Dear Fellow Byzantines (at least I think most of you are)

My desire in sending this post is to initiate a conversation which I believe needs to happen on a broader plane in the Ruthenian Church, at least. I can't speak for the other Eastern Churches, as I don't know how things are going musically in other Eastern Churches.

I do want to hear what you think about these ideas below, and to have this conversation in your own parishes. I would like to know how possible these ideas are, how far off the mark I may be, or if you think I am barking up the wrong tree altogether. So with no further delay:

Using yesterday's Epistle (Tuesday of the 26th Week) as a jumping off point, I believe as many of our parishes as possible need to hire a professional cantor. As Paul said, the laborer deserves his wage. He also said priests who preach and teach should be paid double. So head cantors should be paid at least half of what pastors make. But let me explain.

The revered story that has St. Vladimir sending his men to all parts of the civilized world to discover the religion he would have his people adopt is well known. When his representatives found Constantinople, they experienced a liturgy where heaven met earth, or so they described. It must have been very beautiful. That is all this post is about. I believe our Divine Liturgies should be musically beautiful every Sunday, at least. While a few parishes are blessed with very good volunteer cantors and choirs, by and large, I do not think this is the case with most of our parishes. I have heard priests say that a poorly sung Divine Liturgy can actually drive people away. If that is true, we are too small a church to be doing that. It's true that many of our people have grown content with whomever is cantoring at their parish. But if the cantoring could be markedly improved at many of our parishes, I believe attendance would increase. Good attendance is not necessarily a sign of spiritual health, but we should be offering our best to God, regardless. I believe that parishes who could afford to pay a professionally trained and spiritually formed cantor on a per service basis, should do so.

By professionally trained, ideally we would be talking about someone who is degreed in music. Another possibility would be someone who has all the skills and motivation to get a degree in music, but has chosen another field as their major means of making a living.
By spiritually formed, I mean someone who has either grown up in the Byzantine church, or someone who has come to the Byzantine tradition and made it their own. Contrary to some traditionally held views, I do believe that Eastern Spiritually can be taught to those who are not born into it.

You may ask if there is any history for what I am proposing. There most certainly is, which is why no one can take credit for such a tried and true idea. Many of you know that even today, Byzantine cantors are often offered a stipend to sing for weddings and funerals.
"In the day", when the head cantor was also the religious instructor of the children, he was also paid a small salary for his work. Again, going back to St. Paul, the church has always paid there own, from their own resources, for the gifts offered.

Not to take anything away from the dedicated volunteers. If a volunteer is willing to work, to learn, and to improve at his own pace, by all means these people should be allowed to cantor, hopefully under the guidance and supervision of the a paid professional. This "head cantor" for each parish could train the volunteers, schedule cantors, and sing with the volunteers at every Sunday liturgy. The goal would be singing the chants accurately and beautifully and in a way that allows and encourages the people to participate musically, beautifully, and prayerfully. This of course would take a commitment from each parish, both financial and spiritual. The financial commitment should be seen as the parishes gift, her 'first fruits' offered to God in the liturgy. The benefit of a spiritual commitment for the good of the parish should be obvious.

The reasons why I see the need for this action as being so chronic in our church are these: regardless of whether the liturgy is celebrated in Church Slavonic or in the vernacular, there are less and less cantors who know the tones from memory. There are also less cantors who can read music. Given that more and more of our music is being set to standard modern notation, this becomes a growing concern. The beauty of our chant depends on our cantors singing accurately, but also beautifully. A beautiful vocal tone is rarely acquired simply be showing up. For volunteers to acquire such a tone, they usually need an example. A trained professional would provide that example.

Often times, chant in our church is sung too quickly, or too slowly, and almost always too loudly. We need to desire a higher quality of musicianship from and for our cantors, not only to aid the prayer of the faithful, but mostly to offered our best, which is the only gift worthy of giving to God. In the Old Country, in the days of the village parishes, when we had so many more people attending holy services, and so many more people singing the tones so often, and with fine voices leading the assemblies, it may not have been necessary to go looking for trained professional voices. But still, even then, they paid their cantors. Today, when we have less than 10% of the Byzantines we should have coming to church, we need to begin recruiting professionals even more than we ever have before.

It wouldn't have to be a living wage. We don't have to hire people full-time and pay health benefits or anything like that. But to pay a good cantor by the service, so that he will come, he will come prepared, and volunteers will sing with him learning the art well, and perhaps even aspiring to more serious study themselves, such consistency in our services could promise many benefits.

Our brothers an sisters in the Roman church have learned this lesson better than we. While we have remained more faithful in preserving the musical treasures of our liturgy, they have actually taken the necessary step of hiring people who will tend there music in a much more beautiful way. In short, we have simple, beautiful chant, but it is generally not sung well at all. I'm not talking about the RDL or how music is written. If the people have the notation in front of them, the notation should be followed. But regardless of how it has or is being written, it needs to be sung more beautifully, with more finesse and thoughtfulness. Musically speaking, I am still in search of that place where heaven and earth meet. In the Ruthenian church, I've yet to find it.

So that's it. Do you agree? Disagree? Have another suggestion? Please let me know what you think. My focus is on singing our services beautifully, regardless of what language we use, or what books we sing out of. I haven't written much about how choirs can contribute to all this, but that too needs to be explored and encouraged. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that the most beautiful Ruthenian liturgy would always have both choral settings AND prostopinije chant. Again, please let me know what you think.

Many Years
Tim Woods

I disagree. The centuries-old Plain Chant tradition, Subcarpathian-Rus' Prostopinije (and Samoilka as well), is what has sustained the authenic and unique liturgical express of the "Ruthenian Recension" Churches. The Choral tradition was brought into the "Ruthenian Recension" Churches from the outside. East Slavic choral music was mostly used for the Cathedral parishes, whether it was L'viv, Peremyshyl, or Uzhorod. I would place the most importance on the Plain Chant tradition, as it is used on a daily basis by all the faithful.

Ung

Very much agree. Distinct practices, from my infrequent study on the matter, continue when there is a bright line of division respected and acknowledged in practice.

I agree; the participatory aspect of the people in the rite itself, by way of responses and hymns integral to the form of the liturgy, is of immeasurable value -- in fact it is in a sense essential. This to me is most authentic, especially when it is accomplished as sung prayer. (And yes, simple but beautifully sung.)

I regard the initial post as a legitimate proposal for exploration. The laborer is certainly worthy of his hire. To me it is necessary here, however, to also equate the sense of profession with vocation, recalling that the church has the so-called minor orders, that they need to be recovered, and that our present combined ("ordination") service of tonsure-candlebearer-lector embraces the function of the cantor (the singing of the troparia). The professional, no matter how well credentialed, should not also be just the hireling.

We have, I believe, for better or for worse, the work of the professional in the form of the "Teal Tyrant." It is or is supposed to be all-embracing for chant in English. We are living with it, it is ours, like it or not. But (and this is purely a rhetorical question) where is the professional?

The centuries-old Plain Chant tradition, Subcarpathian-Rus' Prostopinije (and Samoilka as well), is what has sustained the authenic and unique liturgical express of the "Ruthenian Recension" Churches. The Choral tradition was brought into the "Ruthenian Recension" Churches from the outside. East Slavic choral music was mostly used for the Cathedral parishes, whether it was L'viv, Peremyshyl, or Uzhorod. I would place the most importance on the Plain Chant tradition, as it is used on a daily basis by all the faithful.

Ung

My concern is for music done beautifully. If you want to stick to the chant only, and have it done well by a trained musician, that's fine. In my experience, combining chant with choral music, though not AS authentic as just prostopinije alone, is still a beautiful experience of worship. People can participate internally while a choir sings, but I would not want to go the route of the Russian tradition and have the choir sing everything.
Tim Woods

To ajk

If you believe the idea itself to be worthy of further consideration, I'm grateful for that. We can deal with choirs later. I'm not quite sure I understand your question "where is the professional"? I agree he should be formed spiritually, not simply hired, but this can be done in tandem with his service as a cantor.
I would be willing to wait until a hired cantor is spiritually formed, but most parishes cannot wait. They need good help and they need it now.

Can you see this happening in your parish?
Tim Woods

I continue to ponder. Two additional points though:

1. the role and vision of the MCI

2. St. Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church in Hillsborough NJ which employs, I believe, a "full time" cantor along the lines described

Shouldn't he be a "professional from within the musical tradition", so that he, the professional, would understand the original Church Slavonic settings and nuances?

Ung

TIM:

I think you meant "to make sure" not to take out an insurance policy for beautiful liturgies. I changed your thread topic.

BOB

Actually,
link

Regarding the professional cantor in NJ, please tell us more.
Tim

Ideally, of course, we would want trained musicians who also come from the Byzantine tradition, but often this cannot happen. Many of the best cantors in our church today came from the Roman or protestant traditions. They have a trained voice, and also have taken care to learn the Divine Liturgy, not only technically (what comes next) but spiritually. In some of our parishes, the need for a good cantor is so great, that I believe we should hire a professional now, and teach him/her the Eastern spirituality "on the job", so to speak, which includes teaching him/her that this is not just a job, but a calling

Yes, but if a monthly premium would "insure" that the cantor sings musically, accurately, with a steady tempo the people can follow, but who also is expressive and can teach Byzantine congregations that chant does not always need to be too slow or too fast, or too loud, I would pay that premium before my car insurance. Someone once pointed out to me that paying trained cantors would give us a kind of "insurance" because, if they were not meeting expectations, they could be dismissed. As it is, it is very difficult to dismiss a good-hearted cantor whose best days are behind him. Meanwhile, younger and more capable cantors are being drawn to other opportunities for service. But will we admit that we need to address this issue in our church in time?
Tim

We just completed a cantor class that was well attended. A cantor from a church south of us gave an all day class in the history, organization, and method for good cantor-ing. It was followed the next day by a class for children on the role of reader. It piqued interest in some of them and made that part of the liturgy more understandable/approachable so that next Sunday they will hopefully be more connected with the epistles when they are intoned. Before I am asked, the goal was _not_ to have small or adolescent children reading, but to bring them closer to that moment in the liturgy.

So you are "reading" the Epistles and not chanting the Epistles? If so, why not make an effort to learn to chant the Epistle readings? I think reading the Epistles and reciting the Nicene Creed, which has become the norm in the "Sui Juris Metropolitan Byzantine Church in America", is done to ensure the Divine Liturgy does not last longer than one hour, and that's a shame.

Ung

No not at all... we are chanting the epistles. I keep hearing about all these odd abridgments, but have yet to ever experience them first hand. Divine liturgy for me has never lasted less than 90 minutes. If there is anything odd about our parish it is that the entire congregation sings - from my 3 year old to the 80 year old gentleman who always sits in the second row.

Ung,

My parish chants the Epistle and sings the Creed, but if we were to just read or recite them, I doubt that it would shorten the liturgy more then a few minutes. A liturgy under an hour would still not be accomplished.

Most BCC parishes that I have been to celebrate the Divine Liturgy reverently with no regard to a time schedule. I have never attended a Sunday Divine Liturgy that took less than 75 Minutes.

Mike

[quote=Mike L.]

My parish chants the Epistle and sings the Creed, but if we were to just read or recite them, I doubt that it would shorten the liturgy more then a few minutes. A liturgy under an hour would still not be accomplished.

Most BCC parishes that I have been to celebrate the Divine Liturgy reverently with no regard to a time schedule. I have never attended a Sunday Divine Liturgy that took less than 75 Minutes.

[quote=Mike L.]



Then your parish is the exception to this rule. Out East here, whether in the Parma Eparchy, Pittsburgh Archeparchy or Passaic Eparchy, it is the norm to just have anyone "recite" the Epistle and the whole congregation to "recite" the Nicene Creed. This recitation never seems to be done in the numerous Orthodox parishes that I attend.

