The criticisms of the chant may be summed up as follows:
1) I don�t LIKE it. It doesn�t please ME.
2) It is inconvenient to learn.

These are not convincing arguments.

Our world careens down the path of utilitarianism, recklessly tossing aside the cultural expressions of faith, love and, ultimately, our own humanity. If it doesn�t please someone in the moment, it is rejected and despised as of no worth. If it takes a bit of effort to preserve the past of a culture, it is shunned on superficial grounds. To paraphrase a French critic of Euro-Disney, we live in a cultural Chernobyl.

The Byzantine Hierarchs have taken a courageous step against the tides of our self-absorbed, consumer culture. They have restored the liturgical chant that is particular to Rus culture.

Chant is directed to the glory of God not to the tickling of ears. Byzantine chant contains within it certain ideas or notions of beauty and a way of life which are inexpressible in the language of words.

Secondly, the unique nature of chant in comparison to other forms of music finds a parallel in icons. Compared to other forms of painting, the icons look �boring�, �archane� or �strange� to some people. This, however, is because icons are uniquely devoted to communicating something about spiritual realities and the supernatural reality of God. Chant is to music, what icons are to oil paintings.

Recently, in Munster, Indiana, Professor Thompson gave an introduction to the new chant. During lunch I spoke with a woman about what she thought of the music. �I love it,� she said. �This is the music we had years ago when our church was in Gary. In the sixties they changed it. They tried to Americanize us! Now, they�ve given us back our music. For forty year we�ve waited for this music. Finally � finally we have our music back.�

This woman�s testimony convinced me to take the time to learn the restored chant of a beautiful liturgy.

R.

Good chant is not likely to be easy, but it is quite likely to repay serious effort.

A monastery of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in the USA is releasing music and CDs of well-executed Byzantine chant, which I gladly recommend.

Caution: "good chant" is not a term which includes such phenomena as the singing of a psalm verse to the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean", or the singing of the Cherbicon to the tune of "Nearer, My God, to Thee"!

Fr. Serge

Improving chant structure without providing correct texts does not foster tradition. Just as making an icon with correct methodology but with wrong content (like an icon of Ghandi or of Lassie) is not in accord with tradition.

Rufinus

Have you heard the broadcast of the Divine Liturgy from the Cathedral in Parma ?

This is broadcast every Sunday evening on WHKW 1200 AM's website .

Some of us have heard this and so far the reports are not 100% favourable. This is coming from a Cathedral where they have been using this new version of the Divine Liturgy of our Father among Saints John Chrysostom for a good few weeks.

I would suggest that you re-read that thread.

Chant should not be rushed and certainly words should be distinct throughout - they were not when I listened.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In this context (especially in re: the specific instance of the recorded Vigil Divine Liturgy from the Cathedral in Parma), it is good to remember the dictum of St. Augustine. He said, "Abuse ought not countenance disuse." If the chant from "The Divine Liturgies of Our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great" was not well-sung in a given instance, it does not, therefore, imply that it is either intrinsically bad or that it does not work.

Currently, the Byzantine Catholic Seminary is hosting the Diaconate Study Program, which has assembled sixteen men from three of the four Eparchies of our Church. If you are in the neighborhood, you are invited (and more than welcome) to hear Vespers, Matins, and the Divine Liturgy celebrated with the restored (adjective chosen on purpose) prostopinije. Or, while you're at it, speak with the men who are in the program---many of whom will be at St. John the Baptist Cathedral in Parma this Sunday (June 24) for the deacon ordination there. It is my belief that you will hear something far different about the chant of the new book than has been posted many times here.

Thank you, Rufinus, for your kind words, by the way.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byz

I've heard nearly every chant style executed horribly. That is the fault of the singers, not the chant system.

Concerning Prostoponije, I have also heard some wonderful recordings and I hope that success can be repeated with a good English translation.

I would love to avail myself of the invitation to visit the Cathedral of St John. Sadly I have to decline - it would take far too long for me to get there - not to mention the horrifying cost [ for a pensioner ]

I have to say though - that I enjoy listening to Chant .

However I still feel that there is something wrong here - maybe it is just that as yet neither clergy nor cantor nor the few people I could detect [ very hard to do that - possibly microphone placement problems ] are as yet comfortable with the new music. If this is so - then I really do not feel they should be doing it when it is being spread to a large" audience" who may not be familiar with Byzantine Services.

There is no excuse for all the intrusive 'h's even so.

'Organic growth' and 'the last 50 years of practice' are things that have been brought up here in defense of many of the revisions in the RDL. But the reality is that most of the last 50 years and so called organic growth, were from our leaders in the past completely ignoring the directives of Rome and the fullness of the Ruthenian Recension.

The one area that was organic growth and didn't have ulterior motives behind it was our chant. Yet that is the area where the past several decades are worthless and organic growth is immaterial.


Monomakh

Amen!

Dear Monomakh,

Besides the adoption of Russian Tone 1 for the Typical Psalms, and the abandonment of the irmos melodies of Matins for not Irmos tone 6 (the "common" irmos melody) but samohlasen tone 6 (a melody for stichera), can you point to particular examples of organic progress that have been abandoned? (I had one poster here tell me that ALL irmoi should be sung to the Pochaiv melody for at LEAST ten years so that people can "get used to them" before we start using the prostopinije melodies... Organic progress?)

Rufinis, thank you for your comments!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. Irmos Tone 6 is a wonderful example of the law of unintended consequences. Each of the people who have come to me arguing in favor of using a different standard melody for the irmoi sung at the Divine Liturgy on feasts, has complained that Irmos Tone 6 "sounds like a funeral" - most likely because this is the ONLY place most people ever heard it in English. But had we been having Matins all along, it would have been much clearer than in fact a RESURRECTIONAL Canon melody is being used at funerals!

On the other hand, the very first week I started singing the Matins canons to the prostopinije melodies in my old parish, years ago, I had a baba come up to me and tell me she remembered the melodies - and starting singing (in Slavonic) melodies I had prepared for the next week. Most of these are in the new books.

"The one area that was organic growth and didn't have ulterior motives behind it was our chant. Yet that is the area where the past several decades are worthless and organic growth is immaterial."

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Mr. Monomakh,

You have said this several times. May I ask, on what do you base it? The procedure by which the chant was transcribed and adapted and then published in "Byzantine Liturgical Chant" in 1970 was not any sort of "let's write down what we've learned to do." It was, in fact, done by a committee of clerics and cantors, who had a definite hermeneutic and specific agenda in the way that they did their work. And when it was done, it was handed to people who were told, "This is the way it's going to be from now on." And there was considerable discomfort and some outright refusal to use the materials.

Does that sound like what is going on now in the Metropolitan Church? Surely it does. But to somehow indicate that the former process was "organic growth" is disingenuous.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

While I agree that RESTORATION of prostopinije should have been and continue to be a priority, I think one thing may have been over looked in this process by those working on the change, is that while the music may be restored and be closer to the original melodies and usage of one particular church and region in Eastern Europe, that usage is not the be all and end all. Are not there different variations of the same chant in different regions, still sung in Slavonic, in Eastern Europe? Why is it unacceptable that there can be regional variations here in the USA?

