"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." - Mat 7:18.

It might be difficult to give hard statistics of how many people have left, or still might leave the parishes that make up the Byzantine Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, PA due to the RDL. Yet, it still might be a good time to ask if there have been any 'good,' fruits from the labor of producing and implementing the RDL?

If so what are they? Has the use of inclusive language caused people to come in? Have any of the disputed changes (music, unnecessary abridgement, etc.,) resulted in a deepening of understanding the spiritual treasure of the eastern church?

Is it too soon to ask these questions? I only ask because I would truly like to know if there are some good things happening, or will soon be happening, to, and in, our church, as a result of these changes. Or has it all been bad? If it has been all bad how long will our bishops give it until they do something?

St Nicholas of Myra, and it's Mission of Blessed Theodore, are doing fine by it. Both continuing to grow, slowly, but steadily.

Glad to hear it. Do you attribute that directly to the RDL? I know of a few people who left due directly to the RDL, so I am wondering if there have been any 'good fruits,' that are directly related to the RDL.

What have been the fruits of the RDL?

The fruits of the RDL:

-We have bishops who remain in open disobedience to the liturgical directives from Rome. Example counts. The bishops do not seem to realize that they cannot be disobedient themselves and at the same time have any credibility in demanding obedience to their disobedience.

-Archbishop Basil will not speak with anyone about Liturgy. He still claims that “Bishop Andrew is good with Liturgy” and he is said to be about to mandate Revised Vespers, Revised Matins and Revised Holy Week books that are horrid (I’ve seen some of it and the words and music are awful).

-Bishop John of Parma is all upset that there is chaos in liturgy across the eparchy. Parishes don’t sing the new music anything like it is written (which anyone who knows anything about music knew the first time they saw the new music). Priests are slowly putting back the Liturgy into a more normal form. He really does not seem to understand that he and the bishops are the ones responsible. But he blames the clergy. Bishop John has already made his own changes to the RDL. “Mankind” and litanies are making a comeback whenever and wherever the liturgical police are not present.

-Bishop Skurla of Passaic does not follow the RDL. He does not appear to understand why anyone cares about liturgy. He has actually said that he never expected anyone to be able sing the new music as written but that they had to promulgate the whole thing because of the many years of hard work that was put in on it. He has also said that now that it is promulgated we have to live with it because they can’t unpromulgate it (they’d lose face).

-Some parishes have been devastated. Collections are down as people walk. Our people sometimes drive long distances. They do not continue to do that when the Liturgy is a politically correct with music that is difficult to sing.

-Hard statistics are hard to come by. But ask the pastors. They know their people and their collections. Both are down. But the parishes that never started the RDL are stable.

-As of right now the bishops are unrelenting in allowing the full Liturgy with texts and music people know and love.

The only good thing about this is nobody will ever hear Vespers or Matins. I will miss Paschal Orthros, however.

What all this does show, however, is the bankruptcy of the old paradigm that assumed the priest was the smartest man in the village, and the bishop was the smartest of the priests. Neither assumption holds water any longer.

The mission is growing faster than the parish.

The Mission's been using the new music.
The parish hasn't until recently (Last few months.)

We lost more to Lefebvre's parish (about 1992) than to the 2006 promulgation; those I know who left were looking for reasons to justify abandoning the Catholic Church for Russian or Antiochian Orthodoxy before 2006... the new liturgy was an excuse.

Hard to say. I never thought we had much in the way of reliable figures to do a before/after comparison.

I would say rather that the new liturgy was a symptom of a broader malaise, simply the straw that broke the camel's back. If people seek to leave the Byzantine Catholic Church, could it not be that they sense the sterility of its liturgical life, and the deficiencies in its approach to the Tradition? Some of us want nothing less than to live as Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome, and to do that, we have to be able to live the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition within that communion. When our Church makes clear that it has no desire to embrace its liturgical, spiritual and theological patrimony, but instead continues to behave as a pale shadow of the Latin Church, what other alternative do we have but to go where we can live out that patrimony more fully? Some of us are fortunate, and can find alternatives in the other Greek Catholic Churches, but for many, it is clear that to grow in Christ they must do so within the Orthodox communion.

Epiphany tried to keep good records of attendance for the past seven or eight years, in order to get permission to contract for their new church. A book is kept in the vestibule, and the ushers keep track of the number of people at each liturgy, and the number receiving communion. When I arrived around 1996, the average for Sunday was somewhere between 250-275. Lately, the numbers are down below 200.

The keeping of numbers at Epiphany goes way back - I remember the book with the numbers in the early 1980s and I know it was a long established custom when I first joined that parish. And I remember complaining about those who used the "clicker" to count everyone. It was so annoying, especially during a quiet moment during Communion when that count was being taken.

The numbers prior to 1996 (the year Bishop Pataki mandated his version of the RDL rubrics) were much higher. I remember the averages being about 425-450 every Sunday with standing room only at the second Divine Liturgy (Archbishop Basil can confirm this as he lived locally at the time and was a frequent celebrant). Feast Day Divine Liturgies often exceeded 100, and Lenten Presanctified Liturgies (with the old Levkulic Book) were about 75-80 on Wednesdays and 150 on Fridays (now usually less then 30 for either since the new books 10 years ago). Somewhere in the middle 1980s we had well over 400 for Paschal Matins and Divine Liturgy (in a temple that seats about 250). Now, since the Holy Week reforms, they get about 50-60.