In fact, at St. Michael the Archangel Orthodox (ACROD) Church Centennial Hierarchial Divine Liturgy yesterday, Metropolitan Nicholas "tonsured" a young man to order of Reader. In the Orthodox Church, the Epistle is never simply recited, but always chanted, according to each Orthodox Churches' liturgical chant tradition. This is one example what seperates the Byzantine Catholic parishes from their sister Orthodox Churches. How committed are our Byzantine Catholic parishes dedicated to uphold our Eastern Christian liturgical tradition?

...but I digress.

Ung

Sometimes I wonder if being on the West coast were there are fewer parishes allows us to be a bit more traditional and not just simply fall into the status quo by blindly following what the Parish in the next town does?

I don't know much more and no sense getting it second hand from me. The link to the parish's website has contact information for the pastor, Fr. Ed Cimbala, who is very accessible. He initiated the arrangements for the cantor, and this was a priority item for him; I'm sure he'd be very willing to share his thoughts on the matter -- call him or email to get the best direct info. And let us know what you find.

Tim,

Beauty is the in eye and ear of the beholder. I think that the most beautiful sound is when the entire congregation is singing together praises to God instead of listening and praying through one individual's or a small group's interpretation of how they think the liturgy should sound.

-Katie g

Ung,
I think that reading the Epistle is the "exception" rather than chanting. The Epistle and Creed are always chanted Creek is sung) in DuBois and in Sykesville on Sundays.

How many BC parishes have you been to which read the Epistle and Creed?

Fr Deacon Paul

"...it is the norm to just have anyone "recite" the Epistle and the whole congregation to "recite" the Nicene Creed. This recitation never seems to be done in the numerous Orthodox parishes that I attend"

Reciting the Nicene Creed is the Greek practice.

If it's any comfort to you, the Greek Orthodox cathedral in the Philippines normally celebrates the Divine Liturgy in just about an hour. The cantors don't know Byzantine chant so they just "recto tono" much of the liturgy.

All fives Byzantine Catholic parishes that I attend, all who are in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, recite the Nicene Creed. I believe it is purposely done to keep the liturgy under one hour.

Ung

I am Greek Orthodox but attend an ACROD parish in the Chicago area.
First of all in the Greek church we always recite the Creed and the Our Father in Greek and English. This is done so that everyone can say it together. I don't think there are any musical settings for these, and have never heard them sung either here or in Greece.
Secondly, in my ACROD parish we also recite the Creed. As you know, the ACROD is very close to the BBC in chant, rubrics, and other customs. I also know that many other Orthodox think that the ACROD is very latinized and not to be looked at for any kind of guidance or Liturgical purity. HOWEVER, even we can't do a Sunday Divine Litugy in less than 1 hour.
If everything in the book is taken, even with the Creed recited, we still CANNOT finish in less than 1hr.45-55 mins. It is impossible! Maybe on a minor Feast day when there are only 10 people in church it can be an hour and 15 minutes, but never on a Sunday. And this is with no Deacon! And with plain chant (with a choir it still clocks in the same)!
So I find it hard to accept that a BBC Liturgy can be done in less than 1 hr. I don't doubt you, I just find it hard to believe.

I also think that a cantor should be paid if the parish can do so. But if a cantor can't be found, then hold classes and train the parish members to sing in the simplest tones possible rather than get people who are musicaly capable but ignorant of the tradition and "sound" of Prostopenie.
I would rather have a whole congregation singing badly or a scratchy choir than the beauitful, proud voice of a foreigner. I have listened to the recordings on the Metropolitan Cantor Institute site, and while they are nice, there is someting "off" about them.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Nino

As a member of the BCC for approximately 34 years my experience was almost every week was under 1 hour. Currently with ACROD our minimum is 75 minutes. As cantor in both the BCC and now ACROD, almost every week I try to "pinpoint" what we were (or were not doing) and I can not come up with much difference. Beatitudes and litany before the Our Father do not constitute a 20 minute difference.

...but by using the RDL with the priest "reciting" the Anaphora prayers out loud, and parishes only singing one verse of the "Thrice Holy Hymn", and the people "reciting" the Nicene Creed again to keep liturgy under one hour. So most of the liturgy is "rushed" and "shortened" just to let the priest recite these prayers out loud. Not only does it shorten the liturgical experience, it also breaks the flow of the liturgy, especially when everyone is singing together only to have an abrupted halt to stop and "recite" the Anaphora prayers and "recite" the Nicene Creed", etc.

Ung

Singing the "Sviaty Boze" only once? For real? Where is that happening? That should be brought to the Bishop's attention.

In 11 or so years of attending a Ruthenian church, only a few times can I remember the Sunday DL lasting under 1 hour 15 minutes at least, and that is under 3 separate pastors. The creed was always sung too.

[/quote]

...but by using the RDL with the priest "reciting" the Anaphora prayers out loud, and parishes only singing one verse of the "Thrice Holy Hymn", and the people "reciting" the Nicene Creed again to keep liturgy under one hour. So most of the liturgy is "rushed" and "shortened" just to let the priest recite these prayers out loud. Not only does it shorten the liturgical experience, it also breaks the flow of the liturgy, especially when everyone is singing together only to have an abrupted halt to stop and "recite" the Anaphora prayers and "recite" the Nicene Creed", etc.

Ung [/quote]

Ung,

Some of our priests chant the Anaphora prayers, not recite them. I can't tell you the percentage.

As far as breaking the "flow", do you chant or recite the Communion Prayer?
Please try to make your comments representative, not absolute. I value your opinion and know that you cherish your Faith, but some readers of this forum who have never been to a BC Divine Liturgy may be forming some bad opinions which aren't totally correct.

Praying for fraternal charity, especially within the Eastern Churches,

Fr. Deacon Paul

In our parish, we recite the Communion Prayer. I've only heard it sung once (at Uniontown) to the music otherwise used for the Creed.

The Greeks, however, enjoy singing "Of Thy Mystical Supper . .."

Fr. Serge

All five parishes of the Pittsburgh Archeparcy that I attend truncate the Trisagion since the implementation of the RDL.

Ung

Did they do this before the RDL? Is this at the direction of the priest or the cantor?

I never heard a shorten Trisagion before the RDL was implemented.

Ung

How much is it shortened? I've never heard of this before.

Sometimes it is sung once with repeating the refrain twice (now set aside all earthy cares), sometimes it is sung twice and repeating the the refrain. Again, it is done to shortened the liturgy.

Ung

But the words from the liturgy in () are from the Cherubikon not the Trisagion.

Your right, my bad. It is indeed The Cherubic Hymn that I was referring to, and not the Trisagion Hymn. Sorry for the confusion. It is a shortened Cherubic Hymn, instead of singing a Thrice Holy Hymn, it's becoming a once or twice holy hymn now.

Ung

The Thrice Holy Hymn the Cherubic Hymn is refering to is the Triumphal Hymn/Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts...

There is no rubric regarding how many times the Cherubic Hymn is sung. It obviously must be sung at once and may be sung for as long as it takes the deacon to cense, the priest to recite the prayer of the faithul and the prayer: "No one who is bound...", the priest and deacon to recite the Cherubic Hymn three time themselves, and process to the prothesis. What U-C may be noticing is that in the old Liturgy the priest said two prayers of the faithful, in the RDL he says one.

Also my parish has always recited the Creed and our Liturgy has always been an hour, these things have nothing to do with the RDL.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The point I was making that I never witnessed a parish not singing the Cherubic Hymn three times before the RDL was implemented. I have witnessed recitation of the Nicene Creed since the mid 1990's.

Ung

I realize this is in the Kliros not the Scripture forum, but as it has come up here and since a deeper understanding of our prayer goes to inspiring beautiful liturgy, I thought I would offer these two selections from Scripture. In Scripture they are the only two places where the thrice holy acclamation is found:

Qadōsh, qadōsh, qadōsh
Hagios, hagios, hagios
Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus
Svjat, svjat, svjat

And they are a basis for a profound meditation on liturgy.

The first, from the last book of our scripture, the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, is the archetype of our liturgy, the prototype being that which occurred on the night before He was handed over:

Revelation 4:4 Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. 5 From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God; 6  and before the throne there is as it were a sea of glass, like crystal. And round the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: 7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle.[cf. Ezek 1:10-11ff] 8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty [Kurios ho Theos ho Pantokratōr], who was and is and is to come!" 9 And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives for ever and ever [eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn], 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne, singing, 11 "Worthy are you, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things; because of your will they came to be and were created."

And this prefigured in the description of Isaiah (the ancient liturgical languages, Greek, Latin and Slavonic preserving the designation Sabaoth; the words of the seraph to Isaiah are repeated at the communion of the priest and deacon, link):


Isaiah 6:1 In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord (MT: Adonai; LXX: Kurion) seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. 2 Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft. 3 "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD [MT:YHWH; LXX: Kurios] Sabaoth!" they cried one to the other. "All the earth is filled with his glory!" 4 At the sound of that cry, the frame of the door shook and the house was filled with smoke. 5 Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD [MT:YHWH; LXX: Kurios] Sabaoth!" 6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 He touched my mouth with it and said "Behold, this has touched your lips, and will take away your iniquities, and will purge off your sins." 8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord (MT: Adonai; LXX: Kuriou) saying, "Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?" "Here I am," I said; "send me!"

Ung,

In my parish the repeating of the Cherubic Hymn has been shortened because the deacon, rather than the priest, does the incensation; thus the practical reason for shortening the singing of the hymn.

The re-emergence of a concelebrating diaconate and the recited or chanted Anaphora prayers have removed the reason (to cover the silence)for extended singing. The RDL assumes there is a deacon; the absence of a deacon requires a departure from the norm.

I hope that this explanation is helpful. I recognize that some people will continue to disagree with the changes, but some changes are required to make up for the aberration of diaconal absence with which the Byzantine Catholic Church has tolerated for so long.

Fr Deacon Paul

Just for my curiosity, can you reference this new RDL rubric in any "Ruthenian Recension" Orthodox jurisdiction or is a case of the "Sui Juris Metropolitan Church of America" doing this combination of shorten Cherubic Hymn/diaconal incensation on their own?

Ung

Ung,

I can't find a rubric where the people sing the "Cherubic Hymn" three times in "Ordo Celebrationis", or in my old prayer books.

Even before the English Divine Liturgy I can't remember the entire Iže Cheruvimy" sung thrice, only parts of it.

Can you reference any Greek Catholic DL which mandates the people singing it three times? I don't doubt that some cantors DID sing it three times, but only to give the priest time for prayers, censing, then recitation of the Cherubic Hymn.

As Fr Deacon Lance stated the priest and deacon recite it three times, and that hasn't changed.

Your Rusyn brother,
Fr. Deacon Paul

I have hesitated to comment on this portion of the liturgy -- Prayers of the Faithful & Cherubikon -- because a full treatment of what is and is not happening now and what was usual pre-RDL practice would deserve a separate thread. Some random observations:

1. In my experience of the Divine Liturgy prior to the RDL, a ritual element that was already impoverished compared to the rubrics of the Recension as properly found in the 1965 liturgicon, was the rite at the Prayers of the Faithful and Cherubikon. This practice along with further alterations now present as introduced in the RDL (although also seen in part already in the 1998 Passaic liturgicon) has continued and worsened. If the pre-RDL description of common practice is "impoverished," for the mandated RDL it would be "butchered."

2. The "Ordo Celebrationis" is not the place to look for rubric details for the people; it gives detailed and expanded rubrics for the clergy.

3. The pacing of the liturgy is very different depending on whether a deacon is present and/or the diakonika at the Prayers of the Faithful are taken.

4. The RDL here has very noticeable departures from the Ordo/Služebnik Recension rubrics.

5. Regarding adherence to the Recension Ordo/Služebnik versus RDL, that priest and deacon say the Cherubikon thrice has not changed; how they say it (rubrics) have.

