Since coming back to this forum, I've read a lot about the revised DL but what exactly is it? Could anyone give me a nutshell account of what it is, how it differs from the old DL, and when it was implemented and why?

Thanks, I always like to keep up to date with things.

Robert

The Revised Divine Liturgy is an attempt to create a Novus Ordo for the Ruthenians modeled after the Roman Catholic Novus Ordo. It uses the worst of the ideas from what happened in the RC Mass after Vatican II.

How does the RDL it differ from the Byzantine Liturgy? It removes and prohibits some of the litanies and other parts of the Liturgy (I guess that they are so bad they can't be allowed). It also forces a lot of the priestly prayers out loud. My former priest is a nice guy but speeds through them so fast no one can understand him. But I guess that is better then another parish I know where the priest treats them like an opera and no one can understand him, either. The RDL also used gender neutral language that the Vatican prohibited because it's wrong.

Why was it implemented? No one knows for sure. Other then the bishops and some of the priests on the commission no one wanted it or asked for it. Most of us want the uncut Byzantine Liturgy, without the secular feminist politics.

What is desperately needed is a "Reform of the RDL" to make it Byzantine. But the bishops do not have enough respect for the faithful to answer letters or even talk to us. They say we are a "special needs" church and the real byzantine liturgy cannot possible server our spiritual needs. It's all pray, pay and obey.

Laying aside the emotions and hyperbole, the RDL has three different levels of changes. The first on the structural/rubrical level. More or less the most common abbreviations that had become standard in the vast majority of Ruthenian parishes have become mandated. Some verses of the antiphons and some litanies were supressed. Some rubrics were changed. The second is a new translation that includes some inclusive language and some different translation choices some find questionable. The third is new music that attempts to be more true to the Slavonic originals but does not take into account what the people have become used to since the switch to English in the late 60s. Some have problems with part or all of the changes implemented by the RDL.

One small amendment to Father Deacon's non-hyperbolic summary:

Before the RDL, MANY parishes actually took an even MORE abbreviated version of the Liturgy - and a number of these elements are mandated in the new books (the third antiphon, several litanies) or included in the books where they were not included before. So some parishes found the new services to be shorter, but most found them the same or longer. And the "standard" across the eparchies converged quite a bit, where it had been divergent before.

This is, in fact, one thing that leads me to question the comparison to the 1970 Roman Missal. That revision allowed MANY choices or options throughout the Mass - while much of the controvery around the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy books came because the bishops'new book does NOT allow many options, but mandates a liturgy which is, again, a bit longer for many parishes, the same length for others, and shorter for a few.

(Lady Byzantine, if you can find examples of prayers or liturgical hymns which suddenly appeared in the RDL, newly composed or borrowed from other rites, then your comparison to the Novus Ordo would be a lot stronger. The Novus Ordo Missae had plenty of these; the RDL, none that I can find.)

In Christ,
Jeff

Sorry, Deacon Lance, but the very idea of mandating abbreviations is in itself a latinization, since liturgical uniformity has never been a hallmark of the Byzantine rite in any of its particular Churches, whether Orthodox or Catholic. Rather, the Byzantine liturgical tradition is to set minima for parochial use, while allowing individual parishes to expand upon that according to its capabilities and inclinations. Nowhere was the Intereparichial Liturgical Commission given a mandate to redact the Ruthenian Recension as promulgated by the Holy See.

Regarding the translation, and even leaving aside the use of "inclusive language" (which in itself requires torturing of English grammar and syntax beyond the bounds of toleration), the underlying scholarship leaves a great deal to be desired, violating as it does many of the cardinal laws of good translation, even to the point of embracing mutually contradictory errors (e.g., excessive literality and broad paraphrase exist within the same paragraphs). The translator(s) have also taken the liberty of inserting their own editorial comments into the body of the text, part of a lamentable tendency towards relentless didacticism (which is also a fault in the ICEL translation of the Latin liturgy, by the way). Beyond that, there are many places in which the translation is just out and out wrong, and consistently so, indicating that the translator(s) were not wise enough to know what they did not know.

Methodologically, the elevation of the Greek text over the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension is a major error, but understandable, given that there are many more "aids" available in Greek than in Slavonic--which again points out the lack of qualifications on the part of the translator(s).

As regards the music, it was an error to mandate just one particular arrangement of the prostopinje, given that the Rusyn plainchant tradition was essentially oral, and varied from eparchy to eparchy, and indeed from parish to parish. Instead of this type of dynamism, there was an attempt (and a poor one at that!) to make the cathedral usage of one particular Eparchy at one particular time normative throughout the Metropolia. The the seminary in Uzherod does not even use these arrangements ought to say something.

The issue of new music is even more puzzling when one considers that ACROD had already made a point of retaining the music of the Slavonic tones after it translated its liturgy into English. Apparently no attempt was made whatsoever to coordinate with our Sister Church, but rather there was an attempt to completely reinvent the wheel, both to place more distance between the Ruthenian Metropolia and ACROD (to say nothing of other Byzantine Catholic Churches!), and, apparently, to establish the academic credentials of both the translator(s) and the musical arranger. Unhappily for the Church--though happily for Academe--the manifest deficiencies of the translation and the music have brought widespread criticism from authorities far more qualified than those who sat on the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission.