The fact is that people are not about to make the effort for something they do not particularly like.

John's got numbers going back 20+ years. Every liturgy he's been at, and he's at most all of them; he's head cantor. They get published in the bulletin, too.

The numbers dropped from about 70-80 to about 60-70 when the mission finally started. Now, it's about 60-90... varies by week, usually 70-80; 15-30 for the mission. Major feasts will hit as many as 150 & 50.

I have considered doing much of the same, though at this time I doubt I will, given that it would serve to break communion with the rest of my family who are all RC.

Bob, why we stay is as important as why we leave.

Well I remember having to arrive very early indeed on Nativity and Pascha to find a seat for my wife and my kids (I was usually serving). In the last few years before we left, finding a place to sit was no longer a problem. Most of the blame for that, I think, can be assigned to the change in the order of services for those feasts, as well as the proliferation of liturgies to accommodate just about everybody. Too many liturgies is just as bad as too few.

I'm glad that this topic has taken the course of so many others, harping on the bad. The opening questions asked about Good Fruits and if everything has been just Bad Fruits and when, if at any time, changes will be made.

We all know the resentment many have for the RDL and their reasons, so let's give the people who see good fruits, if they choose to post, a chance to talk about these Good Fruits. There are many other threads already open where one can talk about the negative affects.

Erie,

You and others are certainly free to post what you consider to be Good Fruit from the RDL. Indeed, I ask you to do so. What exactly has been a Good Fruit from the RDL that was not possible with the full Byzantine-Ruthenian Liturgy that was possible before the RDL? You complain a lot in your posts on all subjects, but you always go quiet when asked to be specific. Please now tell us in great specificity what Good Fruits you have seen with the changes (new texts, new rubrics, new music) and explain why they were not possible with the Ruthenian Liturgy (older texts and rubrics based on the Roman books, and older music).

I look at the whole package and see that the bad far out shadows anything good. When the bishops mandate a version of the Creed that Rome has labeled "theologically grave" (along with the other doctrinally problematic issues) how do you manage to ignore them and not call for corrections? Please answer and be specific!

You can use my posts as an example. I have criticized what is wrong, backed up my criticism with documentation from Rome and elsewhere, and pointed out exactly what needs to be done to correct the problems. It would not take a lot of effort. Printing new books is not overly expensive given what can be done.

John

All I am asking is what you and other Moderators fail to do. Keep the conversation on task as to what the original post is. I do not post on much because I do not consider myself an expert like many here, I also cannot speak much of the old translation, because I started my journey East while it was preparing to be phased out.

I also do not post much for reactions much as you had in your post because much response from others becomes personal and I feel that Christian Charity has been thrown out the window in this forum.

Much discussion on this forum is generally one-sided because those on the "opposing side" are quickly shut down by the "experts."

Back to the topic. I agree that there are some unneccessary and even illogical changes, but some good can come out of it. You say that you look at the whole package and the bad far outweighs the good, which is a valid opinion.

I think there are some good fruits amidsts the "chaos." The change in translation made people stop and think what they were saying, what it meant and how it affected their lives. I also believe that it forced us to slow down in the liturgy. From my experience the Liturgy is not rushed through as much now as it was before the change.

I know, some will argue that these things could have happened without mandated liturgical change, but since that occured, these are a few good fruits that I have experienced.

Erie,

You seem to have missed the original post? The discussion in this thread has been entirely on topic. ByzBob asked for a discussion of both good and bad fruit:


You believe that the change in translation made people stop and think what they were saying. I think that is the first specific comment you have offered. Do you believe that the whole chaos with the RDL was necessary to accomplish this? If so, how and why?

Do you have any answers to the other questions raised by ByzBob? Has the use of gender neutral politically correct language caused people to come in? Have any of the disputed changes (music, unnecessary abridgment, etc.,) resulted in a deepening of understanding the spiritual treasure of the eastern church? If yes, how and why? And why could this not have been done with the existing versions?

You complain about one sidedness. Well, offer your positions and back them up with quotes from authoritative sources.

John

John,

It seems as though you missed part of my post as well.



Regarding sources, any source that our "experts" disagree with is labeled garbage and therefore is not authoritative. One cannot have a civil conversation about liturgical reform in the Ruthenian Metopolia because everybody here thinks they are right.

Many claim people are running away from the Revised Liturgy, but as stated earlier, how many people are just using it as an excuse to run? Yes, the Ruthenian Church is shrinking, but what Slavic Church isn't?

Some numbers from Catholic-Hierarchy, not an authoritative source, but reliable:

Ruthenian Metroplia: (stats from 1990 and 2004-so pre-RDL)
Pittsburgh 141,807 - 60,100
Parma 20,019 - 12,401
Passaic 82,587 - 24,031
Van Nuys 17,125 - 2,849

Ukrainian Metroplia:
Philadelphia 77,000 - 65,500
St. Josaphat (Parma) 11,935 - 11,058
St. Nicholas (Chic) 26,000 - 12,000
Stamford 39,505 - 16,000

Erie,

But again, how would you argue that the good fruit you listed required the RDL? If the changes had been in a different direction (towards a more literal, accurate translation) would the fruits have been the same, better or worse? Does the one fruit you list make up for any negative fruits you see? Was the revision worth it for just this one fruit you see? You've been asked, please explain!

