First, eternal memory to Archbishop Basil. His funeral was not great but it also was not horrible (the singing was nowhere near what it used to be, the priests and some people sometimes sang the traditional music while those in the loft sang the revised music - the Thompson music will forever remain awful). The Liturgy itself was utter chaos. Even Bishop William complaining joked in his sermon that they keep changing everything. The deacons clearly were not taught how to deacon!

Send your letters to Rome again. Archbishop Cyril Vasil from the Eastern Congregation spoke at the priests' gathering. He is a Greek Catholic Jesuit from Presov. He was polite and his comments were veiled. But he trashed the Revised Divine Liturgy and in general issued a call to Pittsburgh to restore faithfulness and to match the Orthodox in Liturgy. The leading Revisionist understood that the RDL was being trashed and was red with rage where he sat. Everyone hoped that the good Archbishop Cyril had more blunt and direct words to the hierarchs to fix the liturgical mess they have created. Send your letters all over again. Ask Rome to rescind the approval of the Revised Divine Liturgy and to guarantee the right of the Ruthenian people to the Ruthenian Liturgy. There is still a chance to save this Church!

The issues of protocol (Rubrics) for funerals of a bishop have been around far longer than the RDL. The problems seen at the funeral were more likely a general lack of knowledge of the existing rubrics. Bishop William is a good and decent man, but seems flustered on how to officiate as a bishop, especially at a major funeral. I don't know why Bishop William was the main celebrant for the funeral. Bishop John would have been a better choice.

The Deacons are going by what they were taught. If this is what is coming from our seminary, our church needs serious help.

Some, certainly not all, of the issues with the singing can be attributed to the RDL. Not all the music in the RDL book is attributable to Thompson, nor is the translation, much as you might like to malign him at every opportunity. Since everyone had a pew book available at the very least they could sing the same words. It seemed like many didn't care to even open the book and try to sing prayerfully in respect for Met. Basil.

There seemed to be a lead cantor and a sort of choir, but their efforts may have been hampered by the absolutly awful acoustics of the cathedral. I have sung as lead cantor there and know personally how bad the acoustics are.

Overall, the RDL is not the only culprit here, but a dangerous lack of willingness to understand our heritage pertaining to liturgical worship from our hierarchy on down.

And what problems did you perceive? Please be specific.

Bishop William is a good and decent man, but seems flustered on how to officiate as a bishop, especially at a major funeral. I don't know why Bishop William was the main celebrant for the funeral. Bishop John would have been a better choice.

My understanding is that Bishop William is the "elder" Bishop - he was consecrated before Bishop John so he becomes the automatic "choice"...

Point of information, the "people in the loft" was the Pittsburgh Archieparchial Choir. They were directed by the Archdiocese to lead the Friday Liturgy and had rehearsed as such. As Steve pointed out, and anyone who attended the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday services would have observed, "Overall, the RDL is not the only culprit here, but a dangerous lack of willingness to understand our heritage pertaining to liturgical worship from our hierarchy on down." There were numerous individuals at all services who failed to follow those in the lead cantor position.

None of this took away from the beauty of liturgies and the memory of our beloved archbishop.

Eternal memory grant O Lord!

Why do we even need books, I wonder?

But it doesn't answer the question of why, in the several times I have seen Bishop William preside--not just the Divine Liturgy, but also Great Compline and Vespers--not once has he managed to navigate his way through the service without untoward incident. I get the impression that he's not that interested in liturgy, or not interested enough to give it his full attention. Yet, isn't that the bishop's first and most important duty?

Before making a wholesale change in the liturgical music from that with which the people were familiar, someone should have considered that the vast majority of the faithful do not read music, but rather learned all the chants by ear over the course of a lifetime, and to expect them to learn a new, unnecessarily complex and frequently counter-intuitive set of chants out of a book was going to be a non-starter from the get-go.

But then, I get the impression that practical considerations--other than certain artificial concerns ("The people won't stand for a Liturgy longer than 75 minutes")--were not given a second thought. Which is just what you would expect from a project directed by academics and theoreticians.

I agree with Zeeker. I thought the funeral liturgy was beautifully done and demonstrated love and respect for Archbishop Basil. It saddens me to hear these uncharitable and derogatory comments.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

For what it's worth, I sent the youtube videos to my friend who is an evangelical pastor. He wrote:

"I love the singing. The Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are powerful.
Thanks."

Interesting. Are there any clips of Archbishop Cyril's homily on YouTube?

U-C

J.A. would it possible to post the youtube links here also?