The other thing that may be a deterent from ease of learning or acceptance, is that not only has the chant form itself been altered (for better or worse depending on the opinion), but the words themselves are now different. It's a lot to handle all at once. Especially for a graying church.

Mr. Thompson,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the new RDL music a collaboration of long-time Byzantine Catholic cantors? Did veteran cantors (the late Professor Kavka, Cantor Basil Brody, Cantor Andrew Husinec, Cantor/Professor Jerry Jumba, etc.) participate in this process? I don't recall seeing their names on the committee.

Ungcsertezs

Dear John,

I agree with most everything you say - and in fact, there are a variety of chant collections from the United States, dating from the 1920's to the 1990's, that went into the review work for the chant. (I was not party to the Music Commission's work, but I certainly am familiar with the sources that the members discussed at various points, and using in explaining the new settings.)

Unfortunately, although one can with practice "hear" regional variations, they are often swamped by differences between cantors even in a single town - especially when widely differing printed scores are used, along with singing "from memory" to texts other than those (often in Slavonic) which were first learned. I am working on compiling a collection of "traditional" variations on the MCI website, but there is also something to be said for a consistent "core repertoire" of chant in the Metropolia.

And as you say, the text changes do not make the task easier.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Was there a promulgation and mandate at this time also?

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the new RDL music a collaboration of long-time Byzantine Catholic cantors? Did veteran cantors (the late Professor Kavka, Cantor Basil Brody, Cantor Andrew Husinec, Cantor/Professor Jerry Jumba, etc.) participate in this process? I don't recall seeing their names on the committee."

Mr. Ung-Certez:

The Episcopal liason for the IEMC is the Most Reverend Andrew Pataki, who, in fact, taught chant at our Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Professor and Sir Knight Daniel Kavka, KSG, was on the IEMC until the time of his death (by which time all substantial decisions were made on the chant revisions).

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

That's a shame, one lone senior Cantor serving on the Music Commission. Far from a collaborative effort.

Ungcsertezs

Dear Professor,

Was the Church in a precipitous and perhaps fatal decline in 1970?

Was the seminary mostly empty?

Was the average age of parishoners and priests alike nearly 70?

Were there healthy parishes being closed and the properties sold, during those changes?

Were there major changes made to the liturgical texts and rubrics at the time?

How many parishes had no cantors at all?

Did we hire out in order to find the musicians and clergy to do the transcriptions and adaptations? Or did we employ those men who were already well steeped in parish life, who understood both people and priests and could persuade without unseemly agitation?

It seems to me that these things are important considerations in making major changes without consulting outside of committee.

M.

Slava Na Viki!

Professor Thompson,

your post is 'interesting' on many levels.

I can only base the incomplete (to be nice) retelling of the 1970s on the fact that you were not with our church at the time. I don't bring up the membership point to be disparaging, but rather that the 'history' of this time period which was relayed to you isn't exactly what happened and I don't hold you at fault for that.

In 1970, while many of our churches had begun to use English in the previous years (depending on what parish and area), but Slavonic was still in heavy practice. (In fact even our UGCC brethern were still using Slavonic in many places). To paint the picture that when a commision put together music for English liturgies that there was this uprising and protesting is specious. I 've asked many (meaning 15-20) cantors this exact question of what happened when an 'official' (although not promulated like now) English chant, music, etc. was put together. They said most didn't really noticed or care because most of the faithful still prayed in Slavonic, and the ones that wanted English did not protest, they were actually happy that an English endevour was put together. (Note: When you go to Liturgy this Sunday or Saturday evening , ask the old timers about the similarities between 1970 and 2007. After they look at you with a 'what in the world are you talking about' further probe this issue and draw your own conclusions). Where problems did arise was with people who felt that Slavonic was being threatened and those who didn't see a need for anything but Slavonic and they refused to do English. The issue with the cantors was more of a Slavonic vs. English rather than pre-1970 English vs. post 1970 English. Many of our churches also had choirs then (beautiful ones) so the faithful didn't see their 'chant' changing like today where there are not many choirs and a cantor leads the singing. The 'high mass' and 'low mass' practice was unfortunately around at the time as well. The 'high mass' was disporportionately in Slavonic and the 'low mass' (and sometimes this was on a Saturday) was English and often was recited. I personally witnessed this from sea to shining sea in this country both in my youth and adulthood. From 1955 (when Bishop Elko received permission) until the later when English started and then was overwhelmingly prevalent compared to Slavonic, was not a situation of jamming things down people throat musically speaking. Rubrics, chopping up of Liturgies, complete ignoring of Vespers and Matins, is a whole other story that is for another thread. The situation was not comparable to what is happening today on many levels. And the creation and usage of English was much more gradual (because of Slavonic being more prevalent in the 1950s, 1960s, and the real beginning of its decline in the late 1970s and early 1980s) than what is being done in 2007. Also, their agenda was not to secularize the liturgy with feminized translations. The 'agenda' that you speak of that they had was to get English into more use in our churches (unless you know something that I don't on their agenda).

When I hear incomplete and not what happened stories being retold from the past 40 years, I have to wonder if the 'restoration' of our chant is also an incomplete story being told. Professor, you have more musical talent in your little finger than I in my whole body, that is true. But your post on what happened in 1970 is incomplete to be polite about it. Slavonic, choirs, etc. have to be involved in this time period, and they are really not in much use in today's environment unfortunately.

Furthermore I would conclude for the time being with the fact that I've heard Prostipinje in the US, Canada, all over Eastern Europe (Uzhhorrod, little villages in Poland and Slovakia, etc.) and whether it was in English or Slavonic or Ukrainian, etc. it all felt proper and like our chant. This 'restored' chant doesn't have that feel. Before the cries of personal taste come into play let me just say that if personal taste were what I was after, (for example X-Mas carols) I would use the Ukrainian's carols over ours any day. I used to affectionately joke with a Ukrainian friend of mine that while their carols were better, we had the better liturgical chant. I can't say that anymore.

How much is property in Uzhhorod? I'm sure there are some on this board that wish I went there.

Monomakh

Leaving aside other people�s problems, I must make a decision. Is this chant worth learning? Is there a culture worth preserving?

I answer yes. This is worth it. The lady I spoke with convinced me. Prof. Thompson convinced me.

As to whether or not it �flows�, we have yet to learn it. Perhaps in a year it will �feel proper�. If you were to hear me practicing the chant you would REALLY be sad. With God�s grace I�ll learn it.

The central issue here is trust. Do I trust that the Metropolia has done its best to restore the Prostipinje? Yes. I trust them.

I trust them enough to spend time to learn it. I have the ability to learn it and not to use this gift is wrong. Other people cannot read music. They learn mimetically and will depend upon me in the pews. Perhaps if there was a sample liturgy using A and/or B on the cantor website we might get a better sense of coherence.

I will check out the broadcast via the web on Sunday evening. As for the Greek Orthodox monastery I�ve gone to their website and heard their chants which are quite good.

