This is from another thread, but as it pertains to the RDL and raises a significant challenge for us as a church, I thought it worthy of further examination here.

Dn. Anthony

OK, I originally put the cart before the horse. Steve Petach put it right.

Ed

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the RDL is not then the solution to the problems in the BCC.

The larger question of course is, "Do we conform ourselves to the Liturgy or do make the Liturgy in our image and likeness?" Much of the problem in looking at the Liturgy as a creation of man, and thus an object of historical study and change, is that we are free then to change it as we see fit. It must first be seen, however, as a gift from God. Indeed, like the Scriptures themselves, it is a gift which comes through human hands, but nonetheless it is a Divine Liturgy. If we really thought some things were Divine, we would dare not alter them, lest we perish.

As moderns, we have just gotten into the bad habit of thinking that everything which is not of the natural order is simply a creation of man which we can change to suit our own particular needs.

One of my sources of consternation with the RDL wasn't the RDL itself... But the time, effort, and money put into its development, printing, and dissemination. For some time, my concern has been "why now?"

If one has a mind to do so, thinking back to those glorious pre-RDL days that some are so nostolgic for (frankly, I largely stay out of the debate on it, so I don't discuss the pros or cons of it unto itself much)... well thinking back to those glorious days were we in great shape then? Was our ratio of funerals to baptisms significantly different? How many grandchildren were to be found?

Some may roll their eyes at me and suggest this has become my hobby horse... (in fact, recently I have been writing more about it, but have felt this way for some time). Fact of the matter is, Eastern Christian churches of any stripe - EO, OO, EC - have largely been in decline where immigration has not been present.

Some of what we are dealing with today is in fact neither related to, addressed by, or exacerbated with the RDL.

We scrap this translation, involve all the other Byzantines in the process with the blessing of the Orthodox, and begin again.

While that's taking place, educate our people that we are Orthodox in our Liturgical practices and Catholic in Doctrine. Explain what Latinizations are, and that our church was slated to go out of existence. Remove the last of the Latinizations, and continue with praying Vespers, Matins the hours, etc. Make sure every Church has an icon screen & veil.

By the time everyone is on the same page with our new/old liturgical practices, the correct Liturgy will be ready, and people will be ready for unto ages of ages & the word orthodox. Prepare people for at least 1.5 hour Liturgy.

Remember if we get caught up in the cost of the RDL, saying, "but look how much money we've wasted?" Then we also need to remember, "money is the root of all evil."

People like me come here, to this board, to obtain information about Byzantine churches. If I was here to investigate a church with a view toward changing religions/rites, I'd run screaming the other way based on all the bitterness I find.

I have attended the local Byzantine church a few times, and the only comment I heard about the liturgy was "they changed it, now nobody knows" as someone tried to steer me toward the right page in the book. And the liturgy lasted an hour and a half. I don't see the problem.

What is your evidence for the EO being in decline? My impression is that it's just the opposite. A friend in TN said they've missions to support the steady stream of converts from evangelicalism.

This is very good and nice, but when did the Holy Spirit give us a copy of the Divine Liturgy? The whole idea of Liturgy is that it is a work of the people. People made the Liturgy to show our love to God. If your son or daughter drew you a picture and it was all scribbles, would you yell at them and not accept it because it wasn't up to your standard? No Liturgy, none, will ever live up to God's standard, we just hope and pray He accepts the best present we can give.

This seems to be the problem for Christians of the True Faith from the get-go. There is an ancient rule of faith that states a tight relationship between what one believes (doctrine) and what one prays (liturgial practice). People have their own certain ideas regarding what constitutes *Orthodox* and what constitutes *Catholic*. To suggest that one is both is an invitation to confusion. How do you educate that one is both when one is neither?

Ed

The quote is actually, "For the love of money is the root of all evils." (1 Timothy 6:10)

However the exact wording goes, when you choose the cost of something over doing the right thing(s), you're in big trouble.

The cost over the long haul may be the undoing of the Ruthenian Church. Is that expensive enough for you???

Even if it will cost alot of money who cares.It was and is a bad idea!