As to authoritative sources being labeled "garbage" please provide specific examples. I do not remember any appeals to Vatican directives to support the RDL. Father David Petras specifically labeled "Liturgiam Authenticam" as being bad theology because he believed its anthropology was not favorable to women (meaning because it rejected gender neutral language). I've read his book on the RDL several times. I give him great credit for writing it, but there is no real theology given there. He essentially says the bishops may do what they want with the Liturgy and then explains what was being revised (it wasn't meant to provide the meaty theology). It seems to me that no authoritative sources have been offered to support the theology of the RDL. Even Father Robert Taft, SJ, has condemned it.

How many people are using the RDL as an excuse to run? I don't know. Why would they say it was the RDL that forced them to walk rather then the real reason? I'm not sure I understand your point here. I do know that most people choose a parish based on the quality of the Liturgy. It is unreasonable to expect someone to stay in a Ruthenian parish where they don't like the Liturgy when they can go to a Latin parish closer to home where the Liturgy might be better (or even worse if it saves them a half hour in the car). Don't forget that it's been drummed into them that the only important thing is that they belong to a Catholic Church.

As to the numbers you quote, none of them are accurate nor have they ever been accurate. They were always misreported. But that's not your fault and there is no way you could have known. The pre-RDL totals for all Ruthenians was probably closer to 30,000 (there were several threads on this that you might want to search for).

John

Speaking for myself I am not looking for an excuse to run. Who wants to leave a church or a church community for no reason? As a father though, I have to worry about the spiritual well being of my child, as well as myself and wife. Gender neutral language typically is not the end game when it comes to liberals* - it is only the beginning, or so it has been the history in other churches that have adopted it (gender neutral language). It saddens me that we went down this road. I do hope that I am wrong about our direction, which is why I asked for some examples of good fruits of the RDL.

*NOTE: I am not saying that the people involved with the promulgation of the RDL were liberals, but that they at least allowed themselves to be influenced by a liberal philosophy.

So, what's the good? You have yet to enumerate any, but I feel your pain.



It most certainly did. Language is important to me. I make my living with words, and know only too well that words have meaning and those meanings have consequences. My wife is a professional linguist and translator, for whom language is also very important. Being fluent in Slavonic and several other Slavic languages, she is also fully qualified to determine whether a translation is accurate or not.

Because language is so central to both of us, we paid very close attention indeed to what was said in the Liturgy, both before and after the revision. It is precisely because we stopped and gave full attention and thought to the meaning of what was being said in the Revised Divine Liturgy that we realized we could not stay in the Ruthenian Church.

You probably think that was one of the better fruits of the change.

How quick we are to rush to speculation. Again to the finger pointing and faulty conclusions. Although I am politically a left-leaning moderate, liturgically I am pretty conservative.

I have found these posts very interesting and have spent time reflecting and praying on them.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
The fact that there has been so much discussion shows that people are open to change.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
That people are trying to see how these chages fit in what they believe and are redefining their beliefs.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
Seeing that God can use anyone regardless of human fralities for His glory.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
That we are now given a call to action.
This is a positive fruit of the RDL.
If we can see the power of the Holy Spirit in these change.
Then this is a positive fruit of the RDL.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

I don't understand storyteller's post. The people deserve accurate translations, singable music and the whole Liturgy. I don't know why he thinks that those of us petitioning the bishops for what is right are cursing the darkness. I see us as the light of renewal. The call to action I see is to convince our bishops to allow our own Liturgy.

You got my meaning. So long as action occurs this is good. Too often people complain and say there is nothing that can be done. There can be many creative ways that change can be made to happen especially through prayer.

Funny, but in the now 6 weeks that we've been using the new melodies at St. Nick, we've got most of the parish singing them... Ok, it's not the first time we've used them, but it's the first time they've been consistently used. And, given the "teal terror" and its annotated music, most of the parish is joining in the Prokeimenon and Alleluiarion refrains, and a significant chunk are singing by the third line.

The melodies ARE singable. The word-fit to them is not always good but they are singable.

Also...
There is a difference between obedience while petitioning for change, and grousing whilst (or after) leaving for "greener pastures." The latter would be, I think, the cursing in the darkness; the former, the light.

As I said, some of us want to be Orthodox Christians in communion with the Church of Rome. It is clear that is not the objective of the leadership of the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh. Therefore, we cannot and will not ever attain what we need for spiritual growth within that Church. So we go elsewhere. Within the Melkite Church I have found the fullness of Orthodoxy. I lead a more complete liturgical and spiritual life (when was the last time your parish celebrated Orthros before the Divine Liturgy, or Vespers (sans Divine Liturgy) on a Saturday evening? Or weekday Vespers? When was the last time one of your hierarchs insisted on something more than the nominal ascetic disciplines adhered to by the Ruthenian Church?

The Melkites are comfortable in their skin. They have no desire to be a "third way", but only to live in the fullness of the Byzantine Tradition. That's what I wanted, too. For a while, I thought I could find it in the Ruthenian Church, but it is now apparent that I was quite wrong in that assessment. Unless there is a real metanoia on the part of the hierarchy and clergy of the Church, it will continue to be neither fish nor fowl, but rather the "Roman rite of the Greek Catholic Church".