There is one comment on a previous forum I wish to address. Someone said that the music was dour. We should recall that Orthodox chant has this unique quality to it. It reflects the Passion of our Savior and is balanced by the Resurrection.

[Fr. Serge, I couldn�t agree with you more on the �My Bonnie� melody. For months I�ve been trying to place it. It needs to be removed.]

In all seriousness, what culture are you referring to? Carpatho-Rusyn or American or something else?

If it's Carpatho-Rusyn, how in the world is that happening in the BCA? Right or wrong isn't even the issue, but make no mistake about it, the Carpatho-Rusyn culture has been and is being swept away in the BCA. Where is the Slavonic in the books now? Where are the Slavonic Liturgies, in 1% or 2% of our churches? Once in a while we serve some ethnic food, but that can't be what your referring to is it? I see the Carpatho-Rusyn society doing stuff, but I see a drive by the BCA to be an American church (we could debate the right or wrong of this all day long, the point is that this is what is happening).




Listen to the radio broadcast this Sunday night and well... let's leave it at that.



I agree that trust is an issue. When I see people try to tell us that they have 'restored' the Liturgy (when in fact it is a revision) I begin to question my trust of them. When I see people excuse the lack of Vespers and/or Matins in 90%+ of our parishes I begin to question my trust. When I've seen and continue to see Proskomedia abbreviated and skipped and tupperware bowls, etc., I question my trust. When I see Saturday evening liturgies celebrated when a Vespers service should and could be taking place (i.e. St. John's in Munhall, PA) I question my trust. When I see money spent on revising rather than evangelizing (especially when evangelizing really really really needs to be taking place) I question my trust. When I see traditional rubrics discarded like yesterdays newspaper, I have to question my trust. And, I'm sorry, but when I people try to say what happened in 1970 is similar to today, I question my trust.



What Orthodox chant and hymns are you referring to? (Just curious).


Monomakh

Yes. And when the conscience has been pierced, and the trust has been lost, a sense of betrayal sets in---and people begin looking elsewhere.

I shall not, sirs, allow a litany of complaints to ignite in my soul a conflagration of suspicion and distrust in the Cantor Institute. I trust them and the words they have spoken. I am quite fond of the B series in the liturgy.

John Paul II notes that in the story of Adam and Eve the sad result of Eve's sin was a suspicion of God and his authority to govern them. It is, he said, what we see so often in the Church today.

I will not carry on a debate. I've only voiced my whole-hearted confidence in the work of the Cantor Institute.

I also trust their choice in using the Grail Psalms. Many scholars consider the Grail Psalms to be excellent, if not the best, translations. I don't know Hebrew so I cannot really judge them.

With prayers for all of you,
Rufinus

Rufinus,

How long have you been a member of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church(if you don't mind me asking)?

Ungcsertezs

Rufinus,

I don't want to debate your opinion. I am glad that you expressed it. The cantors need feedback in order to build on what we have, and positive feedback is very important to express to them.

Why do you feel that others' feedback and academic discussion is a temptation for you to sin? Surely you don't believe disagreeing with the academic decisions of a cantor's institute is comparable to disobeying God's one and only commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of life?

In any case, I am happy to welcome you to ByzCath and to discuss this and future topics with you.

Rufinus,

The Grail translation of the Psalms is by no means the most accurate. It has endured because it was designed to be singable.
It is also not based on the Septuagint which is the official basic text for the Catholic Orthodox Church. Besides as mentioned in the foreward of the new "pew" book the 1963 Grail translation was used as a guide, but the revisors deemed it necessary to alter even that text on various occasions.

The Grail Psalms have something of a tumultuous history.

http://www.adoremus.org/496-ShortBrev.html

exerpt of article from:

Adoremus Bulletin

Online Edition Vol. II, No. 1: April 1996

The Long View of Short Breviaries:
What Does It Mean if a Text is 'Not Approved for Liturgical Use'?

by Helen Hull Hitchcock and Susan Benofy

Problems with the Grail Psalter

A similar situation occurred in 1984 when the first proposed revision of the Grail Psalter failed to secure the bishops' approval. (A later Grail revision was also rejected by the bishops in 1993.)

Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, then BCL chairman and now president of the episcopal board of ICEL, issued a letter defending the 1984 Grail revision and the principles of inclusive language. His letter, dated March 1, 1985, also said that the BCL "looks forward to the publication of the revised psalter as a volume apart from any liturgical book or worship aid so that this version of the psalter may be tested and reviewed by biblical, liturgical, and musical experts."

Archbishop Pilarczyk's letter also urged the "authorization for liturgical use in the dioceses of the United States" of an inclusive language version of the psalter. Commenting on Archbishop Pilarczyk's letter, Monsignor McManus explains that the Grail Psalter is not approved for liturgical use and so cannot be used in the Liturgy of the Hours, and "is excluded from the Lectionary, from which the responsorial psalm is read or recited." However, he adds, "Fortunately for those desirous of using the revised Grail Psalter, it may be used in non-liturgical services like other 'unofficial' texts, which as devotional texts ordinarily have only local ecclesiastical approval. Indeed, it may be used in those parts of the liturgy for which prescribed or appointed official texts may be replaced almost at will, for example, by hymns or other songs with appropriate texts.

Monsignor McManus bases his opinion on a 1968 decision of the NCCB to allow "other collections of psalms and antiphons" for these parts of the Mass. At the time the conference was awaiting the music settings of the Simple Gradual. Monsignor McManus believed that a psalm in the rejected Grail translation could therefore be used as a sung responsorial psalm.

Monsignor McManus said,

"Thus, the revised version of the Grail Psalter is excluded from the psalmody of the liturgy of the hours, for which the unrevised Grail Psalter alone is prescribed. It is likewise excluded from the lectionary, from which the responsorial psalm is read or recited.

"On the other hand, the new version may well be used at the eucharistic celebration as a substitute for the appointed texts of the entrance and communion processions -- along with hymns and various responsorial songs, which are rather freely chosen. This choice was allowed by the NCCB as far back as November 1968: So far as 'other collections of psalms and antiphons in English' are concerned. It is permissible to include 'psalms arranged in responsorial form, metrical and similar versions of psalms, provided they are ... selected in harmony with the liturgical season, feast, or occasion.' In November 1969, the NCCB made a further concession to allow, in accordance with specific criteria of choice, 'other sacred songs not from the psalter.'"

Does this mean that Scripture texts that are judged by the vote of the bishops to be unworthy can still be used in the liturgy of the Church so long as it is sung and not read? Could this explain why there is a new enthusiasm among liturgists for singing virtually the entire Mass? If so, have the bishops allowed their authority to be suborned? Can the bishops ever effectively weed out any translations or revisions of Scripture or other liturgical texts which they are convinced are defective?

If Bishop Cummins's comment that any criticism of a text implicitly questions "the orthodoxy of the translators and those who approved the translations" represents the view of many bishops, it may help to explain the difficulty now surrounding bishops' consideration of the many proposed translation and revisions of Scriptural and liturgical texts. Most bishops surely do not want to be accused of impugning the integrity of their committees or a brother bishop.