The cost of doing the RDL or the cost of UN-doing the RDL is the undoing of the Ruthenian Church? If choosing money over the right things is the worry, then why worry about the costs either way?

We have already seen what can happen with the cumulative financial and volunteer efforts of 100 years of a parish's life vanishing at the stroke of the Bishop's pen. In the long term all their effort could be considered 'wasted', money lost. But along the way, perhaps untold numbers of souls had been guided, supported by those efforts of those parishioners over the last century.

The costs associated with thr RDL have already been paid. Gone, not to return. (much like our taxes). If we spend all our energy focusing on the impact of the RDL in negative ways, we will only reap the negative benefit. I must note here that I myself was not pleased with the inclusive language used in the translation. However I have been generally happy with the music settings which are now considerably more faithful to the Slavonic melodies used in our parish.
(another note: I say in our/my parish. I know that the melodies aren't exactly what every parish used. for the purpose of this discussion, I don't care.)

There are times I regret having posted my comment used as the impetus for this thread as it seems to only stir the same wounds within our church rather than enlightened discussion.

Exactly, my brother. That is why there is so much talk about organic change--over time. This RDL was not a work of the people. It was the work of a committee with an agenda. It was forced down the people's throats.

Steve hits the nail on the head. The RDL is the fruit of a Church unfaithful to itself. Our bishops have forced accommodation with the world to seek approval from the world. That approval form the world will never come.


Again Steve hits the nail on the head. The bishops have spent the money. They need to write it off as a bad investment. The old books were more accurate.


That is why the RDL needs to be rescinded. Our whole Byzantine inheritance was banned with the signatures of four bishops. Now we have politically correct Liturgy designed by a committee. The Holy Spirit is nowhere in sight because they have forced Him out.

Keep writing Rome!

Amazing! Dostojno Jest may be 'truly proper', but is truly wrong in his interpretation of my words. Everything is still being twisted around to make the RDL the cause of the problems. I had not made the statement as a condemnation of the RDL, rather as a way of turning the question around to examine in our conscience why there is so much dislike of the RDL along with why our parishes have been shrinking for the last two generations, well before the introduction of the current RDL. In a short statement it is difficult to be pinpoint accurate regarding such nuances.

Our problems started more than 40 years ago for reasons un related to the RDL. We as a church have been drifting without undersatanding a clear purpose. The decade of the 60's certainly did little to help guide anybody. Now, with consumerism and other distractions, it is an increasingly difficult world to be differently Catholic.

Our Byzantine inheritance wasn't banned by four Bishops with the RDL. The Holy Spirit is still at work in the church. If the Holy Spirit was nowhere to be found just because of our Bishops, then you ascribe far too much power to our bishops rather than the awesome power of the Holy Spirit. The time frame may be longer than we are comfortable with, but the Holy Spirit is always at work!

Steve

I've been thinking about this, and I think you're on to something here. The Revised Divine Liturgy is a symptom, a product of a deeper issue (or, deeper issues). Food for thought.

I can make a big list of issues, but where do we start? Can we address the bigger questions?

And I'm not sure I feel like doing that, when the one thing that kept me enthusiastic about my Church (our songs, and our way of celebrating the Liturgy) is just gone.

But, in the hope that maybe fixing some of the big things, will be a way to restore our Liturgy, I'd give it a try.

Anyone else ready to face the problems in our Church? Where do we start? How can I help?

Nick

I agreed that the RDL is a product of the unfaithfulness of our Church to our own tradition. We refuse to be Byzantines. We have to be different than the Orthodox. And so each generation we reinvent ourselves. You seemed to be saying the same thing.


Sure it was banned. Our inheritance is our Liturgy. Yet another generation of bishops prohibits access to it.

You are right that the Holy Spirit remains active. His work can be delayed by bishops who want to embrace the world. The Holy Spirit will win in the end. Write to Rome today and watch the Spirit work. Our right to our Liturgy will someday be granted.

Keep writing Rome!