By the away, Aramis, I notice you glided over "accurate translations" and the "whole liturgy". Are those of no concern to you? Also, your parish now sings. Good on them. I can name quite a few parishes where nobody sang before, and nobody sang afterwards. More to the point, I can name parishes where the people used to sing lustily and now hold their tongues. I can name parishes that have lost a third or more of their members in the last three years.

But I am glad you are doing well. The technical term for your attitude is "I'm alright, Jack". It's a little myopic, and usually comes back to bite, though.

1. I suppose it depends on one's definition of "singable". The "word-fit" (as you call it) is not very good. This has been discussed somewhat. Look at the first Sunday antiphon. The older setting properly accented the English text with "glo-ri-ous praise". The Thompson setting has people singing "glo-RI-OUS praise". How many people do you know who walk around saying: "Have a glo-RI-OUS day"? But that is just one of many examples. I'd recommend reading the archives for the discussions you've missed. Some of the major issues with the music are: 1) a too literal faithfulness to the Boksaj to the point where the accents are incorrect, 2) a failure to recognize that Boksaj was no longer the standard but the chant had moved on (even in Europe) and 3) a desire of the man hired to write the music to have it be his (meaning he changed a lot of perfectly good settings just so that they would be his).

2. There are some who will not worship in a parish where "theologically grave" doctrine is proclaimed. I'd say the ones standing up and complaining, and asking the bishops to be orthodox in their doctrine are the ones holding the candle.

Keep in mind the example of the Latin Church. After the Vatican II reforms up to one third of Latin Catholics left, only to become "Christmas and Easter Catholics". Some like to blame them as disobedient and uneducated. But in truth the bishops are the ones responsible for their leaving. Change should only be organic, and even then good change must be introduced slowly. In Inaestimabile Donum Pope John Paul the Great noted: "Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful."

The thing that gets me is that it is so much easier to do what is correct then it is do to what is wrong. Even now it would not take much to correct what is wrong and reprint the books. The people do deserve to be taught correct doctrine; they deserve the opportunity to access the full Divine Liturgy (and other Divine Services), and they deserve good music. One priest has told me that the celebration of the Divine Liturgy has gone from a joy to a chore. His comment is not unusual. And you know people pick up on that and that it influences their attitude towards the Church.

My Aunt Florence was among them. She went to Mass weekly, sometimes more often, until the change in the liturgy, after which she simply stopped going. I think the only times she ever entered a Catholic church after that was for weddings and funerals.

Ironically, one of the last times I saw her was at the baptism of my sister's first child at a Greek Orthodox church. She was clearly enthralled, and as we were leaving, she said to all of us, "Now, that's what Mass should be like".

John,

What you are talking about singing is not the music that is on the page, but your own "idea" of how to sing it - namely, accenting the middle of three half notes. This is not the way it was sung in Slavonic, or in Johnstown, or in a half-dozen parishes I grew up singing in. Since you have repeated this canard several times, I would like to respond.

The antiphon melody ends with three half notes, with accents generally falling on the first and (optionally) the third. Thus in Slavonic (from the 1970 Papp collection from Czechoslovakia):

Voskliknite Hospodebvi VSJA zem-L'A,
pojte zhe imeni jeho, dadite slavu chva-L'I JeHO.

I don't know why Monsignor Levkulic shorted that first half note to a quarter, and threw the accent on the second half note; but it you sing it this way in Slavonic, you consistently miss the text accents. This alone - especially in a collection like Papp which is fanatic in correctly accenting the Slavonic text - demonstrates that you are NOT hearing the melody as it was sung, not just in Uzhorod in 1906, but many places since then - see for example Father Sokol's 1950's collections.

It is certainly possible to sing this pattern in English, by dividing or slurring notes in a small number of ways. But if you are determined to accent the middle note, you are NOT singing the music as intended by the Music Commission, or written in the books, so it's not fair to claim your mis-singing the antiphons is "what the books say." The people at Uniontown last year sang those melodies with correct accents, WITHOUT books in front of them, and had not problem with them.

One more point - your statement that "everything came from Bokshai, and melodies trumped accent" is simply mistaken. The new book drew melodies from a wide array of written and oral sources, virtually all in parish use in our Metropolia. In the cases of "bad accents" you have cited, you have frquently in effect changing the melody rather than singing it what is there. I would encourage you to come to the Cantor Institute in Pittsburgh, or failing that, I will send you a new copy of the green book; you can mark everything you consider a bad accent, and we can discuss it. (During the preparation of the new books, several cantors responded to suggestions here that they submit comments, and those were included in the final version. Even now, you can still at least learn what was intended and see whether abandoning some apparent pre-conceptions might make you less negative about the restored chant melodies.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

I respectfully disagree. The accents are incorrect throughout the new music and need to be corrected. Let me extend my comments but I know you come from the school that chooses a literal application of the chant over the proper accentuation of text so we will have to disagree.