If this situation persists, it may seriously impede the bishops' free and objective appraisal of the proposed texts and hamper the exercise of their responsibility to guide the Church's worship.

Dear Mary,

How is the history of this translation from 1984 onward, connected with the new Divine Liturgy books? Was there any such "tumultuous history" associated with the 1963 translation?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I wasn't making that comparison at all. I was just posting additional insights into the history of the Grail Psalter.

I suppose one could draw comparisons between them on the issue of inclusive language, but I had not intended that when I posted the link.

Speaking of jumping to conclusions....

Mary

Dear Mary,

I wasn't jumping to any particular conclusions (were you, in assuming I had? :); I was puzzled. Since you inserted a long article with the words "Not approved for liturgical use" into the thread, and since you evidently felt it was germane to the topic, I was trying to find out what connection you did see. (I suppose I would have been direct and said "And your point is?" or somesuch, but that would have been rude, at least by my lights, and I was trying to find out why you DID add it to the discussion.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Anytime one asks leading questions, they are making far more of a statement than they are an inquiry. The very construction of your "questions" are in the manner of conclusions already drawn.

One of those "laws of language use"

This styly of discussion is useless you know.

You and the folks in Pittsburgh have an entire Church that is suffering poor translation and poor music choices and adaptation and you are going to pick at things that are only asides, when the very foundation of the Church crumbles?

I don't get it. I don't get the indifference to the cries of an aging Church, and the insistance that this way is the only way. Best I can say is that this liturgy is in print, but it is hardly the best or only way.

M.

OK, trying to steer this back to the original poster's topic and title:

"Poor music choices and adaptation." Could you provide some specific examples, please? That way it's easier to tell whether you have issues with the translations, the musical settings, what you've heard on the cantor training recordings, or how you've heard a particular cantor sing them.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

John has done so. Father Serge has done so. And in some detail.

The liturgy is ugly, ungainly, and ungrammatical, Jeff.

The liturgy is theologically weakened.

It is not all bad. It is not all useless.

But the parts that are awful, are very and terribly awful. And you my dear have indicated that there were many other choices that could have been made for the music. Many settings were examined in the process of selection...Isn't that what you said?

And there is no indication from you, Father David, Professor Thompson, or any one of our bishops that there is any relief in sight.

Egos are on the line now. Authority is the rudder that guides the hearts of the architects of this liturgy now.

And you waste time with aimless argumentation, and inquiry as though there's never been any examples offered.

If any one of us here had one inkling that anything we had to say mattered you would get more than what you are getting now.

Mary

Mary,

Jeff has asked for specific musical examples which would be to my mind something like: Setting B for the Trisagion is bad musically because of X and Y. I don't recall a single exmaple of such being given.

Fr. Deacon Lance

If any one of us here had one inkling that anything we had to say mattered you would get more than what you are getting now.

Mary

I hope that Mr. Thompson is not suggesting that the late Professor Kavka was a supporter of the new music. I know that he was not. At the beginning of the effort to set the new Fixed Texts of the Revised Divine Liturgy Professor Kavka approached this task with great respect for the musical settings that have been used for the past 40 years. He (like many of us who have been successful cantors for 30 years and longer) respected that they had been accepted and even memorized by almost everyone. To that end he presented the Commission with draft musical settings of the Fixed Texts which were almost identical to the ones in use, altered only where necessary to serve the new Fixed Texts. In the end Professor Kavaka�s approach was not accepted, but I think his influence did manage to make the now mandated settings slightly less awful then they would have been had he not been involved. If anyone would like to verify the accuracy of what I have written I would be happy to provide contact information for specific individuals via PM or e-mail. I know his family prefers privacy in this matter.

This is mind-boggling.

You say the music stinks.
They ask how it stinks.
You say you just told them that it stinks.
They say you didn't tell them how it stinks.
You say other people say it stinks.
They say the other people haven't told them how it stinks.
You say it stinks.
They ask how it stinks.
You say if they don't know by now how it stinks, you aren't going to tell them.

Father Deacon,

You might consider reading the archives. There were several discussions last fall in which the new settings for both the antiphons and Trisagion were involved.

To recap, the issues with the new setting of the First Antiphon was the movement of the accent for word �glorious� in the phrase �sing praise to His name, give to Him glorious praise.� In the existing setting the accent was �GLO-ri-ous� (on the first syllable as one would accent it in spoken English). In the new setting the accent is now �glo-RI-ous� (on the second syllable, which of course sounds silly).

In the �Holy God� (formerly �#1� now �A� in the new pew book), the discussion focused mainly on the bad accent on the word �now� in the phrase �now and ever�. The word has been assigned four notes and six beats and when sung sounds like �now-ow-ow-ow�. This is the very reason why it was not set that way in the 1965 setting.

In the �Holy God� (formerly �#3� now �C� in the new pew book) those who prepared the 1965 setting chose again to simplify the entire �Glory be� to avoid a setting in which in the phrase �have mercy on us� the word �on� became the most important word (four beats in a run - "have mercy on-on-on-on us").

We could examine every page and find hundreds of problems (but there is no real reason to because the bishops clearly chose not to include the priests and cantors in the process). Those who prepared the settings included in the new pew book chose to allow the text to serve the music rather then to make slight adaptations in the music to serve the text, and the correct English accentuation of the text.

You might remember that Jeff (ByzKat) did not see any problems with the accentuations. He obviously has a very high tolerance for poorly accentuated English.

John

Dear Wondering,

In truth they have been told, by many cantors from new ones to very experienced ones. If you read the archives of the Forum you can find several discussions (but most of the discussion did not go on here).

The new music has been tried (in part) at the cathedral in Munhall. So far it is has been an absolute disaster and many people have left because of it. My friends in Pittsburgh who have visited there in recent weeks tell me that almost no one sings anymore. I understand the singing at the cathedral in Parma is also almost nonexistent, despite the presence of a talented cantor who can lead people. What has happened is that the bishops have promulgated new rubrics, texts and music despite the fact that they have been shown not to lead to a good, well sung Divine Liturgy.

This is a prime example of opportunity lost. Had there been a collaborative effort involving clergy, cantors and laymen we could have prepared settings where the chant served the text (proper accentuation), was a joy to sing, and was reasonably faithful to the English and Slavonic settings that have been memorized by the faithful.

John (Admin)

Jeff,

Specific examples have been provided. Will you please stop pretending that they have not?

As I have stated earlier, you are the one who is pushing change. Convince people that you and others who want these specific changes have been successful. Can you please provide us with examples of where the new texts, rubrics and music have been tested and shown to lead to better quality of Liturgy in our parishes? All the evidence I have seen demonstrates clearly that all aspects of the RDL have been disastrous to our parishes.

What the bishops should have done is to demand that the changes prove themselves. The way changes should have been tested is to take two equal parishes. Parish A would celebrate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy with correct rubrics, the memorized texts and music. Parish B would celebrate the Revised Divine Liturgy (revised rubrics, new texts and new music). After ten years examine the results in both parishes and see which one grew.