Zeeker,
No Prob. Got these links from the Prayer forum:

Video 1:
http://www.youtube.com/user/stnickbyz#p/a/u/0/bltOMeRgv4c
Video 2:
http://www.youtube.com/user/stnickbyz#p/a/u/1/cr4y4J9XjSM
Video 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRa6TBpnSvg

Blessings,
Jonathan

Does anyone know if a DVD of the funeral will be available?

So there are no clips of Archbishop Cyril's homily?

U-C

Archbishop Cyril spoke at the meeting of the priests on Tuesday, before the Archbishop passed away. None of that was recorded. He was not at the funeral nor gave any homily.

Jack

OK. Any recording of his comments mentioned above at the gathering of priests held on the Thursday June 10, 2010 at the Munhall Cathedral?

U-C

I wasn't at the funeral, and I'm no trained musician or liturgist, but from what I heard on the videos (Thank you, Mike L.), the Liturgy was very beautiful. It sounds like there were moments when the singing wasn't pitch-perfect, but at those moments it sounded like everyone in the cathedral, regardless of his or her vocal talent, was participating deeply in the Liturgy. Perhaps it was off-key at times, but it was the voice of the people.

It wasn't the voice of the people, it was the voice of very few people who dismantled an otherwise perfect liturgy. If the people at the Cathedral would have had permission to sing the old liturgy, you wouldn't be able to hear the choir the singing would have been that loud.

I still refuse to sing "that" music, and continue to pray the liturgy as I once knew it, with all the poetic words that made our liturgy beautiful. It sounds too manufactured now.

This is our last chance folks -- write your letters and be heard! Everyone deserves the chance to experience the full liturgy, minus the wordsmithing.

Jack, can you confirm what JD says?

The Funeral Service for a Bishop are few and far between in the Ruthenian Church. It is not eay to remember every detail of the Rubrics. Be patient with Bishop William and the Deacons. Prayer for the soul of Metropolitan Basil was the focus of the services, not the clockwork precision.

Liturgy is a very emotional subject for the faithful. Change takes time and is organic: somethings work and others don't. Also, remember that the Ruthenian Liturgy is Pre-Niconian and as such does NOT follow all the present day Orthodox practices: e.g, the placing of the Antiminsion under the Altar cloths is not a Romanization, but a Pre-Niconian practice. All things are in God's time and under His direction.

an unworthy sinner,
Heiromonk Luke

I was baptized into the Ruthenian Church only in 1996, and in the ensuing fourteen years no fewer than four bishops have fallen asleep, including two metropolitans. It seems common enough that the protodeacon should have been able to stay on top of the rubrics. The Ordo Celebrationis does include the unfolding of the Antimension; an eileton is sometimes, but not always, placed over it.

After watching the youtube videos of +Metropolitan Basil's funeral, I can now understand why so many are troubled by the revised Liturgy. Frankly, I couldn't believe my ears. The beauty of the "old" Liturgy has been destroyed. What in the world possessed the revisionists?

Hubris.

Over the years, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, we have constantly been reminded that the Faithful have the right to speak their minds on matters pertaining to the Church. I would encourage those who are concerned about the plight of our (Pittsburgh Metropolia) Liturgy to communicate their opinions to their Pastors, their Hierarchs, and to the Congregation for Eastern Churches. I am told by a credible source that Archbishop Cyril Vasil, Secretary of the Congregation For Eastern Churches, still receives e-mails at his old address at the Orientalum. For those who might find it easier and more convenient to communicate electronically, that e-mail address is vasil@pio.urbe.it

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

After watching some of the videos, I was appalled at the sound of the music. Yes I have a Masters in Music Performance, but my wife who for the most part knows nothing about music, and it totally musically illiterate, made me turn it off because it sounded so bad.

How does this happen?

The principal issue whenever a large group of Ruthenians gather is tempo. Traditionally, the older parishes of Pennsylvania and Ohio have tended to drag out the chants in a very slow, deliberate manner. Newer parishes in other parts of the country sing faster and more upbeat. Put them in the same room, and you will find the two groups doggedly marching to the beat of their own drummer--unless the cantor has the voice and the will power to bring them along at his chosen pace. This is especially true in large churches, where the propagation lag results in people hearing the cantor at slightly different times.

However, the new music remains a problem because it is more elaborate than what people had been using, its phrasing is awkward in many places, and the words have been changed from those the people knew by heart (often just for the sake of change--what I call "happy-to-glad" revisions). Since, as I noted, most people don't read music, they will get lost, try to sing what they know, using the words that they know, and voila! Cacophony. Most people don't like cacophony, so when they get lost, they sit on their hands and shut their mouths. Unfortunately, there are always some people--usually those who can't sing, but don't know it--who make up for the sudden silence by redoubling their (off-key) efforts.