We should be grateful to the Administrator for his online, multi-column study edition, which is already yielding useful observations, corrections and commentaries on the text. It would be equally useful if--as was suggested some time back--all of the cantors of the Metropolia were to compile all of their arrangements of the Prostopinje into a critical edition which could be studied alongside the music promulgated by the Metropolitan Cantor Institute.

I agree with Father Deacon Lance that one ought to lay aside emotion and hyperbole.

I disagree with much of the rest of his assessment.

The major problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy are the doctrinal problems. The deletion of the terms for “man” and “mankind’ (from anthropos) and, in a few places, the addition of the term “women” (in a communion hymns) are major issues. That is not just my opinion but that of Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (now retired) who called the deletion of the various terms for man “theologically grave.”

It is also not merely the mandating of a form of the Liturgy that had become standard. Far from it. There were certainly parishes that had celebrated the complete and full Liturgy. And the mandate is not all that much like what occurred in most parishes. And the Vatican specifically directed the bishops to return to the full and official forms and to work with other Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox) in preparing common texts and admitting organic change.

It is also not overly accurate to state that the music has been returned to a “more true Slavonic originals.” Music changes over time and returning it to a snapshot of where it was in 1906 in one parish does not really qualify as authentic restoration, even if one ignores the many problems with proper accentuation. But I will agree with Father Deacon that the bigger problem here is forcing people to re-learn music after they had spent 40 years singing something else. On the pastoral level the RDL is a major disaster and has hurt many people.

Finally, it should be noted that the RDL has not been received in many places and that there are a number of parishes where the old texts and music are still in use. I still petition the bishops to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and to make normative the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy – in a translation that is accurate and complete.

My brother in Christ, Jeff, suggests that the RDL is better then the Liturgy as it was celebrated in many parishes. In fact, it is not. The RDL adds back nothing that that was already in the 1964 translation and it certainly was not necessary to revise the Liturgy. On some of the points the bishops have been strong with their mandates the things that were not done by some (or even many) priests are still often not done with the RDL books. It was very possible to celebrate the full Ruthenian Divine Liturgy with the 1964 Liturgicon and there were parishes thriving with it. To claim that the 2007 RDL adds things back not in the 1964 Liturgicon is false. If one wishes to assign credit for anything that was added back it would go to a liturgical directive – and a liturgical directive did not require the RDL!

I will agree with Jeff that a direct comparison of the RDL to the Roman Catholic Novus Ordo is a bit much. It is clear that those who created the RDL are of the same theological “school” that those who created the excesses of the Novus Ordo are from. But that makes sense since they were educated in the same time frame and (for many) in the same places so it is not unexpected they should have the same approach to Liturgy. It is decidedly odd that at the same time the Latins have said that this approach didn’t work and are gently trying to update their texts to make them more accurate the Ruthenian bishops are copying their mistakes. Learning from the mistakes of another is always useful.

A rescinding of the RDL and a reprinting of the 1964 translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom – with corrections to make it literally accurate and embracing all the Vatican directives – is appropriate at this time. At the pastoral level a return to the music the people have memorized is also appropriate. Too many people have been hurt and they need good pastoral care. The way to raise the liturgical standard in parishes is not through mandates and revising Liturgy but in making the full, official Ruthenian recension books normative, issuing accurate texts that are complete and respect what is memorized, and then through education, example and encouragement.

"But I will agree with Father Deacon that the bigger problem here is forcing people to re-learn music after they had spent 40 years singing something else. "

Would that was the main problem. People can learn new music, but it was silly to expect them to learn an entirely new set of liturgical tones and hymns from scratch. It could have been done had the new music been introduced gradually and in addition to the existing music. It would then have been assimilable for the majority of the people, and would not have been perceived (a) as something beyond their capacity to do; and (b) an imposition from above without any consultation or consideration for the laity.

That assumes, of course, that the music is actually singable under congregational conditions. As presented in the book, the new music is frequently overly elaborate and, while true to the Slavonic originals, does not really take cognizance of either the Western ear or the words of the text. The added grace notes in general require all sorts of verbal contortions to accommodate, and point to a composition made without any regard to the capabilities of the average congregation. To be blunt, it is musically conceited--"See how clever I am? Look how I am restoring the Prosptopinje to its original glory!" To paraphrase a French general watching the Charge of the Light Brigade, "It is glorious, but it is not liturgy".

Furthermore, as Administrator alluded, and I stated earlier, Prostopinje is a living musical tradition. It is nice to have compilations for reference, but the moment you insist that it be sung in a particular way, at all times and in all places, you kill it. Our cantors should be allowed the latitude to make their own arrangements in accordance with the (hopefully full and correct) liturgical texts, the "ear" and the singing capabilities of their individual parishes.