For the purposes of this discussion I think it is you who should provide examples of how the new settings are more successful then the old settings. Not how they are more literal to Boksaj (because if you can do a rewrite on the Liturgy you can�t argue that you can�t rewrite the chant or even create something new). You (and those who support the changes) need to demonstrate that they are superior to the ones currently in use (defining superior as contributing better to good Liturgy then the old (easier to sing, music serves text and not text serving music, etc.)).

Of course, Jeff could correctly counter with the fact that the bishops have made clear that those of us who point out the flaws in the Revised Divine Liturgy (in scholarship, inaccurate translation, poor musical settings) are welcome to leave and worship elsewhere. Sadly, we have already seen evidence that people are indeed leaving at two cathedrals and almost everywhere the RDL is introduced. Ironically, the Divine Liturgy at the local Melkite parish is now far more faithful to the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy than is the Divine Liturgy at the local Ruthenian parish.

Admin

Wasn't Prof. Kavka on the original commision in 1964? The music was altered CONSIDERABLY form the extant Slavonic melodies at that time. Are you then suggesting that Prof. Kavka was responsible for the original English music settings proposed in the 1964 commision?

Does anyone know who was on the original 1964 commision? If so could they post the names, so we can compare the makeup of the commissions?

John,
I can understand this. For those of us here who were not privy to those previous discussions, it doesn't appear that way. Further, for those of us who aren't musically talented, "it doesn't sound right," adds no new knowledge.

Would you be willing, for the benefit of readers such as myself, to make a list of those areas you feel should not have been revised and why another setting would have been better? Even a list of the top ten would be a good start. I know that you acknowledge that some revision was necessary, but what line you draw of when and why I don't have the context to know.

If the people who support the revision of the music do not have a response, as you believe will be the case, it will be apparent to all. I'm sure it is exasperating, and you probably feel like there is no point in going through it again. Right now, it appears as if they have nothing to work from. So I offer as a point the edification of those of us who were not privy to the previous, often private, discussions.

Steve,

I don't remember if Professor Kavka was on the 1964 Commission. Please contact Holy Ghost parish to find a way to determine that. My position is that since the people had memorized the current settings for the Fixed Texts they should be kept as is. Those who want a very literal application to Boksaj need to realize that 1) people have memorized something else and 2) a desire to return to a literal application of Boksaj is not a good enough reason to change the way of prayer that people have memorized. One example I offered in earlier discussions is imagine anyone mandating the changing of the words and musical setting for "O Come, All Ye Faithful" and the disaster and ill will that would cause in the entire English-speaking world. Another example (focusing on the changed text) is how the Roman Catholics still pray the "Hail Mary" with "Blessed art thou amongst women" despite the fact the the texts were officially changed to "Blessed are you among women" over 40 years ago. Some people just don't seem to understand that people are very reluctant to make changes. This is true especially when the changes have not been shown to them to benefit them in any way.

I do know a cantor in New Jersey who sang with your grandfather. He says that he knew your grandfather well and that your grandfather was a big supporter of the 1965 settings. [I can provide you with his name privately in case you don't know who I am speaking about.]

As I have stated numerous times, the job of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel. For us Ruthenian Catholics in America our job is to invite all Americans to accept Jesus Christ and to follow Him, joining us in worship of Him. Liturgical chant, no mater how beautiful in its original language, serves the higher calling of worship (and the evangelization that comes from good Liturgy). Within 100 years of our Slavic ancestors accepting the Gospel from the Greeks they were already creating a new style of chant that helped present the Gospel to the Slavs. We need to do the same. This does not mean abandoning Prostopinije. But it does mean setting it in a manner where the chant serves the text and the final product is attractive to the American ear, and allowing new chant (organic to America) to grow up beside it.

John

Wondering,

To what end? Since the promulgation I have pretty much stayed out of the discussions here regarding music. [I responded today to correct claims posted here that were inaccurate.] If the bishops wanted the clergy, cantors and the laity to be included the time was during the preparation and experimentation phases. They chose not to do this.

Putting aside my problems with some of the textual changes for the moment, I will respond with a comment about the three hymns I mentioned above plus one more. The First Antiphon required no changes except the change of the text from �Mother of God� to �Theotokos� (really none of the antiphons needed to be changed, and the new settings taken as a whole are examples of more poorly accented English then the old settings.). The same goes for the �Only-Begotten Son� (#1 in the Gray/Green/1970). The two melodies for �Holy God� (#1 and #3 in the old books) required only the dropping of the word �be� in �Glory be�. Nothing else needed to be changed. One could go through almost every page of the new pew book and find similar issues.

Does that mean that if I were on the commission in 1965 I would have set everything that way? No. But it does mean that one needs to be pastorally sensitive and not force people to accept changes that are totally unnecessary. Moving a parish to celebrate according to correct rubrics is a far easier task than is forcing the mostly elderly people of our Church to change the words and music they�ve memorized after forty years of praying them. Forty years is forty years.

John

The people who support the changes will always have a response. The question is whether or not the response is substantially designed to show how the changes were necessary and of benefit to all. Thus far we haven't got that. But y'd have to go through the archives to find that out, along with the substantive things that Father Serge and John have said over the years as well.

There's a fair amount of attrition in this Church and has been for the past ten years, and it is getting worse rather than better. When our cantors and some of our best deacons in terms of breadth and depth of liturgical knowledge just walk because this liturgy is so bad at so many different levels...well...that should tell you something.

And what is the answer from our bishops and the liturgical commission....'Don't let the door bump yer butt on the way out.'

That is the Swan Song for the New Springtime of Evangelization.

Disposable priests, disposable parishes, disposable people, disposable liturgies.

Don't you ever wonder that we have drafts of a liturgical text AFTER it has been approved by Rome?

Doesn't that sort of thing make you curious?

Mary

Wondering - I like spirited debates. I especially enjoy the "anaphora" and the "Syriac Creed translation" threads. The language issues are extremely important and must be resolved.

Nevertheless, our priests and bishops suffer greatly these days. Pray for the priests and bishops! The people are obstinate. They attack these holy men of God. If people don't care enough to go to confession will they really put forth the effort to learn new chants? This hardness of heart and lack of humility compounds the problems.

There will be a closing of many churches and not because of the RDL. All of the priests I speak with (about a dozen) from around the country are reporting that this year the children they teach are frightening them in their callous indifference and disobedience. There is a big spiritual problem. We must pray for the priests.

Mary, thank you for the Grail psalter cite. I knew of this and the problem was carefully avoided in the RDL psalms. (You might like Robert Alter's introductory essay to his book, The Five Books of Moses. C.f., Mankowski, S.J.'s article on Bible translations in June 07 Adoremus.)

THE CREED,
Each day, I practice the chants with a book and the CDs. I'm now at the Creed.

The minor changes to the Nicene Creed (everything but essence) cause my mind to stop. There are three things going on. Firstly, I am learning the music; secondly, I am trying to master seemingly insignificant changes to the words; thirdly I am trying to figure out why the changes were made.

e.g, "the Holy Spirit" - "giver of life" to "creator of life".