6. See for yourself (picking up at the Prayer of the Faithful): 1965 liturgicon , Ordo , Služebnik ; Chrysostom RDL, see pages 59ff .

I think the only way to “ensure beautiful liturgies” is to get rid of the RDL. It is a model of how to destroy the Ruthenian Church.

Our cantors are almost all volunteers. They offer a lot to the church. They give their time and their talent and their own money. Why do the bishops have so much contempt for them? No one asked them about this new liturgy. They brought in a Roman Catholic who was never a successful cantor to re-write our chant. What does that say about the contempt our bishops have for our cantors? Nicolette got to make suggestions but they were almost all ignored. Bishop John admits that the whole church is in free fall since the RDL. But he and the other bishops aren’t about to do anything about it. It’s a matter of pride. They’d rather see the church fall apart then admit the RDL was a horrible mistake.

Want to ensure beautiful liturgies?

Look at the RDL and you will know what not to do.

Look at the RDL and do the opposite.

We cannot let them to turn us into Revised, Politically Correct Christians. Their imitation of the Episcopalians is a quick trip to death.

Keep praying and keep fighting for the Ruthenian Liturgy! God is with us!

Ung,

In your original comment to which I responded, I understood that you stated that the Cherubic Hymn was mandated to be sung three times. You stated this in the context of a difference between the 1965 DL and the 2007 DL. I can't find anything to support this in the references that you posted.

Nor was it sung three times during the Pascal DL of St George in Aliquippa which is referenced on this Home Page. They sang the first part in the traditional Slavonic (with some words sung once, some repeated twice, and some thrice (but only sung once). The second part of the Hymn was sung in English only once.

Again, I ask, to you have anything to support the singing of the Cherubic Hymn three times?

I would guess that in at least 90% of the parishes there is NO difference in the prayer/rubrics content as celebrated between the pre-RDL and post-RDL. In the remaining 10% the difference is the two short litanies after the silent priest's 1st and 2nd Prayer of the Faithful.

S'nami Boh!
Fr Deacon Paul

Where has anyone stated that "the Cherubic Hymn was mandated to be sung three times"? What are the mentioned references? It has been explained in a previous post (repeated in part below) that there is no rubric specifying the number of times the Cherubic Hymn is sung by the People. It's sung to cover the ritual action; I've heard it sung, on occasion, even more than three times.



Those short litanies and the rubrics in the Ordo and Recension liturgicon have a considerable impact on what goes on, the flow of the liturgy, its rhythm. Perhaps a separate thread is in order to actually compare, in detail, what is in the Recension and what is in the RDL -- and I mean, objectively compare the documents in what they ACTUALLY SAY. The RDL has done nothing here but introduce further confusion and idiosyncratic liturgy. Consider for instance:



So, is there one or are there two Prayers of the Faithful in the RDL? I see two in the liturgicon, the second one repeated, occurring both before the First Prayer following the Litany for the Catechumens, and then again following the First Prayer of the Faithful.

While not claiming it to be mandated U-C insists it was always sung three times pre-RDL.

I was in error, thinking they had reduced it to one prayer in all instances. According to the 07 Liturgicon when the Litany and Prayer of the Catechumens is taken only the second Prayer of the Faithful is taken. In this instance the prayers are taken aloud. If the Litany and Prayer of the Catechumens is not taken, both Prayers of the Faithful are recited quietly. I will note that in some Greek Orthodox editions the Prayer of the Faithful is reduced to the second prayer only.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In all honesty, I always remember the Cherubic Hymn being sung three times with several reps of the refrain before the implementation of the RDL, at least in the parishes I attend that are part of the Archeparchy.

Ung

Hi Ung!

When I cantored in the BCC. It had been very common for the Cherubic Hymn to be sung 3x...Cantoring in my Orthodox parish we only sing it one time with "Let us now lay aside..." being repeated once or twice...the difference is the setting and how slowly, or quickly it is sung...my Orthodox parish tends to sing what has been called "funeral durge mode"...Although I have quickened the pace up in most other places I have let the people continue with the Cherubic Hymn in "slow mode" since it works well...

It's all a matter of how quickly one sings (or doesn't sing).

Job

Job,

I would like to poll the Orthodox Churches that use the "Ruthenian Recension" and determine a concensus for the Cherubic Hymn rubric.

Ung

On the Cherubic Hymn – Consider that - when sung in Slavonic - the common Ruthenian plain chant settings one repeated the melody three times to sing the words of the hymn once. This was also true with many of the choral settings. It was not at all unusual to repeat the last part (or even part of the last part) to fill time if the priest was not ready for the Great Entrance (though doing this in English today sounds really silly).

When the Cherubic Hymn was set in English in the 1960s the arrangers wisely fit the entire text to the melody without repeating the melody. This allows the ear to grasp the texts quickly (in a shorter amount of time). Also, repeating words numerous times is not something one generally finds in American music (refrains – yes; multiple repeats of the main text – no).

When the Cherubic Hymn was sung in English the tendency was to sing it three times (filling roughly the same amount of time as singing it in Slavonic did).

There is no hard and fast tradition of singing it three times. Really, when sung in Slavonic one sang the text through once (even though it took three times through the melody to get through the words), and sometimes the last part was repeated to fill time. There are numerous problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy that need correcting but the number of times one sings the Cherubic Hymn is not one of them.

In my Melkite parish the people usually sing the melody for the Cherubic Hymn twice, and at the end of the second time add “that we may welcome the King” and then the deacon starts the commemorations. It is very effective.

------


This provides more support to show that the RDL is a failure.

The problem was not and is not with the Byzantine Liturgy. It did not need to be reformed and the Revision has only succeeded in hurting the Church. Perhaps I sound like a broken record (if you are old enough to know what a record is) but the way forward here is to reprint the 1964 with corrections, respecting the texts and the music people know and have memorized (changing only what is necessary). If we work towards a complete and full celebration of the Divine Liturgy and other Divine Services the Lord can grow this Church.


True, but don’t forget the Greeks are slowing restoring the missing litanies to their common practice. The new Narthex Press Basil Liturgcion has added back the missing litanies (though for now in an appendix since they are not actually required). It is a good pastoral step for it reminds all who see it that the litanies belong there.

Admin.,

I was just pointing out that in the parishes I attend in the Archeparchy, the "Thrice Holy Hymn"/Cherubic Hymn was always sung three times, in English, and was only truncated after the RDL was imposed.

Ung

Ung,

The Trisagion ("Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us") should be sung three times (as was always customary). If you know of five parishes that do not sing it correctly then complain to the pastors, to the bishops and to Rome. Complaints here are pretty useless; only complaints to those in authority can bring about change.

The Cherubic Hymn must be sung at least once. It may be that one or more parishes now sing it only once. There is no directive in the RDL that limits it to being sung only once.

John

In re-reading this thread I spotted:


I will note that in both the Melkite and Russian Orthodox parishes I attend both have at least one deacon serving (when it is appropriate) and there has been no need to re-write the rubrics. Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy are all served according to the normative rubrics of those recensions (which are not greatly different than those of the Ruthenian recension). Father Deacon Paul is incorrect when he states that changes to the rubrics were required to make up for the abberation of deaconal absence. What is needed is to follow the official rubrics carefully and correctly and to celebrate the full Liturgy.

I just, out of habit, question all changes since the imposition of the RDL.

Ung

As I have noted above and elsewhere, there are significant changes here in the RDL relative to the Recension. They may or may not influence the way the Cherubic Hymn is sung. A question to all: Was the full rite, C below (page 26ff) with shortest time to cover, routinely followed anywhere?

------------------

Here’s my take on the time requirements for the singing of the Cherubic Hymn to cover the ritual action; they go from longest to shortest in my reckoning.

A. No deacon and no diakonika (although the Ordo specifies that the priest takes these). The singing covers

1 the saying of the two prayers of the faithful and
2 the prayer of the Cherubicon by the priest who only then begins and
3 does the incensing (what is incensed can vary)
4 who then returns to the Holy Table to say with uplifted hands the Cherubic Hymn thrice,
5 then going to the proskomedia table etc. up to the entrance/commemoration.

B. Deacon but no diakonika. The singing covers

1. The deacon immediately does the incensing while the priest says the two prayers of the faithful
2. and the prayer of the Cherubicon
3. The priest and deacon do 4 and 5 as in A.

C. According to the Recension and as found in the 1965 liturgicon, page 26ff :

The saying of the two prayers of the faithful each with an ekphosesis and the diaconika and responses of the people fills this portion of the ritual. The singing of the Cherubic Hymn then does not cover this action as in 1 & 2 of A and B above.

The singing starts only after with the incensing by the deacon that is roughly simultaneous with the Prayer of the Cherubicon by the priest. The rest as in B 3.

John,

In my comments I was neither advocating nor opposing the RUBRICS, but addressing the Ung's comment about the Cherubic Hymm. In your post #305851 you basically said the same as I, but a bit less verbose.

It is often said that poster's questions are often ignored; I was trying to be responsive in a logical way. Please look closer at my post and tell me exactly what I said that was was "incorrect?"

S'nami Boh
Fr Deacon Paul

Father Deacon Paul,

You wrote: "The RDL assumes there is a deacon; the absence of a deacon requires a departure from the norm" and "I recognize that some people will continue to disagree with the changes, but some changes are required to make up for the aberration of diaconal absence with which the Byzantine Catholic Church has tolerated for so long."

The 1964 assumed a deacon, too, as does the 1941/42 normative edition. Your post carries a suggestion that the 2007 RDL corrects a departure from the norm that was in the 1964 and 1942 texts. This is not correct. The 2007 RDL can not claim any credit for restoring correct rubrics regarding deacons or anything else as the correct rubrics were already in the previous editions.

I have been used to Divine Liturgies with deacons for at least 20 years. When properly celebrated there is no significant difference in the amount of time needed to sing the Cherubic Hymn when a deacon is present or when the priest celebrates alone. The RDL contains a number of incorrect rubrics.

Sorry to be picky but accuracy is important.

John

John,

You're correct about the history of the rubrics and deacons. I was posting in the context of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh in which Ung is from. We hadn't had "permanent" deacons until five years ago.

Fr Deacon Paul

Dear Katie

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is there such a thing as Absolute Beauty?
I would guess you would agree that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth (namely God). If so, then what would you think of this statement: "Truth is beautiful in itself"? That's from the CCC, #2500. If Truth is absolute, and Truth is beautiful, then can't Beauty be absolute too? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then nothing and No One is beautiful, not even God. But if there is Absolute Beauty, then something can be beautiful no matter what someone thinks of it. God exists, no matter how many people don't believe in Him. so too with Beauty, of which God is the Author.
Therefore, true beauty cannot be in the eye of the beholder.
I agree that a congregation singing well is beautiful. But can one sincere congregation sound more musically beautiful than another? Of course, musically they can.
As far as listening goes, if one can have a beautiful experience, even an experience of Christ, at home, listening to a beautiful recording, then one can also have an experience of Christ, a worshipful experience, listening to a good choir at church. As far as having to follow someone else's interpretation of how the liturgy should be sung, we can't avoid that. Every cantor does it a little differently, and if we don't follow the cantor, or rather if the cantor doesn't follow the book, the experience of prayer does become more difficult.

Tim

Dear Admin

I don't understand completely your opinion that the RDL is a failure. I am not familiar with the 1964 Liturgy, but there must be some reason why we are not using that one. Undoubtedly, the translation may have something to do with that? In the context of Ensuring Beautiful Liturgies, I'm sure it is possible to do the RDL beautifully. People always resist change. How long was the 1964 liturgy in force before it was finally accepted by the faithful? these things take time. I can guess that the 1964 Liturgy was also beautifully done, from time to time.

Tim

Dear Lady Byzantine,

It would be very helpful if you could be very specific about how the RDL is destroying the Ruthenian Church. I could point to many things that may finally bring the demise of our church, but the RDL would not be one of them.