Yes, Steve, believe it or not some clergy are worried more about what the RDL has cost us in dollars, versus the lost souls. That is disconcerting. What is our focus as a church? Yes, we need money to heat our buildings, pay our priests and educate our vocations. If, though, the worth of the RDL should be deemed based upon the number of lost souls, not on how much money has been spent producing a book no one is in favor of. That's the point I made.

I wish you could take a trip to Pittsburgh and hear first hand how this Liturgy has hurt parish after parish. Sitting on the West Coast, you have no idea how many have been hurt by the RDL. I'm glad things are going well for you, because in many places that's simply not the case. I truly wish you could understand, but there just seems to be a disconnect of understanding on this topic from say, Cleveland westward.

I used to make many trips (several times a year) to Pittsburgh in previous years and hope I can make at least one this year. My last trip to Pittsburgh was prior to the promulgation of the RDL.

As such I have not personally had the chance to hear what you are describing. There are a considerable number of Byzantine Catholic parishes in the Pittsburgh area, which parish should I put on my list to visit? Out West it is 60 miles and more to our nearest Byzantine parish from Van Nuys so our parishes tend to be somewhat more insular in terms of comparing notes (especially those musical ones).

My understanding was that some people were concerned about dollars because of souls. You need dollars to evangelize and some felt that the RDL was not money well spent in the cause of souls. Money for pew books could've been spent for outreach programs. So, maybe when you hear someone complaining about the cost, you can put a charitable spin on it.

I am 'new' and am still in the Latin Rite. My only limited experience with the Liturgy has been the RDL. Could someone give me, in about 4-5 concise points, what is wrong with the new RDL (this would also bring other new people up to speed, perhaps).

1. Inclusive language-"Loves us all" instead of "Loves mankind". "Men" omitted from the Nicene Creed.

2. Bad music- Supposed to be faithful to the original, but nothing like the people have sung and loved for years.

3. Omitted litanies between the antiphons.

4. No Slavonic in the new book.

Not that I was the one who started this thread (though it was my comment which is the basis of the thread), we are drifting from the focus.
The questions asked by mwbonline have been answered voluminously within the RDL forum in other threads.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/207039/fpart/1

Thanks Etnick for the concise answer...saving a lot of time for myself and perhaps some other newer people who don't have unlimited time to read past 'voluminous' posts.

While it is a consice answer, it is also just one opinion at that and doesn't keep to the original point of the thread regarding whether the RDL is the result of what is wrong in the BCC. If, indeed, the RDL is the result/product of what is wrong in the BCC, then it means there is something prior that set the stage for the current situation and thus harder to pin blame on a particular person or persons. The RDL situation is complex and did not happen overnight as some might wish to believe.

1) Inclusive language, yes a problem, no need to have tinkered with the translation so.

2) The music is not "bad", that is purely his opinion. I feel that the music has improved from the 1965/1970 and other versions. It is much closer to the Slavonic melodies we used in my parish back in the Slavonic DL years, (some 30+ years ago).

3) Omitted litanies between antiphons. While they are omitted in the RDL, they had not been in widespread use in the Metropolia for some time prior to the RDL either.

4) No Slavonic. Yes a tragedy, though I sometimes think that Slavonic usage was destined to the dustbin 20 years before the RDL in a number of parishes fore a variety of reasons, not directly attributable to the promulgation of the RDL.

2. The music is horrible. I was a lifelong Greek Catholic until a little over a year ago. I'm 41 years old, and every parish I was ever in sang the same music, not the RDL music. Unless you're 90 years old, I can't believe you grew up with anything different.

3. While that's true, some parishes did take them. All should be taking them.

4. The loss of Slavonic in any Slavic Greek Catholic or Orthodox church in the USA is a tragedy,Period!

Every time I have checked, the new music is closer to the Prostopinje book. If it is _horrible_, then perhaps the problem is with the originals.

Etnick, I invite you to post your best example of a horrible song. Then post the previous version, then post the slavonic original. Let's compare. Let's take it out of the realm of emotional reaction.

I will not be baited into a technical tit for tat. All I know is that the new music stinks.

The old music was better in Slavonic or English, and I'm sure the majority will agree with me.