Example 1: First Sunday Antiphon - "Shout joyfully to the Lord all the earth, sing praise to his name, give to him glorious praise." - The 1965 setting emphasized the words "Lord", "earth", "name", "Him" and the syllable "glo" in the word "glorious" and finally, "praise". In the first phrase, on the word "the" the expected Bb was purposely dropped to a G so as not to place more emphasis on the word "the" than on the words "Lord" and "earth". (The 1965 setting has "Lord" and "earth" as the "high notes" and "half notes" and the word "the" as a quarter note with "all"). In the second phrase they left "Him" on the running "A" and gave it a value of a half note, then put "glorious" all on the Bb (for emphasis) with a drop back to the A for "praise". If one writes out the words and marks them with the natural accents one would speak or read these words with, then compare them to the 1965 settings, one can see the accents are natural. When one sings the 1965 setting it is naturally accented for the native American English speaker.

If one then compares this to the 2007 Thompson RDL setting, one can see that his slavish adherence to the Slavonic melody comes at the expense of bad accents. In the first line the word "Lord" is softened because of the drop to the G, the words "all the" are emphasized with the rise to the Bb. In the second phrase the "glo" of "glorious" softened with the drop to the G and the "ri-" and "ous" is emphasized with the rise to the Bb. Heraing it sung it comes across as "glo-RI-OUS". Now who in their right mind walks around and says "have a glo-RI-OUS day"? It's just unnatural.

Example 2: First Weekday Antiphon - "It is good to give thanks to the Lord" - Likewise the Bb was dropped in the word "the" (in Lord, all the earth") to allow natural accents on "Lord" and "earth" (putting it on the Bb would have made it the highest and strongest note in the phrase). The "O Most High" is set to "G", "Bb", "A" per the normative melody since it works and allows normal accenting.

But notice the 2007 Thompson RDL setting. "Thanks" is softened to the G. "to the" is the high point and accented at the Bb. In the second phrase "name" is softened with the drop to the "G" and "O" and "Most" are highlighed on the Bb. "O" is not the important word here and was better on the softening note of G.

Example 3 - Any of the Trisagions - Each has either same melody as used for "Svjaty Boze" or a special one for the "Slava". But none of them work in English so a decision was made to take them simply. The 2007 Thompson RDL settings return to Boksaj at the expense of very poorly accented English. In "Holy God" #1 you literally sing: "Now-ow-ow-ow" (which has caused whole congregations to break out laughing). "Holy God" #3 has a horrible run on the word "on" giving us "have mercy ON ON ON ON us". [Jeff you yourself acknowledged this issue in a discussion here but stated that you found it acceptable because the melody was restored. But most people laugh when they hear it.]

One can go on through the whole book.

John

What Jeff doesn't recognize is Slavonic and English have distinctly different rules of grammar and distinctly different cadences of speech. The iron law of chant is chant must follow the cadences of normal speech. That's why the oldest forms of chant are syllabic (one note per syllable), and not melismatic (syllables drawn out over multiple notes). Moreover, the rhythm of the chant, its tempo and cadence, has to be keyed to the language being chanted. This means, when translating a chant from one language to another, you have to make choices, and usually compromises.

Granted, sometimes the rules are not followed: at various stages in the Znammeny tradition, the desire to preserve the tones became so strong that it overrode the integrity of the texts, so that when Slavonic evolved, losing syllables in the process, these syllables (or substitute syllables) were inserted into the words of the texts in order to make them "fit". In the process, the words of the chant often became incomprehensible.

With the new Prostopinje settings of the RDL, the subordination of the (admittedly flat and lifeless) text to the music simply makes a bad job worse: not only are the new words infelicitous at best, but now they must be pronounced in a manner most unnatural, and therefore difficult both to remember and to sing. In short, it entirely defeats the purpose of chant, which is mnemonic as well as corporate.

Dear John,

For two years, you continue to cite the same two examples.

(a) That G that you say is "softened" - that is exactly where the accent is in the original melody. That's what I mean when I saw that what you are bringing to the music is an interpretation which does not respect the actual prostopinije melodies. NOT every high note is a musical accent - consider the first three notes of "Silent Night!" We certainly dont sing "si-EYE-lent night"; the voice "lifts" on the middle neighber tone. The prostopinije antiphon melodies works the same way.

(b) The prostopinije melodies have lots of natural, beautiful 2-, 3- and 4-note runs, inherited from znammeny chant. If sung according to pattern - that is, NOT coming down hard on each note - this is a natural way to sing which consistently preserves the accents. They should be sung smoothly, a bit faster, and lightly - precisely as done by a good cantor in Slavonic. This can render the English text quite beautifully, and can easily be sung by a congregation. (I heard this a Vespers at a teen retreat last year - and they sang WITHOUT music. since the Vespers tones were rendered consistently.)

Again, I'd encourage you to try singing the music as written, on the assumption that it might be singable with correct accents, rather than importing the 1960's modifications into the melody, which my cantor teachers from years ago certainly never used without "fixing" them. If you claim there are bad accents, you should start from how the music is supposed to be sung, now rather than how it is NOT supposed to be sung. That's simple fairness.

In Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

(a) I am capable of singing the music as written. I don't because it is written poorly. It needs to be fixed.

Yes, I cite the same two examples because they are easily understood by all since the melodies are pretty simple. An Analysis of the Christmas Troparion was another. There are many, many more. I'd be happy to provide them in detail to the bishops. Perhaps now is the time to send them copies of the new music with recommended corrections.