Our volunteer cantors do give so much of themselves, but we don't ask people who know nothing about architecture to design our churches, or nothing about plumbing to plumb our churches, or nothing about electrinics to wire our churches. This is not to take anything away from our cantors who know what they are doing, and the good hearted ones who may just have no help or guidance. Why can we not fortify the good efforts of our volunteer cantors with trained musicians who can bring a beauty to our chant that many parishes lack?

It is simply not true that our cantors were not consulted about the RDL. Drafts were sent to many. There were many revisions of the chants based on the input of others.

To imply that Prof Thompson was not a successful cantor is to admit that you do not know him. That statement is simply untrue and should be retracted.

We need to admit that we have had centuries of an ununified chant tradition.
Our chant tradition has so many different "dialects", if you will. The 1906 Prostopinije was an attempt to get the Old Country on the same page musically. Because of the Bolshevik Revolution, it never really had a chance. The RDL is another opportunity to unify our modern chant tradition. If it fails, it will be more because Ruthenians sometimes are similar to the many blind men who all discovered the elephant and didn't know it than because of musical or spiritual defects.

Any faithful, orthodox liturgy of any age can be beautiful if it is prayerfully and tastefully served. The RDL will have its day, just like every other liturgy in the past which has been promulgated. The question is, will we recognize Christ in this liturgy when He comes to us, as He always does in the Eucharist, or will we hold onto the past as if the Church had no business entering the 21st century without our approval?

Tim

Is it more traditional for the Great Entrance to process around the entire church, and not just the tetrapod? If our churches were to do that, wouldn't there be time to sing the Cherubic hymn three times?
Just asking.
Tim

Dear Nino

Thank you for your comments. But I confess, I'm a bit confused. You say you agree that paying a cantor would be good if one can be found. Later you say you would prefer a congregation that sings badly with a scratchy tone to that of a proud foreigner. Well, if you prefer a bad sounding congregation, there is no need to pay someone. That can be accomplished quite readily for free. It's already happening in many of our parishes. The only thing "off" about the MCI recordings is that many Byzantine parishes are not accustomed to good singing, by that I mean healthy, well trained, singers who use good technique. I agree, I don't want to hear someone who is in love with there own voice, but to prefer a bad sounding congregation/cantor to a good one who can learn the beauty of the Eastern Church, that I don't understand.

All the best
Tim

To everyone taking part in this discussion:

I suppose there are questions of Beauty to be discussed in whether or not the Cherubic Hymn is sung three times or not, but I think this conversation has gone off in another direction from the one I originally intended. We now seem to be discussing the licitness or validity of various rubrical practices.

Could we come back to the basic questions; 1)are our liturgies beautiful and, 2)if not, how can we help to ensure that they are beautiful?

Many thanks
Tim

Tim is right to encourage posters to return to the original topic.

Please let me add my thoughts.

Are our liturgies beautiful?

The most beautiful liturgy is one that is Spirit-filled and this usually occurs when it is celebrated correctly and well, in which the translations are both correct, elegant and flow, and in which the music is both easy to sing and well sung. The Revised Divine Liturgy makes this difficult (and maybe impossible) in a number of ways.

But before I begin I would like to state that I appreciate that those involved in revising both the Divine Liturgy and the music were all good men who love Jesus Christ, meant well, and certainly worked hard. If they had as their goal to restore to the normative standard (rather then revise) and to respect what was memorized in both texts and music I imagine I’d be their biggest supporters. But, alas, that did not happen.

Firstly, there is an incredibly beautiful flow to the Divine Liturgy when celebrated completely and correctly - a flow sculpted by the Holy Spirit over the centuries. The priest, deacon and people all pray in turn and the balance is wonderful. The litanies both contribute shape to the Liturgy (tying everything together) but also allow everyone (even the first time visitor) to participate for the response “Lord, have mercy” is both a simple and powerful prayer. Removing and prohibiting these prayers not only destroys the proper flow (which has been missing in all these years of abbreviated Liturgies) but also removes solid prayer from the people’s lips. But I really shouldn’t be getting into a detailed account here. I’ll summarize by restating that the flow of the Revised Divine Liturgy is extremely awkward. It pushes forth a clerical view of the Divine Liturgy (that the priest’s prayers have value only when heard by the people) and without the litanies to frame and tie everything together comes across as a bunch of disjointed hymns and prayers that simply do not have a good flow.

Secondly, the texts now have two styles. The 1964 texts and the 1979 troparia were mostly of the same style. They fit well together and flowed, even if they were not perfect in translation. The 2007 RDL makes numerous changes to the text and the change in the style of wording and the flow of the text is obvious to the point of awkward. Corrections to the earlier texts could have been made without making these changes stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. New editions of the books can be prepared easily and I hope they are prepared and promulgated soon. The lack of flow of the new texts helps prevent the liturgies from being beautiful.

Thirdly, the new music is problematic. In the Divine Liturgy the text is paramount. Liturgical music is simply a way for the text to dance in the key of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately the new musical settings have it backwards. The text dances to the music (the music leads the dance and the text serves the music) and because of this there is no life to the new musical settings. The principle used was to be so literal to the chant (using the 1906 Prostopinine as the standard) that proper accentuation became unimportant and the resultant settings are not just awkward but almost unintelligible to an ear that is unfamiliar with the texts who does not have the book in front of him. The 1965 settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy were not perfect (and I do not speak here of the 1970 settings in "Byzantine Liturgical Chant" for the changeable texts). But on the whole the slight simplification allowed for better accentuation, and made possible more robust singing (which contributes to a more beautiful Liturgy).

How can we help to ensure that our liturgies are beautiful?

The easiest way is to return to what is known and memorized. That many parishes had not so great singing is not a fault of the 1965 (and later) music settings since we know that they worked extremely well in many parishes (listen to the Divine Liturgy linked on the home page for one example). The problem is in the lazy attitude our Church has towards Liturgy (when you abbreviate it so severely for so long you teach both the clergy and laity that liturgical prayer is unimportant and after they subconsciously accept that idea they naturally do not want to put in the effort to make something beautiful that the Church itself says is unimportant).

Textual corrections could be done in a way as to respect what the faithful have memorized. For example, one replaces a two-syllable word with another two-syllable word to keep the flow. Changing “one in substance” to “one in essence” is simple as both the words “substance” and “essence” have the accent on the first syllable so even the musical setting is undisturbed. [I will note that while I personally like this change and it is more accurate it is actually unnecessary, especially since the Latins will be using the translation “consubstantial”).] Restoring the normative Ruthenian recension as the standard (which provides an excellent liturgical flow), keeping the texts of one uniform style throughout, and respecting what is memorized will all help contribute to beautiful liturgies.

New musical settings should allow the text to lead rather then follow. Have you ever heard an opera in the original Italian and found it wonderful, but later heard it in English and found it rather flat? That is because when it was arranged in English the goal was to preserve the original music. That does not work in Liturgy. In Slavonic there was unique relationship between the text and the chant. It became imperfect as Slavonic became less understood (but because it was less understood it was not so obvious). But when that imbalance is brought into English it sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. What needs to happen is to provide fresh musical settings that 1) respect what was memorized, 2) use what was known in Slavonic as a model (which was often quite different than Bokšaj), and 3) allow the text to dance with the music being a supporting partner rather than the lead to which the text must follow.

Now there are usually many posts asking if I mean simplification of chant to serve the English text. Yes, I do, but only to the extent that is absolutely necessary (and noting that some chant just doesn't work in English, that chant from other traditions that does work should be used, and that there should be room for new chant to develop). Professor Kavaka of Philadelphia (Eternal Memory!) used to say that the “curly q’s didn’t work in English”. His recommended settings for the revised texts respected what was known and memorized (the 1965) and were eminently singable. I am sorry the bishops rejected his work. But what is an example of simplification? Think of the difference between Samohlasen 6 as given in Bokšaj (page 32 for “Pobidu imijaj Christe” or page 177 for “Dostonjo Jest” (Brown Sokol page 32 and Blue Sokol page 21, respectively)) and the way we actually sing these in most parishes. The way we sing “Dostojno Jest” in Slavonic or “It is truly proper” in English reflects a naturally developing simplification of a music that is perfectly acceptable. This slight simplification already found to be developing in the Slavonic chant is more attractive to American ears. And that is the goal. [If someone wants a written example of some examples please let me know and I can prepare them and post them.]

Again, I respect the good intentions and hard work of those who Revised the Liturgy and prepared the new music. But the liturgical rubrics and texts are incorrect and need to be corrected. And the music needs to be returned to what people have memorized and allow the text to be the lead partner in the dance it has with the music. All this can be accomplished relatively easy with the reprinting of corrected books. That a good amount of money was spent in preparing the RDL books should not be an obstacle.

John

John

Firstly, I'm having a great deal of trouble getting onto this website. Often my safari gets checked off. I don't have that trouble with other web sites. Suggestions?

Secondly, your response is wonderfully comprehensive, but for now I only have time to say that I think our liturgy lacks beauty in the way it is sung because so many of our cantors, loyal though they are, cannot read. If everyone's reading skills would improve, I think even the new chant settings would sound much better. Of course they need to be sung enough times until we all get used to the new accents (which are think are better than the 1970 book) and rhythms, which must change because we are using English, and 1970 version didn't seem to take this into account. If never seen the 1964/65 book. How could I obtain that?

I would much appreciate you posting any examples you wish. that would be great!

As a Church, it seems we have to decide whether our chant is going to continue to be an oral/aural tradition, in which case printed notation is only necessary for the purpose of preserving the idea of the chant, or if we are going to make the transition to a written tradition, in which case our cantors MUST learn how to read. Our chant is too simple to be sung so inaccurately. It seems the approval of the RDL means we need to move to a written tradition.

What do you think?

I'll write more later when I have more time.
Tim

If I'm not mistaken the proper way to sing the Cherubic Hymn is to sing the first part continuously until the deacon door is open and the priest and procession comes out. This continual singing allows for the priest to recite the prayers that lead up to the Great Entrance. Then once the clergy are done with the public prayer (maybe the Lord God remember you and all Orthodox Christians in His Kingdom now and ever and unto ages of ages) the second part of the Hymn is sung.

Tim raises a number of good questions. I will prepare responses and post them (maybe in new threads). But I can respond to the following two points quickly.


There is some a known issue with the server and the whole byzcath site will be moving to a new server sometime in December (hopefully December on the Gregorian calendar!). Until then please try to be patient.


I am referring here to the “gray” and “green” books. They did not contain much in the line of changeable texts (I’d have to check but I think the “green” book contained only troparia for Special Intention, the deceased and for Pascha). The 1970 book contained more but it was not complete, either. Most cantors used the settings for the “fixed” texts of the Divine Liturgy but the settings for the “changeable” texts (troparia, etc.) were never really embraced by the Church and most parishes never used them. As of about 2005 I’d say less than 10% used the 1970 settings (so to compare the 2007 settings to those settings which few parishes actually used is not all that useful).

More later. And thanks for the post.

Yes, and at our parish, the first part of the Hymn continues until the procession comes forth from the altar area. the public prayers take place as the procession goes all the way to the back of the church and processes up the middle isle. It's my understanding that the Great Entrance is "Great", in part, because, unlike the Little Entrance, the Great procession goes all the way around half the church.