This thread is rapidly being derailed into another "I don't like the music" thread rather than staying on course. Just saying the music "stinks" without any academic proof is a thread derail, red herring, wild goose chase or any other way of saying it. Start a new thread regarding the music rather than derailing this one, please.

As the thread was originally posited is a good topic to think about how the RDL came about in the context of the BCC's history.

The music has been discussed at great length here on the Forum. I know quite a number of priests, cantors and faithful and the general consensus is that the new music isn't very good. Speaking as someone who has been a cantor for 30 years I agree with them. We have had lengthy discussions on several examples and it would be easy to take a copy of the new Pew Book and mark it up to identify the problems along with some simple solutions.

As a very short explanation one needs to understand that chant serves the text. When you set chant you just can’t erase the Slavonic text from Bokšaj, stuff in the English text, and claim that you’ve set chant and it matches Bokšaj. The tones are certainly flexible enough to be adjusted to serve the text (and we can see examples throughout Bokšaj where a repeatable melodic phrase was abbreviated or extended to serve the text). The settings for the fixed texts are approached similarly, but in the end one has to make sure that the English text is properly accentuated and that the settings are not strange sounding to the American ear (i.e., American ears do not like too many notes to a single syllable or a single phrase repeated over and over again). The style used to set the new settings is clearly one where the chant was considered to be paramount and the text secondary. That is why it doesn’t work very well.

Never dismiss the woman who comes to you after Liturgy and says “the music sound funny”. She may not have musical training to explain what she means but that does not mean what she is saying is not valid, or that she just all emotional. The Revision Commission left the text of the Lord’s Prayer alone because it was memorized and it would harm people to force them to change it. That same reason applies to much of the rest of the text of the Liturgy and also to the music. A literal application of Bokšaj – even if it had been done correctly – is not a good enough reason to hurt people by taking away what they have memorized. Liturgical prayer is, after all, the very way a person relates to the Lord. People expect stability from their liturgical relationship to the Lord. Memorized music is part of that. Put aside the English texts for the moment. Cantors who can sing Slavonic will understand this. Try singing "Dostojno Jest" or “Anhel vopijaše” from Bokšaj note-for-note in almost any parish. You’ll soon find out that there will be a mini-uprising from the faithful because the way it is notated in Bokšaj isn’t the way they grew up singing it. The Church in Europe has moved on and they don’t sing it exactly like Bokšaj, either. Chant is not canonical. It can be adjusted to best serve the text. It can grow. It should not hurt people (taking away their experiences and their memories), even if unintentionally.

If the music sounded good in Slavonic and was pleasing to the ear and sounds horrible in English, the problem is not with the original Slavonic. It’s with the English language setting.

Actually, we haven't had much experience of people saying "the new music sounds funny." In fact, no-one has said it to me at my parish. It might be because they don't want to talk to me, but Etnick's experience is not mine.

As for whether there was sufficient reason to change what people had gotten used to, that's a different issue, and a very legitimate concern.

While that is all well and good as an explanation of what you feel is wrong with the music, it still evaded the OP question. Which was: is the RDL the product of issues within the BCC? We seem to go in circles about what is wrong and right with the music, even though I will disagree regarding the notion that 'nobody' sings or ever sang Bokšaj as notated in their parish. This thread had the possibility of being a less emotional introspection on how and why the RDL came about and became what it is today. Oh well...

Actually, that is the issue in the original post that started this thread. What drove the idea that there needed to be particular changes. Did this come about in a vacuum or was there real push for change?

I agree with Steve that this thread is falling into another “I don’t like the music” thread. We could easily cover that again and review the new settings page by page and provide the academic proof a few need before they will understand along with possible corrections. That is what should have been done early on. I work for a software development company. It is standard procedure for a software coder to put his work before a large review team to identify problems in the code. Fixing the problems early on means better code, with a smaller probability it will be rejected by the customers.