Your example of "Silent Night" is a poor one. The parallel to the Thompson setting with "glo-RI-OUS" is if you kept "Si" on the first note and the movement on "lent". Just going from memory here on "Silent Night" but in the key of C put "Si" on a G and "lent" on both the A & G (with a drop to E for "night") (so you have "Si-le-e-nt Night"). I agree that in music not every high note is an accent. In the melody used for the antiphons, however, it definitely is (in "Silent Night" you have a one note rise, in the Antiphon melody a two note jump from the G to a Bb (which has the effect of highlighting the Bb)). That's why the 1964 setting was as it is. They purposely took advantage of the flexibility of the chant to better serve proper accentuation of the English text.

(b) I've seen a number of the new settings for Vespers. They exhibit the same issue that Stuart has spoken to. Very often the "run" is put on words like "and" and "the" with more important words being given softer accents. All in all the accentuation is poor. It is very clear that the words are being fit to serve the music rather then the music being fit to serve the words.

You raise the question as to how the music is to be sung. Boksaj as a literal model does not and will work exactly. The music needs adjustment to best serve the English language (that is if we wish to sound like native English speakers). That's the whole point. The Church has no obligation to preserve Boksaj. It does have an obligation to provide chant settings where the accents are correct.

The Church also has an obligation not to hurt people, or to bewilder them unnecessarily. The fixed (1965) settings of the Divine Liturgy were very singable. Towards that end Professor Daniel Kavka (Eternal Memory!) (who said routinely that the "curly Q's don't work in English) adjusted the memorized settings for the fixed texts to the revised texts. That was rejected by Mr. Thompson because it was not close enough to Boksaj. A whole Church was thrown into an uproar because a few wanted a more slavish adherence to Boksaj, when the Church has aboslutely no absolute mandate to preserve Boksaj!

John

This discussion begs the question of orality in the Prostopinje tradition. Since cantors taught their apprentices without the aid of books, each cantor had his own unique style, which would be modified by his apprentices in turn. Boksaj, and every other collection of Prostopinje, should not be taken as definitive, but merely as exemplars to guide other cantors, who would then adapt those exemplars to their own abilities and those of their parishes.

The fundamental problem with the music of the RDL is the attempt to impose one single, uniform and inflexible arrangement of all the music. This presumes that there is a "right" way to sing Prostopinje, which in reality is a very dynamic, constantly shifting art form. By committing it to writing and then suppressing all other variants, the RDL effectively kills the Prostopinje--or more properly, sucks all the life out of it and converts it into a dry, dusty museum piece of interest only to antiquarians.

As John as noted--and as anybody who has heard what is now sung in Mukachevo, Presov and Uzerhod knows--Prostopinje has continued to evolve in the Carpatho-Rusyn lands, because it has remained the music of the people. By all rights, then, the same process should have continued here in the United States, particularly after the adoption of English as our liturgical language. The best way to ensure the survival of Prostopinje in English is not to impose one specific arrangement from the top down, but to encourage development from the bottom up, with the sharing of arrangements by the various cantors, who will gravitate towards the ones that work best. The eventual outcome will be "American" Prostopinje. And if, as it so often declares, the objective of the Metropolitan Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church is to be an "American" Church, then this result should be embraced, not stifled.

In the US, after Vatican II, ALL Catholic Churches, East and West have had declines. (Vatican documents show this. I don't have URLs to hand at the moment.) I'd look to the nature of American, and European, for that matter, society as the prime cause of the contractions in numbers. Further, the declines begin shortly before V. II... as do vocations... so blaming Vatican II is a case not proven.

As for accuracy of the translation, I can't speak to that, since the Hierarchs chose to translate from Greek, rather than from the Ordo Celebrationis.

Stuart: Glad you're happy with the Melkites... nearest melkite parish from me is 2000 miles... I'm happy where I am, and while I do have some issues with the translation, I've discussed them with the Eparch. And Tone 1 is no issue for me; it's extremely common to sing Gloria with stress on sylables 2 & 3 in classical music.... or even the lengthening of each word into indecipherability. So it's no worse than much of the latin I had to sing in school. (Public HS and College.)

.

The Ordo Celebrationis is just the book of rubrics for the celebration of Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy. I think you meant the Ruthenian Slavonic Liturgicon, which is the normative--indeed, the only approved liturgical texts for Chuches of the Ruthenian Tradition.

Using the 1950 Greek Typical Edition was a methodological error on several levels, not the least of which is the inversion of order of precdence; i.e., the Slavonic texts preserve an older usage than the Greek texts, most of which were altered under the influence of Venetian printers between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Even the Greek scholars brought in by Patriarch Nikon in the mid-17th century were aware of this. That aside, whether working from the Greek or the Slavonic, it's just a third rate translation by a bunch of academic wannabes. I see this sort of stuff far too often in academic circles.

As for singing--I can sing anything, and pretty much have. But the crucial question is what your average congregation can sing--and more importantly, what it will sing.

The new music is a mixed bag. The big issue is the cost of change itself and the wisdom of imposing a mixed bag of changes rather than documenting what is done and proposing improvements. I have little attachment to the old music since I sang it for two years before the green book arrived. Some of the new music is just a disaster - my "favorite" example is Shine in Splendor. We just sing it the old way. The first setting of the Hymn of the Incarnation may be authentic something-or-other but it just strikes me as bizarre. We sing it the old way. I like singing the Tone 7 version in the green book and had the green book never been published I doubt I would ever have heard it. And for that matter I have seen some old style chant that is just awful. I've never heard it - probably because people just gravitated to better music.