Tim

Yes, improving our cantors’ reading skills is important but there are more primary issues here that need to be addressed first. Our chant tradition was handed on through the ages from old cantors to young cantors in an ongoing service of love that made our Liturgy something to experience. What was taught best was LOVE for these Divine Services, and no amount of sight reading and book learning can replace this love. They learned at the feet of the cantors before them, and that is the way of the Spirit. Sadly, in recent generations something happened. Our Liturgy was no longer loved. It was abbreviated and changed. People were told we had a treasure of great value, a priceless pearl. But over time measures were taken to change this pearl into something else. And that lack of love for the Liturgy exhibited by our bishops and other leaders affected everything, even the ability of cantors to pass on the love of Liturgy from one generation to the next. This lack of love for the Liturgy remains as the cause of the current free-fall in the Church. Do we see an attempt to reestablish wonderful Liturgy by praying the traditional Liturgy (what we know works) and allowing it to form us? No. We see that the Church has abandoned discernment, abandoned tradition and this handing on of love, and replaced it with paid professionals who – though talented – are not from our Church, were not formed by the fullness of our Liturgy, did not have the love of Liturgy handed down to them from those who had received it from earlier generations of cantors, and who even now have no great experience as cantors in this Church. Is it a wonder the music doesn't feel right to those who know and 'feel' such things? Is it a wonder that the vast majority of our people and clergy can discern something wrong?

But it not just the music that is problematic. The lack of love for Liturgy is systemic. With the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy liturgical continuity has been surrendered, the Spirit has been ignored, discernment abandoned for current worldly trends (that already sound dated to our ears). Liturgy has ceased to be about worship and worship alone. And so long as other agendas are attached to worship God will be secondary and love will not be present.

So it is not just a matter of teaching cantors to read music. It is a matter of teaching cantors to love the Liturgy. It is a matter of teaching our priests to once again love Liturgy. It is a matter of teaching our people to once again love Liturgy – that is to fall in love with Christ, to worship Him in Liturgy, and to communicate with Him through Liturgy.

I originally had written a rather longish piece about how the lack of enthusiasm that flows from a lack of love for Liturgy (either lost or never caught) affects the quality of the Liturgy. In reviewing what I wrote originally I think now that I will save it for another time so that it does not detract from the main point here. I will summarize it by noting that we have cantors who are volunteers, who are of differing abilities, and who were mostly formed by growing up with the musical tradition, listening to other cantors, and plunking out melodies on a keyboard until they learned them. These cantors did not ask for new and different texts. They did not ask for new and radically different music. They were not consulted about any of it. They were handed new books, told that everything they learned all these years was wrong and called to be obedient. Questions offered by these volunteers were not met with patient explanation but with accusations of disobedience. Even a cantor with good ability and good dedication will not do a good job chanting the Liturgy if he does not have enthusiasm – that sense of being at home in the Father’s house and really enjoying the hard work of the Liturgy (and the problem is even worse among our clergy). So until steps are made to fix the systemic problems in the Church – of which the RDL is the first and foremost symptom – enthusiasm will be in very short supply.

What are the current buzz phrases among our clergy, cantors and laity to describe the current status of the Church? Two of the most common are “there is no enthusiasm (energy) to do anything in the Church since the RDL” and “there is a spiritual lethargy in the Church since the RDL”.

This Church can be turned around. It can grow again. It is time to move forward, for the Spirit is calling. Our tradition waits, ready to form us if only we pray it and celebrate it.

In response to the Administrator:

First of all: Christ is Born! And I hope you are having a wonderful celebration!

If the primary issue is a lack of love for the liturgy, i would like to submit that this love began to ebb long before the RDL was even a twinkle in the minds of our bishops. Back in the 1920's when our liturgy, even in the Old Slavonic, was being hacked to death by Bishops and priests who thought it was necessary to make the liturgy shorter "like the Mass" so that ruthenians coming over from the old country would choose their own church over Rome, even then there was a lack of love that led to a far greater damage. Over 90% of Eastern Ruthenian Catholics went over to the Roman Church (not that that is a sign of damage) or to the Orthodox Church (and under the circumstances, who could blame them) or even to Protestantism. What we have now is what's left of the 10% from the 1920's and before, and whatever people we have been able to attract since Vatican II (not that everything with Vatican II was a mistake, but it didn't turn out the way it was thought it would).

I think we are putting far too much blame on the RDL. The problems you speak of were already with us: Liturgies only sung in one tone because pastors/cantors were too lazy to learn the whole tradition. Parishes only thinking about their own existance and not the greater good of the whole church (we certainly suffer from that today, with too many parishes desiring to die rather than merge with neighboring parishes). We are putting too much emphasis on 'feelings' and forgetting the directives given to us by Jesus himself, that is to spread the Gospel to all nations.

It should also be pointed out that paying professionals is not the problem. Cantors were paid in the old days, when love of the liturgy was, according to the Administator, is great supply. "the laborer deserves his wage", regardless of what day or age we are in.

Regarding the language of the liturgy, I know i don't need to remind readers of this thread that our beloved church Slovanic (which I love to use myself to the extent that I can) was at one time the vernacular of the people. They loved the liturgy, as the gift that it is, in part because it was in their own lagnuage and not in Latin (even I also love Latin). Today, I would like to see a situation like the Roman church has, liturgies in an ancient liturgical language (Old Slavonic) for those who feel it is easier to pray that way, and liturgies in the vernacular for others who love the liturgy in that way. Both kinds of liturgies can be done poorly with no love, or well with great love and attention. The idea that one language is always better than another is an arguement we should have come to a conclusion to by now. As fishers of men, we have bigger fish to fry.

Part of the lack of enthusiam is simply human nature: people don't like to change, and the older they are the more they don't like to change. If you start from the Eastern side of our country and move west, I am sure that our parishes get younger and younger as you go. The greatest displeasure I hear coming from our Church is coming mostly from the Eastern side of the country, the side of the country which wants to change the least. This is understandable, but hardly a just testamony against the RDL. Our church has gone through changes before, and we managed to weather them somehow. But every generation seems to forget how we did it. Every generation sends out the distress call. Every generation says "this is the end of the church!", and longs for the days of old. This isn't like the Anglican Church ordaining gays and lesbians. Nothing immoral has occurred here. There might have been a better way to do it, but what's done is done. Some parishes are using the RDL quite well. Others have not and will never give it a fair chance, primarily because they don't know how, and are too old to learn something new. As Rome has done, perhaps we should let these brothers and sisters live out their days with the Old liturgy, while at the same time promoting the new.
having said that, I also know that many young people are attracted to the old ways. I am too! (I love it ALL). So the Old liturgy and the new liturgy survive side by side until the Second Coming. As long as we can still come together as One People of God, it's all richness and beauty (if it's sung well).
Both are valid. Both worship God (if you want to see a liturgy that worships the people, I needn't remind you where you can find it).

This is getting tiresome, but until it is acknowledged, I suppose we'll just have to keep saying it: The RDL WAS reviewed by many people, cantors included. Should it have been reviewed by EVERY SINGLE BYZANTINE before being approved? Do we approach other decisions in the Church this way? Isn't that why we have a heirarchy in part, 1)because it is more effiecient and 2)they may have actually studied the liturgy more than the rest of us? I'm afraid the RDL is taking a beating not because it is BAD, but simply because "we don't like it. It doesn't FEEL right, therefore it is BAD." I thought we were worshipping God. Why do MY feelings matter if I'm worshipping God? How does HE feel about it?

i believe many priests and people love the Liturgy in it's various forms and developments through history.
My guess is many priests would take offense to the notion that many priests have "lost their love" for the liturgy. The RDL was a great labor of love. I think our problem is we don't understand each other in terms of WHAT we love and WHY we love it. It should be WHO we love. I love my wife regardless of how she is dressed. Wouldn't it be silly of me to stop loving my wife because she looks different, or speaks in a different language? If I did that, wouldn't I be betraying my true feelings, that I didn't really love the essence of who my wife is, but only the trappings of who I thought she was when I first met her?

So, i agree with you: it's not just a matter of teaching cantors to read (though we should definitely do that).
But it's not even just a matter of loving the liturgy. It's a matter of loving God and one another. Condemning the RDL is just an excuse to avoid doing those first two things.

Tim Woods

What language is "church Slovanic"?

Ung

Tim,


Glorify Him! Thank you for your kind greeting and, yes, my Christmas celebration has indeed been wonderful.


I agree with much of your summary. Elsewhere I have identified the RDL as the latest symptom in a much larger problem that faces the Ruthenian Church (others have also done the same). I should have made that clear in my above post and thank you for pointing it out.

I agree that we have failed to share the Good News. There is no need for any of our parishes to close if only we would evangelize our neighbors, especially those who are unchurched. We need to follow the example of the Slavs. They took the Faith from the Greeks and immediately started adopting the Greek Chant they received and turned it into something wonderfully new that fit their own culture. Like them we can adopt chant to best serve the English text. Like them we can allow new chant that fits the American culture to develop.

Church Slavonic? Yes, it should be kept. When I was a cantor very often I made sure to sing something in Slavonic. The people loved it. In America it will not be our primary language of worship but it is certainly appropriate to keep that link to where we come from much like the Latin Church has been renewing the use of some Latin in the Mass. About once or twice month I attend the Vigil at the ROCOR Cathedral in Washington, DC (about a 50 minute drive each way). On Saturdays they celebrate two Vigils, one in English and one in Slavonic. For the Feasts they celebrate a single Vigil that uses both languages. After 20+ years of attending I can say that while I prefer English (and it should be our main language) I would have absolutely no problem worshipping in an all-Slavonic parish.


I agree that people don’t like to change. Why should they? There is nothing about the RDL that is better then our Ruthenian liturgical tradition, celebrated whole and complete. My mother and most of the older members of her parish (and of most of our parishes in the East) want what they knew when then were young – a very full Divine Liturgy and the other services. The depravation they have endured these past 40 (and even 50) years was not something they wanted. My mother is in her eighth decade of life. She wants the “Slavonic High Mass but in English”. What is so wrong with that? The question is asked but never answered. I have personally witnessed a parish go from a very abbreviated Divine Liturgy that attracted less then 30 people to a very full Divine Liturgy (everything, omitting nothing in our “Red Book”) attracting over 150 each Sunday in less then 2 years. The restoration of the Divine Liturgy was gradual over that period. Each time a litany or other part of the Divine Liturgy was added back more people came. The very day the catechumens’ litany was added back someone approached and wanted to become Byzantine Catholic! This continued denial of our liturgical tradition to our people is a very just testimony against the RDL.

I also agree with Tim that the displeasure against the RDL is greater in the East then it is in the West. And I agree that the age of the parishioners is greater in the East then it is in the West. The older people have a collective experience of a much fuller Divine Liturgy and even remember Vespers and Matins (not constantly joined with the Divine Liturgy). In the parish I referenced (and I know of other examples) when Vespers was added back the older parishioners marveled. Younger people have (for the most part) not experienced this. They don’t know our liturgical tradition well enough to understand just how far a departure the RDL is from it.


If you had seen some of our older people crying because of how much the changes have hurt them you might disagree. From a pastoral point of view the RDL has indeed been a disaster. There was absolutely no reason to hurt our older people. I had a cantor from the Mid West tell me that when he reviewed the new texts and music with the people a number of older parishioners broke down and cried because their Church had been taken away from them. I have heard plenty of similar stories from both priests and cantors. One lady from the parish local to me told me pointedly: “I am 72 and they are telling me that the way I worshipped God all my life was wrong. They are the ones that are wrong.”


What is done can be undone. Rome is correcting many of the problems with poor translations and music used in the Latin Church over the past 40 years, and has even guaranteed each individual priest the right to celebrate the Mass from the John XXIII Missal. I have every reason that the appeals before Rome for our priests to be able to celebrate the full and normative Ruthenian Liturgy will be successful, and I do not expect it to take 40 years!


There is no need to learn something new. The Divine Liturgy we share with other Byzantine Catholics and all of Orthodoxy is not broken and does not need a revision. When it does it should be done together with the Orthodox. The men who created the RDL are all good men who love the Lord but their premise (that the Liturgy needed revision to its rubrics and texts) was wrong. An updated edition of the 1964 Liturgicon that corrected the errors would have been well received and a multi-year effort of example, education and encouragement could have lifted the “as celebrated” Liturgy to a very full and correct form. Even now, a printing of a new set of books to correct the errors would not be a big effort.