This is very possibly the most insightful thing Steve has posted on the Forum. It deserves a good discussion unencumbered by side discussions of chant and even the RDL itself. The problems with the RDL are themselves symptoms of the larger problem in the Ruthenian Church. Each generation of bishops re-invents our Liturgy. None will accept the official liturgical books earlier bishops asked Rome to prepare for us - books the Orthodox accept and embrace; books our brother Greek Catholics and Orthodox in Europe are thriving with. The root of the problem likes with our lack of self-identity. Who are we? Lex orandi lex crendti. Certainly a worthy topic for discussion.

I feel I must elaborate on what I originally posted. Last March I learned that a BC parish in my area, (in fact I grew up in the parish), was using the RDL. I decided to go to the Saturday liturgy to check it out.

All seemed normal until "Shout joyfully to the Lord all the earth" came. I couldn't believe my ears. The book almost fell out of my hands. Now I'm not a cantor, or a musician, heck I can't even read music. But what I heard just was a big let down. It just didn't sound right.

Everyone here knows I'm Orthodox now. However, I dearly love the chant that I grew up with. Even though I'm no longer Byzantine Catholic, I felt a sense of betrayal. How can the one thing that makes the Ruthenian Byzantine Liturgy what it is suddenly be so abruptly changed. It's a big disservice to the older people who have been singing it for 60 plus years.

Gee, what a novel idea!

Here are some thoughts and hypothetical musings on trying to get to the issue (see initial post) of the underlying reasons based on the four criticisms of the RDL give in a previous post. It is a stream of consciousness rendering so pardon its unpolished, choppy nature.

1. Inclusive language-"Loves us all" instead of "Loves mankind". "Men" omitted from the Nicene Creed.

Is this the following of a fad, a false agenda? If so, what is the cause? Are there others? Why the proliferation of honorifics in the liturgy that are not there (cf. Vladyko)? What is this saying? How well is the sensus fidelium of our church respected? Have we dumbed-down the language of the liturgy wanting to be relevant rather than correct? Are we praying with speculative translations symptomatic of scholarship run amuck?

Having made this change are we now committing ourselves to an active role in stamping out sexism in the church and society. This is a significant change in the translation but isn’t it just tokenism if we are not intending to commit ourselves to further preaching and teaching the evils of non-inclusive language. Are we consistent, focused? Do we have a vision?

What other or different form of activism is proper or more proper to our church?


2. Bad music- Supposed to be faithful to the original, but nothing like the people have sung and loved for years.

What is the breath of our chant heritage and its organic development? How and why did the JMT era come about? Was it a good decision? Were others better suited, by virtue of their immersion in the living chant, to at least have a voice in directing this project?

The codification of our chant heritage is worth it, every penny, if it contributes to our custom of congregational singing (?): what did this one cost; who paid for it? Parishes are closing, monies are generated: are they being properly reinvested in evangelization, starting mission etc.? Should there be greater openness on financial matters, especially for controversial projects. Is our church properly up to date in using modern sources for disseminating information? Are we still in the cloak-and-dagger or siege mentality approach to decision making? ... is that ok or not?


3. Omitted litanies between the antiphons.

Are we to preserve are unique heritage in the Ruthenian Recension? Is the Recension given by Rome correct or flawed in the way a “single man” (?) etc. developed it? Are we now cut off from it - we are unable to celebrate it in English - under the dictates of the RDL promulgation? Are we still in accord with the other churches using the Ruthenian Recension? Should we be? By significant departures in flow and rubrics are we further diluting our heritage? Should our church be actively restoring a married priesthood? Should we be restoring the minor orders and then make proper use of them in enriching our liturgy and parishes?

4. No Slavonic in the new book.

Are we, should we be, ethnic parishes? Are we non-ethnic parishes that have and want to preserve, where possible, our ethnic heritage? Are we to be/become solely an American-culture-oriented church. If the later, how does it square with a rigid approach to the chant we use, the only-what’s-in-the-book! aproach? Are we acting consistently?

Dn. Anthony

As I see the problems, they are even more universal than the Ruthenian Church--they are symptomatic of the Catholic Church in the United States with a "Ruthenian twist." Orthodoxy itself is not immune from the same fate.

I take this passage from Father Barbour to sum up the main point:


http://www.balkanstudies.org/1998/barber.htm



My emphasis.