Over time, an "American" prostopinje is likely to emerge as the music more successfully accommodates the English texts. That's not a bad thing--it means that our plainchant tradition is alive and well, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit within our Church, and not a dry, dusty museum piece, accurately reflecting what was sung in one cathedral at one time a couple of centuries ago. It is surprising that a Liturgical Commission that felt free to take so many liberties with the liturgical texts themselves should be positively reactionary and antiquarian when it came to the plainchant. It is sad that their priorities were so inverted.

I've made these points before but will make them again. We need to do what the Slavs did. They took Greek chant and adapted it for their language and culture - and very successfully. At this stage of our existence it does not mean inventing new chant. But it does mean setting the chant in a way that the chant dances to the text and not the text dancing to the music. See this thread for a more detailed explanation of what I mean by that.

The late Professor Daniel Kavaka (Eternal Memory!) used to say that "the curly-q's just didn't work in English". He was right, but the chant had been naturally becoming a bit more simplified over the generations. And if you listen to how it is sing in Europe (in Slavonic) you can see it there, too. They’ve moved on from Bokšaj 1906, too. That is natural.

Yes, people can learn new music, however,there was NO "entirely new set of liturgical tones" from scratch. I am confused by this statement when you continue: (emphasis-mine)


Added grace notes. look at the Slavonic original source music and see how many grace notes are there, how many melsima are applied to the Slavonic texts?


"...music more successfully accommodates the English texts", Perhaps the texts should be considered to match the music,and likewise the music to the text. With the translation of the RDL, the music is the only essence of our heritage remaining in the Divine Liturgy. Some of the translations of the RDL were seemingly not done with much thought to the music or tones they were to be applied to, which made the job, (thankless task?)of setting the texts to the music all the more difficult.

Our parish sings the RDL, since that is what our Bishop directs us to do via our priest.

It's interesting to note that even the so-called Russian "Greek Chants" are not actually Greek, but adaptations of Greek tones composed by Greek monastics residing in Russia. Side-by-side comparison of the Greek tones with their Byzantine originals shows just how much had to be changed to accommodate the linguistic differences of Greek and Slavonic.

With regard to adaptation of Slavonic chants to English, the OCA has done very well by Mark Bailey and David Drillock, who manage to retain about 90% of the original Slavonic chant without mangling the English text beyond recognition.

My experience with the Melkites to date is interesting. They seem very willing to employ multiple versions of the same English text in order to retain the Melkite chant tones with minimal change. This is nowhere more apparent than with the Paschal Troparion--so far, three different tones, three different translations. Same goes with various Psalms, hymns and even the Great Doxology. Nobody seems to mind, since they know all the different versions (as well as the Greek and Arabic versions); everybody sings, and there are no books whatsoever.

A difficult question. The text is of first importance and must be literally faithful to the original text. The old saying as accurate as is possible and as free as is necessary. Having said that, I do agree with Steve to a certain extent and translators can translate in a way that also makes setting the music well possible. Think of the Grail Psalms, for example. The original were very singable but were not overly accurate. I’ve seen a bit of the Revised Grail Psalms awaiting final Vatican approval and they seem to have done a good job making them more accurate while still remaining singable. The changes seem to flow and I think for the lesser used psalms would not be noticed by many.

A larger point here that needs to be made is one of common translations. I understand that a “Corrected 1964” would not bring that about with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox). But a future hope is that there can someday be a common translation of common texts, just like everyone now has close to that in the Slavonic books. The Liturgical Instruction sets this as a goal. Anything but a “Corrected 1964” at this point makes no sense as that is the direction we need to head in (implemented pastorally, of course, over generations). It has been my observance that what is best is eventually what is used and what is not best falls away. That appears to be happening to the RDL. I know many parishes that have a Green Pew Book full of paste ins from the old texts and music. And more and more are replacing the Green Music Pew Book with text only versions and singing what they know as best as they can with the new words. They do it because the RDL does not work and the older settings do work.

I will suggest that the setting of the chant is not a thankless task! In my years of doing just that I had much support and encouragement. But there is something else here I think most who have done this will see if they think about it. When you work with liturgical texts you learn so much. Not just about the Liturgy and its beauty but also about the theology of our Church. Even if the task was thankless it would be well worth the effort!

Don't forget the fact that Holy Transfiguration sings the Lord's Prayer to the melody line of the choral setting by the Russian composer Nikolai Kedrov. I grew up singing this in a choir and always break in to the baritone harmony. And several very nice Arabic ladies who sit near where I usually sit always give me a very nice smile. They also sing a few Ruthenian melodies, which makes me feel at home (much more at home than anything RDL).

"Don't forget the fact that Holy Transfiguration sings the Lord's Prayer to the melody line of the choral setting by the Russian composer Nikolai Kedrov."

Pseudo-Kedrov, I would say. Familiar enough, but just different enough to nag at me a little. Since Pascha, the cantor makes sure to sing the Ruthenian Christos voskrese at least once at the end of each Liturgy. Did that last year, too.

John wrote:"I will suggest that the setting of the chant is not a thankless task!"

In the particular case of those who did the RDL settings it certainly was a thankless task. One need only to do a search to see how much sentiment to the negative was said about the person(s) who did the chant settings for the RDL.