Rather than acknowledge having made a serious error of judgment, the authors of the revision tend to blame the people for not being able to implement the changes. "They should sing what is in the books" is merely an attempt to divert blame from where it belongs.

I have a question. I don't have a background in slavic-byzantine chant. As I said above I thought the music at the funeral (at least in how it sounded on the recording was very bad sounding), so I went over to the cantor's institute website and listened to some of the recordings there. That music didn't sound bad, though some of the voices didn't have the greatest technique (but that's not a problem with the music). Is the music on the website the new music? I assumed it would be. Also I wondered, if the Pittsburgh Metropolia is now stuck with the RDL, isn't there some way to effectively get the people up to speed?

Having been a musician in Latin Parishes, where the priests have worked to restore the level of sacred music, I must say getting the people on board can be a challenge. Have to teach them new music or in that case old music when they don't want to have to learn, can be a lot of fun or no fun at all. Many people in the latin parishes, seem not to care that their liturgies sound horrible or at least are too lazy to put in any energy to make them better. In the BC parishes, people seem to care the liturgy doesn't sound good, but are only willing to complain. Can't people put some of their energy into making the the RDLs as beautiful as they can be rather than just being like, "I don't know this, therefore I won't bother?" I understand that many people no longer read music and that can make it hard, but there are ways to teach the people if they are willing to learn.

Is there a way to elevate the level of music in our parishes? Is there a way to recapture the musical essence that many people feel was lost? Is there a way to help people take a more active part in making the music beautiful again now that it has changed? Is there a way to get more actual qualified musicians to lead the music and have enough presence to keep the people together, or to create a choir worthy of being followed by the people? What can we do with what we have now, while still working to see some sort of restoration?

Just some of my thoughts. I would love to hear what some people think.

What you have to understand is the problem is two-fold. First, the new translation is really quite bad--in some places more of a paraphrase than an accurate rendering of the Slavonic original. Much of the English is awkward and aesthetically unpleasing, aside from being inaccurate. Second, the new words have been set to music derived from a single early 20th-century compilation of the plainchant as sung in the cathedral of a particular diocese. This raises a host of difficulties.

First, in liturgical chant, the music is shaped by the language of the text. Thus, the Slavs had to substantially alter the melismatic Greek chants they received from Byzantium to deal with the multi-syllabic consonant clusters prevalent in Slavonic. When the music moves from Slavonic to English, one is confronted by the problem of the missing syllables.

Second, what is musically instinctive to a Slav is counterintuitive to someone raised in the tradition of Western music. Particular combinations of chords and grace notes that work in a Slavic culture are just weird in an English one. Or, as one of our great cantors of yesteryear like to say, "The curlicues don't work here".

Third, Prostopinje is an oral tradition. It is continually evolving because it is transmitted from one cantor to another and learned by ear. In turn, individual congregations learn from their cantors, and cantors alter the chants to fit the talents and preferences of their congregations, in an iterative loop. You cannot write down Prostopinje in any definitive form, because to do so kills the orality that makes it unique. Those who have heard choirs from Ukraine or Slovakia, either live or on CD, quickly realize that nobody--absolutely nobody--sings Prostopinje according to Boskaj, and certainly not the bastardized Boskaj of the RDL. In fact, what is being sung in Uzherod and Mukachevo is much closer to what was being sung in American parishes prior to the RDL than the music promulgated in the Teal Terror.

Finally, the integration of the new text into the new music was very badly done. A a rule of thumb, chant should match the cadences of normal speech. The assignment of words to notes in the Teal Terror is simply bizarre, not matching any cadences found in English, or even Pittsburgese. It is, to be blunt, unsingable garbage.

So, the final answer to your question is simple: even if the people wanted to make the RDL as beautiful as possible, they can't, because it is fatally flawed on several levels, to the point that it is just irredeemable. While pastors of Latin parishes struggle to raise the level of liturgical music in their parishes, the people of Ruthenian parishes struggle against their bishops--and often their pastors--to avoid the degradation of their living liturgical patrimony. We are losing what we had and replacing it with something much worse.

Thank you for the insight! That does make things very difficult.

This is the first that I read this thread, so I had a lot of catching up to do. My thoughts.....

