage and language is that represents the Orthodox mainstream in this country not a minority text that may or may not be in official usage.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Bless Father,

Fair enough. I must have googled the minority OCA translation that you speak of. Do you have any comments regarding the neutralization of the word "Mankind" from the remainder of the Presanctified Liturgy?

Dear Recluse,

Until I would have such a text in hand and I am able to compare it to the other official Liturgikon's, I would not be able to comment on it. To make any comments regarding it, would be pure speculation on my part one way or the other.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father,

Go to the Ruthenian Metropolia's Metropolitan Cantors Institute website, you can see the draft copy in PDF file.

U-C

Precisely why illumines is a far better choice - and the one utilized nearly universally in Eastern Christian English translations. The external and internal aspects of illumination are united in the Light of Christ, which penetrates to the heart of our very being.

But one could make the arguement that Christ's light shines on all but not all choose to let themselves be illumined/enlightened by it. Either way I think it is a small point and shines/enlightens/illumines all work for me, although I am used to enlightens as my parish uses the Levkulic Presanctified Book.

I've been mulling this over for a day and in the context of this particular line, since the action refers to every one, that "shines" is acceptable, or perhaps even more accurate than "illumines," since we are not all open to illumination.

We are all certainly enlivened by grace, animated by grace, but not every man who comes into the world is illumined by grace. But the light of Christ does shine on us all, and is familiar in its imagery of something external to us.

Father Deacon Lance mentions "enlightens" as a word that has been employed in that line as well, but I have difficulty with exchanging enlightened for illumined equally, because historically as well as in contemporary terms, enlightened more often is applied to a condition of the intellect, while illumined has traditionally referred to a condition of the eye of the soul, which may be a part of the intellect or nous, but is the part that communicates directly with the Indwelling Trinity in the prayer of union.

And before you both tell me I am preaching to the choir, I'll stop!!

Mary

On the MCI website draft of the Presanctified Liturgy, there is no music or text for the traditional singing of Preterp'ivyj Za Nas Strasti with prostrations (x3) (Having sufferred the passion for us...)? Why is this omitted? Are we (Ruthenian Metropolia) trying to follow a strict Hellenic usage and Greeks don't sing "Preterp'ivyj"?

Inquiring minds would like to know

Ungcsertezs

Dear Ung-certez,

I didn't prepare that draft, but paraliturgical hymns (such as the Preter'pivyj, in both English and Slavonic) have always been sung after services at the Seminary - and since everyone generally knows this hymn, and the point of the draft was to work on the music for Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts itself, I don't see a great need to add an extra page to the document.

I tried to include more of our traditional hymns several years ago on the MCI website, but ran into problems with copyright issues and individuals who objected to "their music" being made available for free. I hope to have some of these resolved before Pentecost.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Let's hope "Preterp'ivyj" isn't "conveniently" left out for Hellenic usage reasons!

Ungcsertezs

"Preterpivyj" is not in the Byzantine liturgical tradition, as far as I can find. It is a paralitugical hymn added to Lenten services in the Ruthenian tradition only. Despite that, I have no problem with it, and it is sung after services here in the seminary. However, the conscious choice was made to exclude it after the Presanctified, since prostrations are less appropriate after having received Holy Communion.

When is the appropriate time for this liturgical hymn, before liturgy begins?

Ungcsertezs

I fear the little men with magnifying glasses; I fear the hyper-sensitive reformer with scissors and paste; I fear the experts, even when they bear gifts.
(Paul V. Mankowski, S.J.)

I'm sure that the ACROD, UCCC, UOC, will be surprised to learn that they are in error for singing "Preterp'ivyj" at the end of the Presanctified Liturgy.

U-C

Yes, sometimes profound truths are found in liturgical details.
An interesting quote from Mankowski. Is he anti-intellectual?
At least, the Russians and Greeks got it right.
There is a problem today with our understanding of what Holy Communion is, and this is an important question.

An interesting statement from Fr Petras. Is this an accusation? Or perhaps an insult?