Thus, one is learning a new prayer and new music. Other than that it does take some work to learn.

I shall pray for all of you at the Divine Liturgy.
Rufinus

???

It is not just a language issue that is in question in this new little Byzantine order, but an issue of underlying theology that is clearly visible, in one prime example, in the insertion of the titular form of Anaphora and the catechesis that is offered by way of explanation.

There certainly is an underlying hermenutic and it is not at all eastern, and it is marginally Catholic in its Christologic and Trinitarian emphases.



Your example from the Creed is yet another indicator. Not only does the new wording contradict the ancient understanding of the Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity as the eternal architect of Creation, but it also takes away from us that relationship of the Holy Spirit promised to us by Christ.

The revealed message for us from both Scripture and Tradition is that we are to receive the promises of the Kingdom, from the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. The Holy Spirit is the Glory of God in creation, and to conflate the markers of His person, as this liturgy does, is to change the entire emphasis and substance of Trinitarian revelation, in Scripture and Tradition.

This liturgy is on the cutting edge of modernist theology at worst, speculative theology at best, and in its emphases it pushes us closer to the edge of heterodoxy.

It distorts the revelation of Scripture concerning the Persons of the Trinity, in the example that you offer. It is not an eastern hermenutic. It is a gnostic hermenutic and emphasis. It lies just at the edge of Catholic Tradition.

The underlying theology of the new order is far more serious than any other aspect of the changes, but it explains the changes and the heavy-handed imposition of the changes, and the unseemly silence from our bishops.

Father Thomas Loya was absolutely correct to invoke the sensus fidelium in his discussion. This litugy should skreech across the well formed Catholic conscience, east and west. It should make one want to run away, even if one is not sure how or why that response.



I can agree with you whole heartedly here.

But I will tell you that this liturgy has nothing at its core, to coax back a wandering flock. There is no tempting spiritual food here. There is only contradiction and confusion, and the people have that already in abundance in the world outside.

Rather, this new Byzantine order will mightily test the fidelity of even the remaining remnant, and put the entire Church at spiritual and material risk.

Mary

Dear John,

Thank you for your post! Like Father Deacon Lance, I have been watching this forum since the new books were released in January, and until now have not seen a single specific example - through I have asked a total of eight regular posters who've mentioned "bad music" to send my some specific examples, and not one has till your post.

I had forgotten your example of the antiphons from last fall, though I certainly remember the "Holy God" (which I brought up, as you recall). But "hundreds of bad accents"?

In any case, thanks for providing some specific examples, now that the books have been out for six months. I can see a LOT better where you are coming from, and I will start a separate thread in this forum to look at the antiphon melodies.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. So far, the MCI has hundreds of pages of music still being worked on, for Vespers, Matins and other services. It would be a service if you actually COULD list your recommended changes to the new settings - if only so they could be considered when new work is done. It's a pity you couldn't do do the same during the two years when all this music was being taught on Saturdays in Pittsburgh, and cantors from all four eparchies attended - changes to the music were made at that time based on input from quite a few cantors, both those present and those who sent in recommendations based on the materials posted on the MCI website.

Jeff,

Can you provide a list of cantors who provided input to the new music? I’d like to contact them to see what experience they have had as cantors (how many years, how successful, how much chant they have set) and to find out if any of the suggestions they sent in were actually accepted by Mr. Thompson. Every cantor I have talked with talks about how Mr. Thompson ridiculed everyone who disagreed with him.

Are you saying that cantors such as our Administrator were specifically asked to provide input and chose not to? If not, how did he or any other cantor know they were invited to participate?

Monomakh

Monomakh,

Exactly, contrary to popular belief, this was not a collaborative effort.

Ungcsertezs

This was picked up from:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=241295#Post241295



I so often hear that we should pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life -- and we should -- that I'm thinking of writing a book: "Diaconate: The Forgotten Holy Order." First line: "Bishops and Presbyters -- never heard of one who wasn't a Deacon first." This is symptomatic of the poor sense and application of "Orders" � major and minor � in our Church.




If simply dropping an entire word from the translation, anthrōpous=Men, is minor consider then the minuscule change of dropping just part of a word: homoousion becomes ousioun. Jesus is the essence of the Father. Not unambiguously wrong, even sounds kind of poetic, and inclusive too (for Arians).

Dn. Anthony

I got lost there for moment. Seems we are back where we started.

Is there a connection between the Church's approach to the diaconate and the manner in which this current liturgy has been put together and promulgated? Is there a common underlying presumption or set of presumptions that can be seen to carry through?

I truly do not know so I am not suggesting anything at the moment. I even fear my question is too limiting. Perhaps you could understand that it is an open-ended...do you see a connection here? kind of inquiry.

M.

I don't think this is quite a serious problem for the east, depending on how one understands 'one in essence' and if one can accept that substance and essence can be seen to be equivalents.

In any case ens and essence are going to be topics of liturgical, spiritual and ecclesiastical discussion for a long long time.

M.

The merging is not my doing: this is quite a different topic. Also, a post has been lost/deleted.

Deacon Anthony,

There happens to be a redundancy of threads dealing with the creed and anthropos. The matter is to be addressed in existing threads as has been posted previously on other threads. This matter has been thoroughly discussed in other threads, and thus the topic can be added to them.

If you do not care for this I am sorry, but that is the policy of this section and has been for a couple months now.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Its ok Father. We just got a little confused in the 're-arranging' of things. Its not a problem. Thanks for keeping an eye on things.

Mary

Father Anthony,

I have no problem with this being here at all but I thought I was doing a service since this thread is entitled "In favor of chant." Also, while the point of departure is anthrōpous the topic is a shift to homoousion also, and I couldn't see how "Order" fit in with the other recent topics. Perhaps the missing reply was deleted by the author.


Dn. Anthony

Jeff,

Are you suggesting that because people have not identified the problems with the new music to YOU that such problems cannot possibly exist? I do know that one priest took a highlighter to the new pew book and identified well over a hundred poor accents (after just one sing through), and then presented it to his bishop. I know others who have expressed their concerns to their bishops. I think that is far more appropriate then posting them here on the Forum. (And yes, there are hundreds of bad accents).

I�m also confused that you seem to be indicating that there was a concerted effort by the Metropolitan Cantor Institute to secure input from cantors during the time the music was taught there. I was unaware of this. I had visited two of the first sessions of the Cantors� Institute (when the clergy were running it) and it seemed to me to be a resource for training new cantors. When did its focus change to include soliciting input from experienced cantors who would otherwise have no reason to attend? Who were these experienced cantors who attended? What was their level of experience? How much chant had they notated and where was it used? [I will join Monomakh in wanting to speak with them.]