Not really. Most of the clergy did not see the new texts until they received a draft copy after the work was done. Father Petras made clear on this forum that it was not allowed by the bishops. A similar thing happened with the music. While a few supporters of the new style of setting music were selected to provide input, the majority of experienced cantors were not invited (I know many experienced cantors who did not see the new music until they received a copy of the new Green Pew Book). Professor Kavka from Philadelphia (Eternal Memory!) prepared and submitted settings that respected what was memorized (for the fixed text of the Divine Liturgy). They were rejected by the bishops in favor of Mr. Thompson’s settings and Professor Kavka’s influence was thereafter limited. A leading member of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute posted on this very forum after the books were printed that cantors who wanted to provide input should have taken the MCI classes to see the new music and might be allowed to comment. We know from personal testimony of participants that they were told not to share the music in their parishes, and that at times the music was actually collected at the end of classes. I don’t consider this to be a competent review. In my own small music contributions to our parishes over the past 20+ years I routinely sought review and input of my work. I had hundreds of people provide input over that time. Each received a written response and many of the suggestions were excellent and incorporated.


I have routinely stated that those men who created the RDL love the Lord and love Liturgy. I do not believe they love our Liturgy. Perhaps they do not have enough personal experience with it (celebrated fully and correctly) to really know it? This is certainly possible after so many years of our bishops almost railing against our liturgical tradition, and at times actually prohibiting a full celebration of the Divine Liturgy. [And is the very reason that in the Liturgical Instruction Rome directed that we restore and live the tradition before revising it.] Maybe they revise it because their experience of liturgy has not been good and they equate the abbreviated Liturgy with the full and correct Liturgy? It is as if those who are responsible for keeping the family estate are claiming to clean and polish it but are really demolishing the estate to build something entirely new, keeping only the lamp here that they like and the fireplace there, replacing the elegance with utilitarianism.

Yes, it would be silly of you to stop loving your wife because of a bad hairdo, because she suddenly started speaking in another language, or because she started wearing very strange clothing. But it would be very reasonable of you to ask her not to leave her hair in a purple and orange spike, to speak in grammatically correct English (free from politically correct accents), and to dress more appropriately. And it would be further reasonable for you to keep educating her and encouraging her through the years until her behavior returned to normal. I think true love would demand that.


I stated in my earlier post that it as Church we need “to fall in love with Christ, to worship Him in Liturgy, and to communicate with Him through Liturgy”. Seeking and working for the full and official Liturgy of our Church (accurately translated) that we share with other Byzantine Catholics and all of Orthodoxy is not an excuse to avoid loving God and one another. The Divine Liturgy we share with other Byzantines has been sculpted across the centuries by the Holy Spirit. The more we reject it the more our Church looses its very soul, its theology and spirituality. It seems our Church so fears its own Tradition that it is determined to expel, forbid, and exclude any spark that might erupt, lest the flame of real spiritual renewal begin to take hold.

Tim, I thank you again for the greetings and I wish you and yours a blessed New Year.

--

I have a new year’s challenge to all Forum Readers!

Keep the Twelve Great Feasts according to the Julian Calendar at your local ROCOR parish together with once a month Saturday Vigil. At the end of the year you will see our liturgical tradition in a whole new light and you will have an understanding of why the RDL is wrong.

John

Could it be a typo? He used the word three (3) times and it was spelled correctly two (2) out of those three (3) times.

I though he might be using the Rev. John Slivka spelling for Slavonic.

Ung

Let me apologize for momentarily straying from the topic, but Old Slavonic is not the vernacular of the people of the early immigrant church -- it was Rusyn and Ukrainian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rusyn was only used for para-liturgical hymns.

This makes me appreciate the Spirit-inspired wisdom and foresight of our Church leaders when they made the radical departure to an English translation, which took over 20 years for it to finally become dominant. May our Lord grant them the Eternal reward for their submissiveness.

Fr. Deacon Paul

I was referring specifically to the spellings of "Slovanic" vs. "Slavonic". Rev. Slivka used the "Slovanic" spelling and often defended it by saying "we speak words ("Slovo") not glory ("Slava").

Shchastlyvoje Novoje Ruk!

Ung

Sorry Ung, I intended to reply to Tim.

May you have a peaceful and blessed New Year.

To John, my first question is: how do you get people remarks to show up in those nice little boxes? I've love to learn how to do that.

My second question is: can you refer me to the English translation of the past which you believe best reflects the essence of our liturgy? Is there a way for me to obtain it?

How did people respond to the change from Church Slavonic to English? Was that also perceived as a pastoral nightmare? Or maybe that was even before the concert of being "pastoral" was ecclesiastically correct? (EC instead of PC). Not that I'm in foavr of forcing things on people, but a lot of ridiculous things are done in the RC in the name of being "pastoral".

The RDL would never have happened had a new translation not been done. It's my understanding that this new translation was a long time coming. By that I mean that the Bishops appearently saw a need for this decades ago, and it was finally finished in the 1990's. I will agree that it is fair to question the wisdom of preparing a new translation for years without letting the church as a whole know what's up. Had our Bishops gotten feed back from the people about the translation, things would never have gotten this far. However, I think we owe it to our bishops of the last 30-40 years to listen to their reasons for believe that we needed a new translation. If we like the vernacular, then we have to accept that every so many generations, a new translation is going to become necessary. and the people who love the outgoing translation will always be up in arms.

As a member of the IEMC, all I can say is that the musical settings in the RDL and available on the MCI website were not the work of one person. If want to blame the whole commission, go ahead, but it is simply wrong to blame any one person for the settings. Personally, s a musician, I believe the RDL and the present settings found on the MCI website are far more singable and teachable than anything I have seen from this church printed in English. If we gave it 20-30 years, and started hiring cantors who can read so that congregations hear the chants sung consistently, we would all grow quite comfortable with our chants---until the next translation comes out, that is. And then the process starts ALL OVER AGAIN. That is one advantage to ALSO offering the DL in Church Slavonic, as I don't think that text will be changing anytime soon.

Is it just the litanies being taken out that bothers people? I would really love to see a translation of the FULL liturgy of which you speak, John. I think I could learn a lot from that.

Things like the litany of the Catechumens is IN the RDL. It's just a matter of using it. I'm beginning to wonder if the people who rail against the RDL know all that is in it.

I think when it comes to beuatiful liturgies, we are talking about two large and distincly different issues: 1)how well the chants are sung 2)how faithful we can be to the "complete liturgy". #2 also begs the question: who decides what the complete liturgy is at any point in history? Do we simply find the longest one we have ever had, and say "that's the one"? As john said, the Holy Spirit sculpts the liturgy through time. If the Holy Spirit wants the liturgy to be shorter during a certain century, and then longer in the next, who are we to argue? God knows what is good for us. But do we know what God knows?
We can certainly question our pastors and bishops. They have ultimate authority, but we can ask why things are happening. The question is when do we stop and ask ourselves: is this something I need to try to change, or is it bigger than i am, and I should just trust in God, let go, and get on with my life in Christ and his Church? Sometimes the answer will be "we need to speak up". Other times, we will need to accept that what we want may not be what God wants. This is a difficult process of discernment. But if we don't acknowledge that such a process exists, we risk falling into the attitude that WE are always right, and THEY are always wrong.

It has been suggested to me that I take this conversation to the MCI forum, which I will do. thank you, John and everyone for helping me to clarify some of the issues at work in the question: what makes our liturgies beautiful. God Bless you all. I'm sure we will speak again at another time.

You can find it in the FAQs but in general you do [ quote=username ] text [ /quote ] (except remove the spaces).


There is no perfect translation.

From the technical perspective the best translation is the one that is going to be as literally accurate as is possible while also being as elegant as is possible (bringing forth qualities like the nuance and ambiguity of the original text and consistency of style). It should also be a complete translation (and anyone who has examined the texts of the Revised Divine Liturgy can see that whole parts of the Liturgy were removed and rubrics changed).

From the pastoral perspective in many ways the best translation is the one that is memorized, but of course that assumes it is also a correct translation. Our 1964 translation was quite good but not perfect. It was logical to fix the errors and prepare a new edition (which was the original brief given by Metropolitan Judson). And when fixing errors one respects what is memorized, which is why there was no update to the Lord’s Prayer. Such respect for the faithful should have been extended to the rest of the texts that were commonly used. An example that works well (even though it was really unnecessary) is the change from “one in substance” to “one in essence”. A two syllable word was replaced with another two syllable word. “Many happy years” to “many blessed years” is another example that of an update that works well. Other changes like “Mother of God” to “Theotokos” were unnecessary and should not have been made. The gender neutral texts are all theologically problematic and definitely should not have been made (and violate Liturgiam Authenticam). Our Church is made of mainly older people. Most of them have been very hurt by all this. The salvation of souls and the good welfare of the Church should have been paramount and we can see that it was not.

But there is another aspect here. The Liturgical Instruction directs that all Byzantine Catholics should prepare a common translation for common texts. Preferably it should be done with the Orthodox. While that is obviously not going to happen overnight the pastoral approach is to correct what is wrong and then when a common translation is available to take a generation or more to introduce it. As it stands the RDL will someday be replaced by such a common translation unless the Pittsburgh Metropolia somehow manages to formally sever its ties from the Ruthenian recension.


In parishes where the change from Church Slavonic to English was forced the response was very negative. In parishes where the change was not forced and occurred over a decade or two the response was positive. I know parishes where the people were ridiculed and treated as uneducated for wanting Slavonic. And I know parishes where the shift was gradual and the people either asked for or welcomed English.

Being pastoral is not an excuse to do what is wrong. Being pastoral means raising up the people without harming them or creating dissension. We’ve all seen examples of bad parish mergers that lost half the congregation. And of more positive reactions to a people who come to know that they have dwindled until they are too small to remain open and accept the merger or closing without the grief of having it mandated upon them.

I agree that in the Roman Catholic Church many things were done in the name of being “pastoral”. The Revised Divine Liturgy is claimed to be pastoral. Good pastors do not hurt the people entrusted to their care. Those in authority (bishops and the members of the liturgical commission) have been asked repeatedly just why our full and complete Divine Liturgy (which we share with all Byzantines both Catholic and Orthodox) was deemed so unpastoral that it could not be allowed and no answer has been forthcoming.


Actually your understanding is not accurate. There was certainly a need to reprint the books to replenish the supply and it was known that there were errors in the 1964 translation. The original brief from Metropolitan Judson was to prepare a new edition fixing the errors. There are several accounts of how that exploded into a revision of the Divine Liturgy. We do know that the Liturgical Instruction (1996) specifically instructs the Eastern Catholic Churches to renew and live our liturgical tradition before updating. Why the bishops chose to violate the Liturgical Instruction, discard the idea of liturgical unity with other Byzantines, and go their own way in reforming the Divine Liturgy appears to be rooted in politics more then anything else.


Which is why much of the work was done in secret. Given the Liturgical Instruction was promulgated at the very start of the effort it would have been logical to work together with other Byzantine Churches. We know that the Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown expressed interest. But this was not done.


Note that there is a difference between a updated translation (fixing errors in the old translation) and revising the Divine Liturgy. The Revised Divine Liturgy is not just a ‘new translation’ (that is propaganda). It is a revision of our liturgical inheritance. The standard text (the 1942) was not used as the base text. Changes were not made in consultation with all Byzantines but rather based upon the collective personal theories of liturgical reform of the liturgical commission. If you read the letters from the bishops in response to some of those who have complained they do not speak of the need to reform the Liturgy. They speak rather of the hard work of the commissions as the reason for the implementation of the RDL. What we have is something that got out of hand and should never have been implemented.