Here is an excerpt from a wonderfully articulate and intellectually invigorating article by Fr Mankowski:


The Weakness of Inclusivist Counter-Claims

Proponents of inclusive language often claim that English has evolved such that their proposals are little more than due recognition of current general usage; yet the kind of evidence they typically offer in support of their thesis itself undercuts the likelihood that we are dealing with a natural development of language. They point to the usage explicitly prescribed by the prestige media, by universities, and by government departments; they refer to style manuals in which inclusive language is one of a number of ways of promoting an agenda of political sensitivity.7
Most telling of all, inclusivists usually give voice to their own commitment to bring about inclusive language, apparently unaware of the damage it does to their own case. If the fait of inclusive language were already accompli, this would be pointless, since there is no need to exhort one’s fellows to continue to speak as they speak. Nor is it easy to understand why so much effort should be expended to bring us where, as they claim, we have already arrived.
Even the extent to which inclusive language has taken hold in the mainstream media is not as great as that claimed by its more zealous advocates. Articles published within the last year in mass-market American publications such as Time and USA Today continue to speak of "the origins of man" in referring to palaeological discoveries, for example. The Library of Congress catalog still uses such subject headings as: MAN—prehistoric; MAN—antiquity of; MAN—erect position of; MAN—influence on nature; MAN—machine systems; MAN-made chemicals. It is true that most American newspapers and magazines employ inclusive-language devices on some occasions, and it would be idle to deny that pressure for "non-sexist" locutions has had an impact on commercial English; but of course these users rarely have occasion to speak of man as a philosophical, theological, or anthropological entity. As the perfectly ordinary examples mentioned above illustrate, when the nature of the message does require lexical precision and clarity, the journals use generic "man" as readily as they did fifty years ago.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html

I have seen and heard multiple reasons and brilliant defenses against the use of inclusive language in the Church. I cannot find nor have I read on this forum any defense for its use aside for a strange comparison to the era of slavery. Can any of the revisionists (inclusivists) provide more information? Perhaps you can refer me to something on the internet. I cannot find much in favor of inclusive language when I do internet searches.

Anybody?

Dear Recluse,

I'm confused; Father David expressed a PREFERENCE for omitting prostrations immediately after the reception of Holy Communion, a preference that is completely in line with our liturgical books (compare the number of prostrations at the end of daily Lenten vespers with their absence in the corresponding ending of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts). Ung-certez turns this into an accusation aimed at other Greek Catholics, suggesting that the hymn itself is to be considered "wrong" - and you follow with a somewhat scathing quote.

Are you objecting to Greek Catholics actually treating the reception of the Holy Eucharist as something non-penitential? Or are you simply using this an an opportunity to bring up the question of inclusive language, which has otherwise played quite a small part in this thread?

(I'm surprised neither you nor Ung-certez addressed Father's point. Given the penitential text of the Preter'pivyj, IS it appropriate for use immediately after we have received Communion - limiting our "thanksgiving" for the Eucharist to the time from reception until the dismissal?)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Dear Jeff,

I believe that Fr Mankowski's quote is rather appropriate here. It is odd when everything is subjected to the magnifying glass. Preter'pivyj is a Ruthenian Tradition--so why was there a conscious decision to eliminate it? Do you feel that a few additional prostrations are offensive to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Sometimes, in a quest for perfection, the heart begins to harden. Preter'pivyj is part of our identity--an identity that seems to be slipping away.

In reference to inclusive language--everyone here knows that I think it is a terrible error. My reasoning leads me to believe that if something so obviously dividing can be inserted into our Liturgical worship, then other revisions must be honestly critiqued.

Peace and blessings to you,
Recluse

Dear Recluse,

I AM asking you to honestly critique the idea of singing penitental hymns after all Lenten services EXCEPT Eucharistic ones - rather than accuse me of thinking prostrations are offensive. I doubt there is anything offensive to our Lord about celebrating the Service to the Holy Cross on Wednesday and Fridays in Lent, with Daily Mass on the other days of the week; or kneeling on Sundays, or many of the other ways in which our Ruthenian traditions are an amalgam of Orthodox practice, Latin practice, folk custom, and just plain abbreviations.

We certainly need to restore our private and public liturgical practice - which did NOT in the past include the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Turning this into "is God offended?" rather than "what is best for us to do?" short circuits the process of discussion, and leaves you with little or no way to address those who, for example, refuse to attend the Presanctified because it is not our "Ruthenian tradition."