Prostopinije is an oral tradition that belongs to the laity. It was in the midst of a transition to an authentic chant tradition in American English. I am afraid this process has been aborted by the heavy handed way that changes were imposed. Again, the Metropolitan Cantor Institute should be in the business of documenting what is done and proposing improvements in an open, inclusive way. What is good is rapidly being lost.

Yeah. Of course, since they were making all sorts of needless translation changes (what I call the "happy-to-glad" type), you'd think they would fix this hymn, which in its present phase is a weak paraphrase of the original text. Look all you want, the word "splendor" just isn't there. "Shine, shine! O ye new Jerusalem, the glory of the Lord is upon thee. Sing with joy and rejoice!" Very simple, but they were too busy fixing things that were perfectly OK to deal with something that needed fixing.

As to the music, Thompson had already muddled the arrangement, as those of us foolish enough to buy the Schola Cantorum's recording of Paschal Orthros already knew. It doesn't even work when he's using his own choir--so he expects it to work for us? Meanwhile, Johnstown has a perfectly serviceable arrangement that tracks very closely to the Slavonic.

They'd rather we use Windows than Linux. It allows them to retain control and set the price of the product.

The biggest issue with the MCI is that people want a text-only edition, and the MCI considers text-only to be unacceptable. Apparently, however, the Chancery does not....

Apparently, the MCI position has changed somewhat; permission for text only editions has been sought by MCI and denied, while individual parishes are able to get that permission.

Jeff of MCI PM'd me on another board re my prior post...

In any case, the people want text-only versions for both size and flexibility. Those are not centrally available.

They had to do that once the Oriental Congregation sent a letter to the bishops indicating they could not mandate what music to use. Approval was only given for the text of the Divine Liturgy, not for the music.

"...the Oriental Congregation sent a letter..." This comes as news to me. Likewise, "permission for text only editions has been sought by MCI and denied, while individual parishes are able to get that permission." I have to say that having to get permission for making the text (only) available sounds bizarre to me; that such permission should be denied is -- what's a word that means more bizarre than bizarre?

Yeah, The Letter. It exists. People have seen it, have discussed it in hushed voices. It must have been ugly, since the Bishops refuse to release it.

But you misread what I wrote: the letter informs Their Graces that they were given approval only for the text of the Divine Liturgy. They did not have approval to mandate a particular musical arrangement to go with it.

Here I was commenting on the words of aramis that you quoted:

Ah! My bad. Seems silly, but then silliness has pervaded this whole sorry episode.

That's a matter of Copyright law. The DL promulgation is copyright the metropolia; permission to extract the text must be obtained if that extracted text is to be printed for use.

Permission to use the liturgy texts as promulgated (ie: in the liturgikon and people's book) is included in the instructions for use in the Liturgikon. Producing a text-only people's book is not, and therefore requires permission.

I appreciate the need to secure the text; my point is, why would the bishops deny permission for the church to use the church's text, and that being a text that they have mandated is the sole English text that the church may use.

They need to sell more Teal Terrors in order to amortize the investment in the book. Text only editions of the RDL will cut into the revenue stream.

Also, formally authorizing a text only edition would be tantamount to admitting they made a mistake. Our bishops may not always be right, but they are never wrong.

I think the fruit of the RDL is that so many people have left.

Here's my two cents.

For those who want a "text only" copy.....have you ordered the Liturgikon from the Byzantine Seminary Press? If you want a book void of music it's the ticket for you.

Has anyone been refused when they tried to purchase it?

My opinion is that a non-music book issued in the pews would be detrimental to congregational singing and contrary to our tradition. It would be a mistake.

Fr Deacon Paul

.

Nobody sings now, so what's the loss? At least with a non-musical book, people can sing the (admittedly defective) words to the familiar tones.

Because here is the bottom line:

In those parishes where nobody sang before, nobody sings now.

In the parishes where everyone sang, nobody sings now.

At last! Uniformity has been achieved!

Sorry Stuart, I can't agree with this comment.

This is not true in the two parishes that I attend. People still sing and the regular Sunday hymns are now sung with few mistakes (compared with the old versions).

Fr Deacon Paul

Define "mistakes".

Stuart,

your sarcasm betrays your myopia. Come out West, we sing!!! It may do your perspective some good.

We sang, too--and very well. Now we don't. Our pews were full, now they are not. The story is repeated in parish after parish.

I'm happy for you, but to be honest, for the bulk of the Metropolia, the RDL has been a disaster, the result of an arbitrary, top-down, authoritarian putsch that did not take into consideration the pastoral needs of each parish individually. Beyond that, the music is still awful (and bears little resemblance to what is being sung in Presov or Uzherod), the translation gives mediocrity a bad name and is theologically unsound.

Our God-loving bishops were given a very simple mandate--provide a complete and accurate translation of the Ruthenian recension, cooperating as much as possible with our Orthodox brethren. Nothing was said about abridgments, redactions, amendations, importations from the Greek usage, and particularly nothing was said about mandating one form of chant to the exclusion of all others.

The results are plain for all to see. Will the last person leaving the Metropolia please turn out the lights?

We don't have professional musicians and our cantors are volunteers... so the "mistakes" are missed flats & sharps, tempo, proper value for the notes. Actually, we hold truer to the notes with the RDL than with the old music.