Other then issuing calls to obedience, the bishops have not themselves explained the need to reform the Divine Liturgy, and why the pastoral needs of our Church are so different from our fellow Byzantines in the next parish (Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox, Carpatho-Russian Orthodox, OCA, etc.) that we can’t keep unity in Liturgy (in content and rubrics if not yet in a common translation).


I stand by my earlier post. You might also see my comments on the Christmas Troparion. There is so much there to speak about, and we have not even touched upon the different styles contained in the RDL.


Surely you have a prayer book that contains the full text?

Most of us were provided with a prayer book when we were young (I have several)?

Or a copy of Byzantine Daily Worship or an Orthodox book?

If not, you can find the full 1964 translation on the website of Patronage parish in Baltimore. Or visit your local ROCOR parish to experience the full Divine Liturgy. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy is something gently sculpted by the Holy Spirit over time. Its shape and flow is incredibly beautiful. When you hack portions out and change rubrics you render it to be something quite different, something not in the spirit of the original. But we have been doing that for so long in our Church people seem to have forgotten the experience of the full and complete Divine Liturgy.


The Litany of the Catechumens has been severely abbreviated in the RDL. If you include the deacon’s introduction seven petitions have been reduced to four (the reduction coming from four petitions being combined). And the dismissal of the catechumens (which is even done in my local Roman Catholic parish) has been removed.


There are actually more than those two issues. The structure of the Divine Liturgy determines the flow. In the traditional Liturgies the litanies keep ‘re-priming the singing pump’. You can see a definite build of the singing from the first “Amen” to the “Lord’s Prayer”. Every time there is a long prayer out loud by the priest the level of singing falls a bit. In the traditional Liturgy the priest, deacon and people each have their own contributions. In the Revised Divine Liturgy the deacon’s and people’s parts are shortened so that they may listen to the priest pray rather then pray themselves. And so the whole flow of the Divine Liturgy is different.


At the request of all the bishops of the Ruthenian recension (Carpatho-Rusin and Ukrainian) Rome prepared and promulgated official and normative texts of the Divine Liturgy in 1942 and directed us to use them. Of this standard Eugene Cardinal Tisseran said in 1941: “In the first place, the existence of a special Ruthenian Recension has been ascertained older than that which is commonly called the vulgate, because it has not been corrected as this on the Greek Editions printed at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Ruthenian Recension, then, inasmuch as it is concordant with older texts, deserves to be preferred.” Our 1964 translation was made from the 1942 standard (which the Ukrainian Catholics have recently reaffirmed). Ironically, even though the 1965 text was on every holy table at times the bishops forbid the full celebration of it. After the Liturgical Instruction of 1996 many thought our Church would pastorally return to the standard but with the Revised Divine Liturgy we see our own Liturgy forbidden again.

So, no it is not a matter of selecting the longest one. There is a definite standard, one which should be changed only by common agreement of all Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox.


Yes, this is something we need to work to change. I have every confidence that the petitions to Rome will result in the restoration of the right of the people to the full, normative Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. We see that Roman Catholics have the right to an older form of the Roman Mass (the John XXIII Missal). And we are only asking for the right of priests to celebrate and our people to have access to the normative Divine Liturgy for the Ruthenian Church.

The liturgical unity of Byzantine Christians is important, and the RDL destroys that unity.

Tim, thanks for your comments and best wishes to you for Theophany and the New Year.

My understanding is Johnstown was very interested but the "inclusive language" was simply too much...I also understand there have been discussions over the years with Johnstown (ACROD) over the use of "Theotokos" (which, by the way I personally prefer) or "birthgiver of God"..."birthgiver of God" won in ACROD...

---
Sounds like Plainchant to my untrained ear...

http://www.acrod.org/music/letourlipsbefilled.mp3

Very nice too. There is real "soul" in the Johnstown chant. Sounds like Johnstown is ensuring beautiful liturgies too.

For all the remarks the the RDL is the destruction of beautifiul liturgies, all I can say is that the beauty of how our liturgy "sounds" regardless of translation or music used is most extra-ordinarily dependent upon the cantor's ability, and in the larger sociological sense, society's general unwillingness to sing anything, much less complicated or even simplified plain chant.

These are my thoughts regardles of the minutae of translation and music settings in regards to ensuring beautiful liturgies.

The previous post MP3 http://www.acrod.org/music/letourlipsbefilled.mp3
at the beginning it sounds like only the cantor singing a rather choppy arrangement (word/music) of Da Ispolnjatsja in English. By the second half of the MP3 the congregation kicks in , complete with harmony.

Our parish has been using the RDL books now for a year and a half. Liturgy is still 1-1/2 hours long, so the RDL didn't shorten anything. Everyone has the music, which is actually quite easy for my non Greek Catholic raised wife to easily pick up on.

Prior to the RDL promulgation VS post RDL, the numbers of parishioners singing didn't change at all.

Through all this the Liturgies are still beautiful.
Beautiful Liturgy is so highly subjective as to guarantee no perfect definition of what is beautiful.

The RDL has many problems. We can not, however lay all our dislikes of what is happening in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church upon the RDL.

Our own church seems to be following the same current business model as eBay. Who needs sellers? Buyers are what we need! So what do they do? run off all the small auction sellers who made them what they are. Isn't working...oops. Why listen to the people of our church, the cantors, the founders, those who actually put thier hard work and soul into making a parish what it is? The 'people' do not understand what "beautiful liturgy" is, that is only for liturgists to know, seems to be the attitude.

i am but a humble cantor who is not as knowledgeable as many esteemed persons on this board and thus will keep my rant to what it is...

That is totally unbelievable! Does your priest give a half an hour sermon, or maybe you have the slowest singing in the Archeparchy, or both? My parents are in and out of their church in 45 minutes.

I was Byzantine Catholic for 39 years, and never EVER did I witness a 90 minute liturgy anywhere! It just didn't happen!

Believe it! My parish liturgy runs 75 mins. most Sundays with a 10 minute homily(90 mins. for liturgy of St. Basil). If this is difficult to believe, you have a open invitation to my parish here in Tucson, AZ, I am sure Steve feels the same way! Please, let's no longer assume all BCC liturgies are under a hour long, as if that is a universal rule.

It must be different out west, because in the rust belt of Ohio and Pennsylvania that is unheard of, at least in the many parishes I've attended.

Too many might convert.

Why indeed? The people were never asked about this reform. Cantors with 20, 30 and 40 years of experience were never asked about this reform. Outside professional musicians were hired instead of the cantors who have given their lives. Only the ‘professionals’ know what ‘beautiful liturgy’ is. Since we people in the pew and the long term cantors don’t like it we are all obviously stupid and need to be obedient to the ‘professionals.’ What a church!

I am still a Byzantine Catholic (44 years) and will likely remain one just to keep our Bishops in line.

Perhaps it is not a reflection of how fast one sings or how long the sermon is.

Our regular weekday liturgies, without a sermon would be about 50-55 minutes. Sundays are longer 1) we now have just one Divine Liturgy. More people attending, more communicants. 2) our priest does more than a 5 min "cheese whiz" sermon.

We actually sing at a pace faster than in Pittsburgh. I have personally experienced this because I recorded numerous Divine Liturgies during my travels.

Do not judge all parishes by the experience of one parish, or a relatively small sampling. for example, I was in Hazelton, PA several years ago on a weekday- the DL was recited by priest and people and finished in under a half hour. A very disappointing experience. I remember another priest who "said" all the cherubic hymmn prayers, did the incensing, and was waiting for us to finish the cherubic hymn sung once and as quickly as I had ever heard it sung before! Another disappointing experience. And these were in the pre RDL days! If I were to judge all parishes by those examples, I would have been grossly unfair to those parishes which do celebrate beautiful edifying liturgies.

Let's not count "weekday" liturgies. They don't exist in the Orthodox church. (Well, maybe in the ACROD, for now.) To say it was "recited", well, all I can say is that I've never witnessed a Pittsburgh Metropolia "recited" liturgy. The only recited liturgies I've been to were all Ukrainian Catholic on Saturday night and Sunday morning.

I attended a Byzantine Catholic grade school, and the weekday liturgies we attended were always sung. (Eternal Memory to Professor Nicholas Kalvin who was the "Cantour". I was only nine years old at the time, and I can still hear his voice. Truly one of the best voices to ever sing prostopinije!)

"Recited" liturgies are an abomination. Period.

Christ is Baptized!
Yes, eternal memory and blessed repose to Professor Nicholas Kalvin.
His impact is still with us.
Deacon El

Do Eastern Catholics (or anyone non-orthodox for that matter) you have to leave a ROCOR parish prior to the Liturgy of the Eucharist?

Yep, it's true. Cossacks surround the congregation immediately after the Little Entrance, and those whose beard isn't long enough, or who pronounce Gospodi with even a trace of an "h" are escorted outside and loaded on trains bound for the Arctic Circle.

Alexandr

Lol!

<quote>Let's not count "weekday" liturgies. They don't exist in the Orthodox church. (Well, maybe in the ACROD, for now.) To say it was "recited", well, all I can say is that I've never witnessed a Pittsburgh Metropolia "recited" liturgy. The only recited liturgies I've been to were all Ukrainian Catholic on Saturday night and Sunday morning. </quote>

Ok, I'll stick to Sunday Liturgies at a church I know intimately, my own parish.

Our Sunday Divine liturgies are typically 1 hour 15 minutes, during Lent DL of St Basil is closer to 1hr 30min. If the homily were not counted as "liturgy time" , we would still be just about an hour anyway with a typical SUNDAY Divine Liturgy.
During the past three months, I have been keeping track of the actual start of the Prothesis at 9:30am, the Divine Liturgy starting around 9:40 a.m. "Blessed is the Kingdom...", and the final blessing typically between 1045-11:00 am. This information I have collected from Jan 2009 to March 2009.

Yes, we do now sing the DL from the RDL green book. Even with it's attendant translation issues, we still do manage to sing a reverent Divine Liturgy and not be in a mad rush finishing a mere 45 minutes later. Our typical attendance is around 70 souls on a given Sunday.

On a side note, I have personally witnessed (as in, attended) weekday Divine Liturgies at both ACROD and OCA parishes on both coasts, (California and NJ). So, to say they categorically don't exist, is to be limiting one's information to a small subset of the greater picture.

I will agree that recited Divine Liturgies are an abomination and should be strongly discouraged in favor of chanted liturgies by our respective Bishops, Orthodox and Eastern Catholic.

It is far less a matter of what color whatever DL books are used than how the cantors, priests, and congregation respond to them that determines if it can or will be a "Beautiful" Divine Liturgy.

A ten minute Proskomedia? My goal is to start an hour before the Liturgy so that I won't have to be reading the names in the Commemoration Books during the Antiphons of the Liturgy. Even if I had no Commemoration Books from the people, and did not commemorate anyone but the Patriarch and Ruling Bishop by name, I don't think I could complete the Proskomedia in ten minutes. It takes at least 5 minutes to cense the church after the Proskomedia before the Liturgy begins. Can any Greek Catholics out there help me understand how the priest can do this in ten minutes?

Fr David Straut

OK Just delete my post then if it causes so much injury to read.

Now I know why I don't bother logging onto Byzcath.org anymore. everyone here has such thin skin!!!!!

Thin skin? Why Steve, it appears to me that you are the one suffering therefrom. I'm sorry if my question upset you so. My question is legitimate, I think. There are perhaps some shortcuts being used by the priest. I pass no judgement on them. I just want to know what they are. And unless you are a priest, you may not know the answer. Perhaps someone else does.

Fr David

Father David,

I have attended Orthodox Divine Liturgies in the OCA, ROCOR, GOA, as well as in Romania and Germany. I have even served at the altar for Orthodox bishops at the Orientale Lumen conferences. Never in all of these experiences have I seen the Proskomide take more than twenty minutes. My experience as an altar server in various Greek Catholic Churches is similar. I guess nobody is quite as scrupulous as you are.