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Could someone please help my understanding of all this? Can what is being taught here sum up to this:

Weekdays of Lent are too somber and penitential to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, hence celebrate the Presanctified on weekdays, but after receiving Holy Communion at the Presanctified is too joyful of a time to make prostrations. Is that a correct understanding?

Thanks! John K

Dear John,

The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts does NOT end with the prostrations and Lenten prayers that normally accompany daily Vespers during the fast; perhaps that it a clue. And Father David did not say that prostrations were INappropriate, but that they were LESS appropriate. (and I add: Are not our sins forgiven by receiving the Eucharist? Would not the end of the other Lenten services be a better time to add a hymn begging sorrowfully for Christ's forgiveness? Are we so forgetful of what we have just received??) But I would certainly like to hear from others, particularly our clergy, on this question.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. I may disagree with Father David on inclusive language, and I would certainly lead the singing of Preter'pivyj for any pastor who desired it - or join along if others sing! But on this point, Father David brought up a reasonable issue, which I would rather see argued that simply dismissed.

I've accused you of nothing. If this is what you have gleaned from my post, I sincerely apologize. I am not here to fight with you during Holy Week.

Agreed.

Again, I did not intend to turn this into the "either/or" scenario that you have proposed here. My apologies.

I am certainly not going to judge someone for refusing to attend The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, whether it is Tradition or not. However, I believe it is in my right to question and critique those who would subject everything to a magnifying glass and then commence to make sweeping revisions in words and music while compromising to the secular political agendas of the world.

Peace and blessings,
Recluse

My point would be either "Preterp'ivyj" IS appropriate or it isn't following Presanctified Liturgy. If other jurisdictions of the Ruthenian (South-West Rus') Recension weren't using this lenten para-liturgical hymn, then I could see the error. But they do have this custom so pardon me if I have a difficult time believing this wrong.

Ungcsertez

Jeff--I never meant to imply that the LPG eneded with Preterpivyj. In my experience the hymn is sung after the service is finished and doors are closed. As far as I know the LPG ends with the dismissal, asking for mercy and salvation,

"May Christ our true God...have mercy on us and save us for Christ loves us all."

Also, does not the dismissal follow a triple cry for mercy as we sing,

"Lord have mercy, Lord, have mercy, Lord have mercy, Give the blessing?"

I guess that I can't find the harm in singing Preterpivyj after the LPG is finished if we've just asked, at least 4 times, for mercy after receiving communion as part of the LPG. The only difference to me, is a prostration which most people don't do anyway.

John

Hmmm? Interesting. Every Ruthenian Church I have attended ended the LPG with Preterpivyj while the doors were open and with full prostration.

"Preter'pivyj" seems to have been translated into Church Slavonic from Polish, taken from the "Service of the Bitter Lamentations" (better known as "Gorzkie Żale"), which traces its origin to Warsaw's Holy Cross Church (circa 1700).

Specifically, it is a derivation of one of the closing hymns from that service:
"Któryś za nas cierpiał Rany, Jezu Chryste, zmiłuj się nad nami."

While many Ruthenian Churches may have this practice currently, it is certainly not a part of our authentic tradition - so the Metropolitan Cantor Institute (MCI) was correct, in my humble estimation, for publishing their draft of the LPG without any indication for this hymn at the conclusion of the service.

Do you have a link to the Polish music? I'm sure the Ukrainian Orthodox and ACROD Churches would love to know this is a "Latinization"!

Xpucmoc Bockpece! Veselego Alliluja!

HungariusCertezius

Do Polish Roman Catholics make full prostrastions three times and say a lenten version of the Jesus prayer? Maybe they copied this from the Orthodox Ruthenians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th century.;)

Veselego Alliluja!

HungariusCertezius

Indeed, He is Risen!

I'd invite you to Google "Któryś za nas cierpiał Rany, Jezu Chryste, zmiłuj się nad nami" and you'll get almost 300 hits. One of these websites may offer an online version of the music for this hymn in Polish.

Besides being a hymn at "Gorzkie Żale," it's also used as the last invocation of each of the Polish Stations of the Cross in some usages (which is, most likely, where our people would have picked it up.)

I would have no specific expertise on the position of the Ukrainian Orthodox or ACROD Churches on the para-liturgical hymn "Preter'pivyj," nor would I wish to speculate.