I have had regular contact with numerous priests and cantors over the years. It is very strange that none mentioned it, or that they were involved with it. Can you tell me by what means the Liturgical Commission invited cantors to review the work and submit input? I recently spoke to several cantors who attended the classes offered by the MCI and learned a lot of inside knowledge about what was going on. Their complaints were twofold: 1) that anytime they mentioned that something they sang sounded awkward they were ridiculed (essentially being told that there were there to learn and not to teach) and 2) that the books were collected at the end of the classes because the seminary did not want �outside� clergy and cantors to see the books because they would want to get involved. I have also spoken to cantors in the Passaic Eparchy in the months since the promulgation that were totally unaware of a cantor school in Pittsburgh. And I�ve spoke to some of the leading cantors in our Church who did not see a note of the new music until they received a copy of the new book from their pastor in February. [My first look at it was when someone snuck out a copy and posted it on the internet last fall, spurring the conversations here.] To me this does not sound like it was a serious effort. If the Liturgical Music Commission was not inviting cantors to take the music home with them and review it at length to provide considered input then the effort was not real. Up until now I had concluded that since Bishop Pataki was head of the Music Commission that he simply forbid the commission members to share anything until it was finalized. Now that you are saying that there was a concerted effort, one approved by the bishops, and that cantors were invited I am very confused since no one seems to know about this but you!

As to conducting an analysis of the Antiphons here on the Forum, what purpose will it serve? If you can secure permission from the bishops to do a review, correct the mistakes and print corrected music then such an effort makes sense (but in that case every cantor in the country should be invited to participate). If you are just doing it to explain again how the Prostopinije deserves to be saved because it is beautiful and how the poor accentuations are necessary to make sure the chant is literally faithful to Boksaj then don�t bother. It seems to me that the time for soliciting input is long past.

Also, you have been asked numerous times about which parishes these new settings were introduced at and have been successful at. We know some of the music was tested these past years at the cathedral in Munhall and that the singing is nonexistent (with people leaving for other parishes). We also see that the singing at the Parma cathedral is nonexistent. A bunch of cantors singing it at the seminary is not a valid test. So can you tell me where it was tested and shown to be successful BEFORE it was promulgated?

John

This thread is titled "In favor of chant". That caught my eye from the beginning, since I know of almost no one who is actually opposed to liturgical chant (there are a few Low Mass die-hards out there, but they're unlikely to be involved in the discussion in the first place). There are certain people who have their preferences as to which specific tradition or traditions of liturgical chant gets their enthusiastic attention and which they prefer to avoid (myself, I like Znammeny chant and Byzantine chant as my two major preferences. I could think of one or two chant traditions which I don't care for, but I'm not about to name them!). But chant itself is an integral part of our liturgical tradition (which is NOT to deny that choirs, even singing in polyphony, are not also a genuine part of our liturgical tradition; we have no need to discard either one).

There is a specific problem with Bokshaj's Prostopinije. The book is thought to have been produced in Hungarian and only then in Slavonic. However that may be, the accents as indicated by Bokshaj's music do not reflect the authentic accents of Church-Slavonic; many of them seem to have been adopted from Hungarian - and at least one melody for the Cherubic Hymn is almost certainly either Magyar or Gypsy in origin.

As a result, trying to retain Bokshaj's accents for singing texts in English becomes an absurdity. If someone wants to retain Bokshaj's chant patterns and melodies, that can be done without too much of a challenge, but turning incorrect accents in one language into incorrect accents in another demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the scientific studies of chant.

Fr. Serge

Rufinus may answer some direct questions as quickly as does Father David. If you're reading, Fr. David, we're still waiting to hear why this is a "Restored", not "Revised" Divine Liturgy...

John - thanks for responding.



Of course not! But I have been seeing statements that "lots and lots of mistakes have been posted", and they simply haven't.



There were certainly quite a few questions asked, which led to a number of changes that were made, based on reconsideration of specific points by the commission. Although we did not have episcopal permission to post the Ordinary, we posted the ENTIRE 8 tones for over a year on the MCI website, as well as the weekly music from the cathedral, with an explicit request for comments, questions and suggestions as we do for all our materials. I received approximately five pages of suggestions and comments, none from posters on this forum, which resulted in at least six changes to the final music.

Could the bishops and the music commission had been more collaborative? Of course. But Professor Thompson worked to release as much music as possible, and I was present for many hours of lunchtime and evening discussion at the seminary about specifics of the music, long before it was officially release. We did what we could.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

Glad to see you recognize that the music was not a collaboration.

U-C

U-C,

What's your real name if you don't mind me asking? It seems to me if one likes his anonimity he has no rights asking personal questions of others. I would interpret his lack of response as yes, he minds you asking, so drop it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I plead the 5th Amendment!

U-C

Our little flock in Indiana sang the B series for the Nativity of John the Baptist. Most of the Church sang. The Cantor was great. Clearly he had rehearsed the music. (This was the best he had sung in a long time.)

I went home and listened again to the CDs. I love the Troparion, the Kontakion and the Irmos. The Magnification is splendid. Beautiful. I sang along with my borrowed book in hand. For years I've never been able to sing the Troparion, Kontakion, etc. I've always wondered what they sounded like. Now, with these CDs I know. They are so beautiful. How could anyone ask that these be tossed out?

The Bishops are to be commended for their boldness, courage and fortitude. They've gone back fifty years and brought back to life melodies that were forgotten. They have given people 9 additional melodies of the Our Father to choose from and people complain!!!! What ingratitude.

Mary, I am too ignorant to respond to your theological arguments. The music, I like.

Fr. Serge, the selections have expanded, no? Even if you had your favorite chant form, my argument is that no one would sing it because they would find it too hard to pick up the book. The people act like the prima donna ballerina who gets a hole in her tights and stomps off stage screaming, "I just can't do this!"

I've noticed something curious. The postive "I'll give the music the good old American try" remarks all come from the midwest.

The Chicken-Little/Rumpelstiltskin comments come from the east coast. Sadly, at least one or two people remind me of the school yard bullies from years past. (You'll see the pattern of attack from them - just look at their threads regarding Fr. Petras, Prof. Thompson in other forums.)

People must get the CDs and a book in order to really pick this up. I am amazed and grateful that the Metropolitan Cantor Institute and the Bishops took the time to put this together. It's just incredible.



Rufinus

Fr Deacon Lance.

I can't speak for U-C but I would gladly accept a reply from Rufinus along the lines of "That's none of your business", although a quantitative answer would also be OK.

I believe it is turning into a "craddle/covert" issue.

The "Nays" seem to be the craddle Byzantine Catholics and the "Yays" seem to be those who convrted to the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church. This seems to be the pattern.

Ungcsertezs

If they're coming to the BCC from the Roman rite, sure it sounds good. They don't know anything else. If you were raised in the Byzantine Catholic church you know how bad it is. Makes me wonder whats legal to smoke beside tabaccy in Pittsburgh?

U-C,

It seems to me those most opposed here on the forum are converts. But it should not matter eihter way, as a convert has as much right to voice their opinion yay or nay as a cradle. Something cradles often forget.

Fr. Deacon Lance

What boldness? What courage? What fortitude? The boldness, the courage, to go back to the point where the Roman Church started to go wrong and do the same thing? The Roman Church also gave it's people plenty of new music along with a plethora Eucharistic Canons. And a lot of good that did.