What kind of sampling are you using? Formal statistics or informal gut? The pews haven't been filled for two generations!

....

The Greek Catholics in Slovakia have changed their music (and language) considerable. It can be hard to follow.




You are much more informed than I am Stuart. I wasn't aware that there was a "mandate" at all. Not even the Pope can mandate a change to a "sui jurus" Church. I thought the reason for the revision was to eliminate latinizations and to correct divergent versions of some hymns (like Tone Two troparia).

Were there mistakes and misjudgments? Sure... an example is the hyphen (-) in the pew book, page 315. In the Irmos, it drives me crazy when I start to sing Christ and see too late that the word is a hyphenated Christians (last line.) If it was to be hyphenated it should have been Chris - tians, not Christ - ians.

If I were nitpicking I would criticize both the old AND the new translations of the Communion prayer which reads:
May the partaking of your holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment OR condemnation but for ......
Proper grammar is either/or or neither/nor.

As far as "turning out the light" our Church will be around long after we are gone (unless they choose to reunite with the Ukrainians....which be wonderful, if not somewhat miraculous.)

Spiritually, I can live with the changes; they don't shake my Faith one bit. Any changes are going to be uncomfortable no matter who makes them or what their content. If one can't live with change then one will go crazy living in America.

I have said it previously, this change, like all the others before it, is transitory. Within one generation it will be replaced.

S'nami Boh!
Fr Deacon Paul

It appears that some of the translations are borderline heresy. Rome said not to remove the word "man" from the Creed in "who for us men and our salvation". So what do the bishops do? They remove the word "man" from the Creed. Why? I asked Bishop Skurla. He didn't seem to know. He pretty much admitted that even the bishops don't like the new music but since its promulgated we are stuck with it. I say if it does not work they should unpromulgate it and let us go back to music that we could sing.

The parishes in New Jersey do not sing the new music. The whole thing is a scandal. They hired a man to write it who was kicked out of the priesthood. He didn't even have much experience at being a cantor! The music is awful. One would think that English was not his native language. And I hear the new Presanctified music is even worse.

And the people out West do not sing it very well. But I don't think there was even one parish ever in the west that did the whole liturgy the way its supposed to be done. They invent services, like taking half of vespers or half of matins and then have the second half of the Divine Liturgy. I was in San Diego last fall and the people mumbled. When I asked about how the RDL was there the one lady just rolled her eyes and didn't want to talk about it. Here in New Jersey even over at St. Thomas in Rahway they have lost lots of people. Since Fr. Mondick and started making changes to the liturgy half the people have left. And look at Phoenix or Albuquerque. Those cities have had their populations increase by 400% in the last 10 years. And the Byzantine parishes have barely stayed the same. Thank you RDL! Thank you bishops for killing the church!

I pray that the bishops do what is right. That they rescind the RDL and put back the old liturgy. And then they should fire all the members of the Committee to Revise the Liturgy and the Committee to Revise the Music. It seems they don't know anything about Byzantine liturgy.

In truth, the old pew books could have been updated very easily--with a pencil, if necessary--and directives could have been issued to restore certain practices (e.g., singing of the third antiphon) that had fallen into abeyance. There was nothing wrong with the old music, except that people tended not to use all of it (i.e., always singing the same Only Begotten Son, the same Our Father, the same It Is Truly Proper, etc.), and with a little prompting all of the variations could have been introduced a little bit at a time. The restoration of Teplota would have required nothing more than a directive telling the priests to go buy a teapot. Changes the rubrics would have affected only the priests and deacons. The basic worship of the people would not have been subjected to a radical and disruptive change, but then, a whole lot of people on the Commission would have had to find productive work.

Last year, when the seminarians from Uzhorod/Mukachevo were visiting, one of the seminarians pushed on me to buy a CD of their rendition of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (in Church Slavonic).I was a little tight on cash, but went ahead and bought it. Glad I did. The CD is exquisite! A mixture of prostipinije and "high church" Russian choir music. The Liturgy, as taken on the CD, is unabbreviated, with all of the proper ektenias, etc., and in complete accord with the Ruthenian Rescension. What a delight to listen to! I need not say anything else!

Dn. Robert

Deacon Robert:

Christ is Born!! Chrsit is in our midst!!

Is it possible to obtain a copy in the States? On another note, is there a complete rendition of the DL in the same chant from the Carpatho-Russian diocese?

BOB

Jack Figel sells all the Seminary Choir recordings. Ask him.

Also had the pleasure of hearing them sing the responses to the Divine Liturgy and Vespers (separate services, not combined), in Slavonic. Pleased to note that their Prostopinje is much closer to what we used to sing than the modified Boskaj of the RDL. It was so similar, in fact, that the people were able to sing along--in Slavonic!--without much difficulty.

http://www.seminaryconcerttour.com/

Here is a link to a site which Jack Figel set up to promote the tour. If you can't find mention of the DVD (the cover of the copy I have is done completely in Ukrainian), try reaching him via the "Contact Us" tab.

Dn. Robert

I think this page is what you are looking for.


https://ssl.webvalence.com/ecommerce/kio...ss=concert-tour

Exactly. I purchased the CD on the bottom of the page-the Slavonic Divine Liturgy. Great quality recording. Very clear. Great voices. Highly recommended.

Dn. Robert