So the music is exactly the same and the Polish make Eastern Christian "poklony" three times! Wow, they obviously borrowed that from their Orthodox brethren!

Veselego Allilija!

HungariusCertezius

To all Polanized-Ruthenian Greek Catholics, Happy Divine Mercy Sunday! Wesolego Alliluja, Khryztus zmartwyczstal!
No need to celebrate Thomas Sunday, that's not part of our time-honored Zamosc Typika!

Khryztus zmartwyczstal!
U-C

I trust we all (Polanized-Ruthenian Greek Catholics) had a joyous Divine Mercy Sunday!

Wesolego Alliluja, Kryztus zmartwyczstal!

U-C

U-C,

I don't understand all the fuss. They have not forbidden "Having Suffered". They have simply chosen not to print it in the books, which seems reasonable considering they aren't in the offcial typical editions published for us by Rome.

In my own parish we sing it without prostrations, but simply with bows.

Fr. Deaocn Lance

The fuss is that honored hymns are being elimanated by "outsiders" reforming the liturgy. When in doubt, label any ethnic para-liturgical hymn "a Polish Latinization" in order to have a new, clean "American Recension".

U-C

It's not printed in our presanctified text. It's just sung after the liturgy. It's not even printed on any handouts or anything. People just assume you know it.

For that matter, it's fifteen words long (in English), we sing it after every Lenten service, and each parish I have served in has used a slightly different melody - which means if the MCI HAD included it, I would likely would have gotten complaints that we chose the "unauthentic version."

Honestly, U-C, I've never attended a Liturgy or Vespers at which Professor Thompson cantored which was not followed by the singing of one of our traditional hymns, often in Slavonic as well as English. I really think you're projecting onto the MCI something which isn't there.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Why all the reluctance to print the traditional para-liturgical hymns?

U-C

The purpose of my original post was to raise an awareness of the origin of the para-liturgical hymn "Preter'pivyj" within the context of this discussion.

From what I have read, no one from either of the Commissions or the MCI has specifically suggested that the hymn should be "eliminated" where it is currently being used; furthermore, it would seem unfair for one to make that inference simply because the MCI did not print the hymn as part of their draft.

My opinion: Vespers and the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts should begin and end in prayerful silence. I have not used the hymn "Preter'pivyj" in any of the parishes that I serve, on any occasion, in the past several years - so whether it is ever printed in any book or not is of little consequence to me personally.

I'm really not sure why one of the Moderators has not stepped in, as the tone of this thread has gotten terribly nasty (which served as a good reminder to me of why I have been avoiding posting responses on the Forum for the past couple of months).

Dear Ung-Certez,

Many of them ARE in print - such as all the hymns in the Marian hymnal. As I mentioned to you some time ago, I wish I had had the time to include more hymns on the MCI website, but my wife's illness has cut back the time I have been able to spend on it, so I mainly post music that cantors need and don't already have - music for Vespers and Matins, for example.

As Professor Thompson mentioned on the MCI forum, of which you're a member, in a thread titled What are other parishes planning to use for a hymnal:



Given that, and that fact that MOST of these hymns (irrespective of copyright, etc.) are already on the widely-used (and excellent) patronagechurch.com website, I decided to focus work on music for liturgical services.

You seem to be the only one saying that some Unnamed Persons are calling for hymns to be "eliminated." It IS true that the newly-promulgated books call for a return to singing the actual Communion hymn of the day, with its psalm verses, at Communion, before singing other hymns. But the Cantor's Companion assumes that paraliturgical hymns will be sung before (and often after) the Divine Liturgy. I suppose there are those on the music commission who feel that, for example, we really ought be be signing our own traditional Marian and praise hymns rather than such "real Catholic" (=Latin) hymns such as "Immaculate Mary" and "Holy God, we praise thy name"; but I haven't seen any evidence up here for your claim that mysterious forces are ordering us not to sing "O Holy Spirit" or "Divnaja Novina."

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. There IS a middle case: traditional hymns of ours which are also associated more with Western Christian devotions, such as the Sacred Heart. But even those I have never heard anyone call for removing from our churches - unlike, say, the Stations of the Cross.

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?