Instead of setting the Lord's Prayer to the 8 samohlasen tones (not a monumental musical feat), perhaps they could have actually tried restoring the Divine Liturgy to more closely follow the Recensio Rutena instead of giving people the Divine Liturgy of Pittsburgh.

huh...In't that strange...I come from the Roman rite, weaned on Gregorian Chant, and I don't seem to have much difficulty picking out the settings that are "strained" in their construction and their delivery.

I am not listening to the "bad" delivery of our cantors. I am listening to a borrowed copy of the CD's from the MCI.

M.

Well, I congratulate you as you are one of the few who actually knew what an eastern church is. Most western Christians have no clue about the Christian east, other than pirohi and onion domes on our churches.

I was borned and reared, for a good bit of the time, in Centre County, PA. The names in the Latin parish registry were Italian, Irish, Russian and Little Russian.

What wasn't to know?

M.

Cradle Byzantine Catholics are by nature defensive when it comes to traditional Prostopinije. The grew up with the Church Slavonic version of Prostopinije and are the laity that begs for the continued use of some Church Slavonic. They {we Vostochniki ;)} should be the most critical of any new musical settings.

Ungcsertezs

Father Deacon,

By convert do you mean former RCs or non-Catholics? (I read it as former RCs included and technically they're not converts although I know what you mean that they changed rites.)

I'm not a convert, I'm a cradle and I'm opposed.

I don't think that our Admin is a convert.

Etnick was not a convert before he went to the OCA.

Recluse is not a convert.

etc.

If you really want to set up a bifurcation regarding the demographics of it, I think that it is those who are not 'part of the Pittsburgh Club' and/or non-clergy are not in favor. Many who are Deacons, cantors in the 'Pittsburgh Club', etc. are in favor. Are there exceptions? Of course, but generally speaking, that is the way that the board seems to fall.

Monomakh

Jeff,

I will await the list of cantors who participated, as well as your responses to the many other questions about claims you have made. I am very much interested in speaking with them. You always seem to change the subject and conveniently forget to respond to the questions put to you.

As to �lots and lots of mistakes� there are. Hundreds is not an exaggeration if one does a sing through of the new pew book.

As to the soliciting input, I am not blaming you since I know that you were not a Commission member. Mr. Thompson was the lead member of the commission and successfully saw that his ideas were adopted. If the parishes flock to embrace the RDL�s new music he should get the lion�s share of the credit. If it fails he should get the lion�s share of the blame.

I do remain confused because you first claimed that the effort to include cantors was a great one and now you are suggesting that it was not, as demonstrated in your changed statements that it was not what it could have been. Please forgive me for believing others who were participants and who give a much different account than you do.

Since there is no choice now and the new music is mandated with no other music allowed we will quickly find out whether the people embrace the Revised Divine Liturgy � rubrics, texts and music. It is not your opinion or mine that matters now � it is the people�s. The multi-year experimentation at the cathedral in Munhall that has resulted in people fleeing the parish does not lend confidence to the venture. Nor do the reports of almost no singing at the Parma cathedral. The parish my mother attends started the RDL in late February. After 4 full months almost the only thing the people sing at all is �Lord, have mercy� (since most of them are unchanged). I�ve talked with priests who have already lost families. Since the mandate takes effect this week and all parishes will be celebrating the RDL from Friday forward we will soon see what the people think.

I am very willing to leave this discussion here and not continue it. For me it is now mostly academic. I am a loyal Ruthenian Catholic. Yet I find the Revised Divine Liturgy (incorrect rubrics and translations, offensive gender-neutral language, bad music) so painful that I cannot endure it, and am choosing not to worship in a Ruthenian Catholic Church. Oddly enough the Liturgy at the parishes I have visited so far in my search for a new home have a celebration of the Divine Liturgy that is far closer to the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy then that permitted in the Ruthenian Church! I will wait in the wings (as they say) with the prayerful hope that Rome rescinds the RDL or that the bishops come to their senses.

John

We had Slavonic Sunday today at my parish. I sang with pride the Otce Nas. Here's to you Ung-Certez, from one vostochnik to another!

Well I still have Holy Trinity and my Church Slavonic Prostopinije CD's and DVD's.

Ungcsertezs "Sit right back and listen to another thrilling tale (eh, Slavonic liturgy) of yester year, 'Spivaje Kantor...'"

I was baptized in the Latin rite as an infant, and have been attending a Byzantine church five or so years. And I've lived in Ohio my entire life, if that really matters.

One reason why former RCCers may be so sensitive about the RDL is the feeling of deja vu from a few decades ago. We heard the same pitch then that we're hearing now: the new liturgy would a combination of modernization plus a revival of old traditions, and liturgical experts assured us that it was just what we needed. They would create something that people would love to participate in.

For some peace of mind I attended a Tridentine indult Mass today. It was fine and holy. In terms of beauty, a big step up from my parish now, I'm sorry to say, but nowhere near where we were six months ago.

For those criticizing their Bishops, I would call to mind the words of Cardinal Newman - "God has an eye and an arm."

This came to my mind for some reason:

From The Way of a Pilgrim, p.118-119, trans. by Helen Bacovcin, c. 1992, Doubleday

"�Orthodox indeed,� he sneered. �You have orthodoxy only on your lips, but in action you are apostates�..What kind of a Liturgy is that? It is a sin! In our Church the Liturgy is celebrated with reverence; there is no skipping of parts, and the words are said distinctly; the music is touching; and the people stand in silence, men on one side and women on the other side; and all know when and what kind of a bow to make according to the regulations of the holy Church. Indeed, when you come into our Church you feel that you are attending a divine service, but in your Church it is not clear whether one is in the house of God or at a market!�

When I heard all this, I realized that the man was an Old Believer, but because he spoke to the point I could not argue with him or try to convert him. I only thought to myself that at this time it is impossible to convert Old Believers to the true Church. First we must improve our church services�The Old Believers are preoccupied with the external aspects of worship and they don�t seem to be aware of the interior man, while we are careless about the externals."

Today was the first time Holy Ghost parish (Mckees Rocks, Pa) used the RDL. It was also the first time that the HG congregation didn't sing along with the liturgy. A truly sad day for a parish that is used to strong congregational singing.

Vichnaja Pamjat'

Ungcsertezs

Anyone who seriously thinks that

does not know the Old Ritualists sufficiently well to have an informed opinion.

Fr. Serge

Good post. This idea of having to keep every note in Slavonic while neutering the words with gender-neutral English is a preoccupation with the externals.


Monomakh

Dear Rufinus,

Let me introduce you to a wonderful Latin phrase. If you need a translation just ask � I'm sure the majority of posters on ByzCath will be willing to help.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I believe it was Rufinus who said that he did not have the knowledge to address the underlying theology that is being discussed in some of these threads, and went on to explain how he was enjoying the externals of the new Byzantine order, learning the chant from his CD's.

Perhaps he was just saying something about the Old Believers that he heard someone else say in passing.

Mary