Father David bless. My experience as an altar server in the Greek Catholic Church echoes Stuart's. 15-20 minutes is the average.

Dear Stuart,

First of all, I asked how it was possible to perform the Proskomedia in ten minutes? You talk about a Prokomedia twice as long as that: 20 minutes. Being a priest, I realise that if there were practically no commemoration of specific names for the living and departed, a 20 minute Proskomedia is possible. I asked about a 10 minute Proskomedia and how that was done practically.

Secondly, unless you are a priest, and perform this service yourself, you are probably not able to answer this question. I'm waiting for someone who is.

You state that you "have attended Orthodox Divine Liturgies in the OCA, ROCOR, GOA, as well as in Romania and Germany." That's great. You then state "Never in all of these experiences have I seen the Proskomide take more than twenty minutes." My goodness. I sounds as though you regularly go to church to watch the Proskomedia. Highly unusual. Have you been at all those Liturgies for the Proskomedia? Because I'd say that isn't typical. Very few of the laity (or even concelebrating clergy) are around when the (junior) priest is performing the Proskomedia.

I'd venture to say that I've probably had more experience in ROCOR churches than you, and whenever I've been present (i.e. without me being the one actually performing the Proskomedia) it has taken much longer than 20 minutes. I'm also quite familiar also with the Antiochian Archdiocese (where I became Orthodox and was a priest for 12 years) and in the OCA (in which I have close family) and 20 minutes might be possible in some places, but it would take much longer in other places.

You state "I have even served at the altar for Orthodox bishops at the Orientale Lumen conferences. Never in all of these experiences have I seen the Proskomide take more than twenty minutes." Hierarchal Liturgies are unusual situations. The Proskomedia is split in two. The first part is done by a priest long before a Hierarch is on the scene. The Hierarch completes the service in the middle of the Liturgy when obviously he cannot keep people waiting by commemoration thousands of names.

Your comment, "I guess nobody is quite as scrupulous as you are" is perhaps not meant to be as impertinent as it sounds. All I can say is that I am not very scrupulous at all. When presented with names to be commemorated at Proskomedia, I try to commemorate them. It takes time to do so. Not scrupulous, just trying to do my job.

Wishing you a blessed remainder of the Fast, I am

Yours in Christ,

Fr David

By way of comparison, approximately 1 hour prior to the starting time for the Sunday Orthros, we normally begin the Kairon, followed immediately upon re-entering the sanctuary by the Proskomedia up to the point of censing. This allows ample time for all commemorations of both the living and the dead for that day, regardless of how many commemorations there may be.

It usually also provides ample time for the priest and deacon to discuss any special changes or additions to the normal Sunday Divine Liturgy, followed by a short period of quiet contemplation as well before the commencement of Orthros.

In this way, we proceed directly to the Preparation and Opening Dialogue of the Divine Liturgy following the Great Dismissal of Orthros, and later complete the Proskomedia at the prothesis during the Divine Liturgy immediately before the Great Entrance. Even when the Proskomedia is split in this manner, the initial section normally requires more than 10 minutes to perform.

May the same Spirit serve with us all the days of our life.

+Cosmos

Going to be quite honest here and probably get beat up for it, but I have nothing to lose.

Precuts--the biggest time saver. In almost 13 years at my GC church, I only saw a real loaf cut once. I would venture to guess, that even after the implementation of the RDL, precuts are still the norm in most Ruthenian GC parishes.

Commemorations--non-existant, at least in my parish. We were never asked to give names of people to be commemorated at the proskomedia. I'm sure that the person/persons that the Liturgy was being offered for was given a particle and maybe anyone special that the priest might have thought of but there was no opportunity to give names as I've seen in Orthodox parishes.

Latinizations both, and slow to leave the Pittsburgh church. And yes, Father, 10 minutes was the norm in my former parish as well.

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

This thread is moving far off topic. It began as a discussion about singing and chanting and has moved to all the arguments about the RDL and abbreviations to practice that always make people get their backs up.

This topic needs to restrict itself to the original or it will be time to close it.

Remember that we are entering the last portion of Great Lent. The Forgiveness Sunday humility has seemed to have worn off so many posters in this and other threads. Let's step back and take a look at what and how we respond to each other--above all charity.

In Christ,

BOB
Moderator

Thanks, Bob, for the reminder. Having just returned from the Service of the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete, I apologise for my part in getting the thread off track and for any lack of charity I displayed.

Fr David Straut

Father David:

Father bless!!

You weren't in mind when I worte that post. It was one of the brethren who was not being so kind to you. Be assured of my prayers for you during this Holy Season.

Asking for you blessing and continued holy prayers,
BOB

Father David,

Yes, I am unusual, in that I take serious interest in liturgical matters. I do often show up an hour before liturgy begins. I do watch (or at least listen to) the Proskomide, since I find it to be both beautiful and spiritually enriching. And I do know about pontifical liturgies--as the sacristan at Oriental Lumen, I am the one who prepares the temple, sets up the sanctuary, and is present when the priests arrive. I know that the Preparation is split, and I have watched it from beginning to end. I'll stand by my 20 minute estimate.

John K,

With regard to precut particles, I agree entirely that the practice should be abolished. From a practical standpoint, it just can't be done in some parishes because the Holy Place just isn't properly arranged; i.e., in many parishes the Proskemide table is about the size of a television dinner tray, which makes it a challenge just to put the chalice, diskos, lance and veils on it. Actually having workspace to cut the prosphora is impossible. Then there is this peculiarity of Ruthenian parishes: when told to approach with fear of God, they all approach. That's a lot of particles to cut, and some priests can be forgiven for cutting up most of the particles beforehand (usually in the sacristy), and only cutting the Lamb and the major commemorations during the Proskemide itself.

On commemorations, these in fact used to be done in my parish, up to the point that the RDL was implemented, at which point, for some reason, it stopped. Full commemorations are still done at the Melkite parish I attend.

Now, with regard to the topic at hand, ensuring beautiful liturgy, main prerequisite is liturgy must engage the people, ensuring their full and active participation. For that to occur, the people must perceive and accept the Liturgy as something in which they have a stake, something which belongs to them, is part of their heritage, which they know and love.

In turn, that requires stability; change, when it occurs, must occur gradually and only with extensive preparations, so that the people have already bought into the change. Radical change is psychologically disruptive, alienates the people, and, at a practical level, disrupts the flow of the Liturgy because the people do not know what is coming next.

Liturgy essentially consists of three elements: text, rubrics (i.e., instructions for movement and actions); and music. One should not attempt extensive changes to more than one of these at any given time. Of the three, rubrics are probably the easiest to change and cause the least disruption. At the same time, changes to the rubrics can greatly enrich the Liturgy and bring it closer to the authentic Tradition. If you are going to reform the Liturgy, start with the rubrics, making only such changes to the text or the music as are needed to support the rubrics.

Changing the music should be the next step, but not by replacing the existing music wholesale, for it is the music that the people internalize the most, and through the music they assimilate the text and experience the Liturgy. Rather, begin by adding new tones to the existing repertoire a few at a time, until the people know them well, then add some more. When composing new arrangements, care should be taken to ensure the music is both within the capabilities of the untrained voice, and not entirely discordant to the congregational ear; what works well and sounds good in Greece or the Carpathians may not work well in English or sound beautiful to the Western ear. A final note with regard to music: one should not displace the popular hymnody because it is not "canonical", because such hymns are much beloved by the people and form part of their spiritual patrimony. A perfect example would be the replacement of Eucharistic hymns with the Psalm verses in the RDL. I can think of few changes that are more resented than this--the people feel they have been robbed of something uniquely theirs, and in its place they got an insipid translation set to music bringing to mind nothing so much as "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star".

Finally, text. A liturgical translator, particularly one who is revising an existing text for congregational use, above all needs to be sensitive to the need for stability in worship. As such, he should only make substantive changes necessary to correct either errors in the previous translation or to bring the text into line with corrected usage (rubrics); he should avoid change for the sake of change, especially of the "happy to glad" variety that disrupt the flow of worship without changing the meaning of the text.

The translator must be governed at all times by humility, looking at what others have done already, and ruthlessly suppressing the impulse to show the world how clever he is (because, in truth, he probably isn't as clever as he thinks). And finally, the translator must recognize the need for beauty in liturgy, the absolute necessity for the poetic and the noetic, and thus avoid, to the greatest extent possible, flat, colloquial, uninspired prose that could just as easily be found in a daily newspaper, or--at the other end of the scale--the jargon-laden polysyllabic rubbish typical of a third-rate academic paper. If the translator is not a poet, he has no business doing liturgical translation.

Finally, if one wants to ensure beautiful liturgy, one should not, under any circumstances, surrender responsibility for the development of liturgy to coteries of self-appointed experts. If Liturgy is the work of the people, it is also, ultimately, the property of the people. As Cardinal Newman wrote, "The laity are those without whom the Church would look silly", and when you shut the laity out of the process of reforming the Liturgy, you get silly liturgy. Liturgy by its nature constantly changes and evolves organically, because it is a living thing celebrated by living people. Any time you try to force the people into a straightjacket so that liturgy is the same in all places at all times, you just kill it and put it in amber. It becomes a museum piece.

One of the glories of the Byzantine rite is its almost infinite variety--not only are their variations in usage among particular Churches, but among dioceses within those Churches, and among parishes within those dioceses. Thus is real inculturation accomplished, and the people given the proprietary interest in it that ensures it is celebrated with beauty, with reverence, and with piety.

The Byzantine rite has always understood this, and it is noteworthy that the two instances in which wholesale change was imposed led to major ecclesiastical catastrophes. Within the Byzantine rite, conformity with Tradition has been ensured by providing everybody with the fullness of the liturgical tradition, in all its monastic glory, from which it steps back to accommodate parochial use. The liturgiarchs of the Church, as well as the force of Tradition, set minima for liturgical celebration: here is the full liturgy-you must do at least this. It does not abridge the liturgical texts and set maxima for the liturgy--this much you may do and no more.

Follow some of these rules, and you will get beautiful liturgy. It will not be perfect liturgy, because that does not exist outside of the heavenly liturgy of which our liturgy is but an image. But imperfect liturgy, sung enthusiastically by people who know and love it is infinitely superior to liturgy sung perfectly and celebrated in perfect accordance with the rubrics by people to whom it is just an abstraction. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to go listen to the Schola Cantorum singing the music for the RDL at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute web site, and compare that to any singing parish on any given Sunday using the old red books.

I agree in general except about the need to pay a cantor from outside the church. I think for the most part the better singers in a church tend to be in the choir and are capable of leading the people in the music fairly well. The main thing is to get started correctly, on the right pitch, at the right tempo. Most of the people sing from memory anyway, with the exceptions being new members or visitors. This is why I think getting started right on each hymn or response is the main thing. I don't think a professional cantor, /especially/ who is not a church member or even a Catholic or Orthodox is a good idea. It would seem strange to me to be following and being taught by a person who doesn't share my faith. In areas besides the 'Holy Land' of the Byzantine Catholic Church (Pennsylvania, Ohio, the Northeast in general) there aren't many BCC people and so a professional would quite likely end up being not Catholic or Orthodox (as it seems to be in some RC churches around here as well when they hire a pro). Maybe I'm off on this opinion, and it may just be due to my experiences in my church. I think the main issues are that the music settings are not the easiest to sing (try singing the word 'now' with five syllables), the monophonic nature (not harmonized, not 'poly'phonic) of the music, singing only the melody, does not lend itself very well to giving the words the deep spiritual feeling compared to, say, typical Russian Orthodox chant or choral settings. Often when the melody only is sung, the feeling of the music is ambiguous - you can't sense whether it is in a 'major' or 'minor' mode or 'key' - the tones aren't technically major or minor but they have a certain feel to them that is one of the other but this isn't obvious sometimes just from the melody.