1. Stuart, we don't have a protodeacon in the Archeparchy. The idea of deacons is still fairly new; the first class was ordained in 2003.
2. None of our deacons receive a salary...its all on a voluntary basis. Many work and support and nourish a family. Same with the archeparchial choir. They take time to travel for practices at their own expense....then receive criticism because they don't sound professional enough. Perhaps someone may want to donate several thousand dollars so that they can live up to professional expectations (paid practice time; reimbursement of travel expenses, etc)

3. Roman Catholic parishes have paid choir directors and paid organists; with parishioner numbering in the thousands they can afford to do this. Same goes for the Orthodox cathedrals in Russia. Our "larger" parishes have only "hundreds" of parishioners.

4. I have been to many pre-RDL Divine Liturgies and, while they were beautiful, none were "professional." In my opinion, when we demand "professional" liturgies we will have lost congregational singing....and they will be nothing more than showcases. But in reality they will be a "gonging bell." The most moving DL's that I have been to have not been "professional" but were sung from the heart by tone deaf, tin-earred as well as "good" singers. Those are the worship services that are most pleasing to God's ear.

5. Deacon Lance asked the question about what was wrong with the deacons rubrics. I was curious about it too, but no one answered. Answers, anyone?

May Metropolitan Archbishop Basil rest in peace. Vicnaja pomjat!

Fr Deacon Paul

Most Roman parishes I've been in, don't have paid choir directors any more. Some of the very large parishes do, but for the most part many of them just let anyone who claims to be able to play the guitar, lead the "choir."

Stuart: the current liturgy isn't a translation from the Slavonic... they stated they were deriving it from the Greek liturgies. (That's a whole 'nother can of worms...) So it's pretty amazing it lines up at all with the older, Slavonic-sourced English translation.

Paul: only large Roman parishes routinely pay a music minister... often just to be a coordinator.

Father Deacon Paul,

That the first diaconal class in Pittsburgh began in 2003 is an indictment of the leadership of Archeparchy. There were deacons in Passaic when I arrived in 1996 (including a protodeacon); if there were no deacons in Pittsburgh, where the Metropolitan is supposed to be setting an example, what does that say?

I also know that deacons don't receive a salary, and do what they do out of love for the Church. That's no excuse not to know the job. It merely confirms my impression that liturgy doesn't have a high priority in the Metropolia.

I also don't think we need profession choirs or paid cantors--quite the opposite. What we need is restoration of the tradition of the Carpatho-Rusyn Church of congregational plainchant transmitted orally and learned by heart, thereby making books for the people superfluous (the Melkite parish where I now worship has no pewbooks whatsoever--or pews, for that matter--and they sing the way Epiphany used to sing). And because our chant tradition is oral, you simply cannot write it down and say, "use this and no other arrangement".

I sang in a very much non-professional choir at Epiphany, and they did better than most professional choirs I have heard (certainly better than the Schola Cantorum, which may be good on a concert stage, but doesn't know how to sing liturgically). So don't put words in my mouth, please.

You say that 'when we demand "professional" liturgies we will have lost congregational singing....and they will be nothing more than showcases'. I submit that's what you're getting today, since only the cantors and choirs bother with the new music. The old music may not have been complete, it may not have been a perfect transcription of Boskaj, but it was a close match to what was actually being sung in the Mother Church, and was accessible to the people, who sang it with gusto (when their cantors allowed them to do so--cantors who think they are Caruso or Pavarotti were always a good piece of the problem). I think I was very explicit in saying (either on this thread or a closely related one) that a congregational Liturgy sung with feeling is superior by far to one sung perfectly without any emotional commitment--hence my problem with Scholar Cantorum, for instance--the "Ruthenian Madrigal Society". The actual impact of the RDL has been to create precisely the kind of showcase you decry.

As to the problems with the lyrics, I haven't had a chance to look at the original texts of the Funeral Service for a Bishop, so I couldn't tell you at this point.

Though Greek and Slavic usage have some significant differences (and pre-Nikonian Slavic usage has some significant differences from Nikonian usage), about 90% of the text is common to all. However, where there are major differences, these tend to be highly audible or visible. As a general rule, the pre-Nikonian usage preserves the older, more pristine Tradition, so relying on Greek texts was as methodologically faulty in the RDL as it was in the 17th century. Not only did the Greeks continue to evolve after 1453, but their texts (generally printed in Venice) became increasingly corrupt through sloppy copy editing.

In any case, though, the biggest boners in the new "translation" do not come from following the Greek text, but from faulty knowledge of Slavonic and a willful desire to impose tendentious wording not supported by either the Greek or Slavonic texts ("Everywhere and always"? You just can't get there from here).

Father Deacon Paul,

Think about how poorly cantors are treated in the Byzantine Catholic Church. They usually apprentice themselves to an experienced cantor and spend years learning the music. Then the bishops tell them that everything they learned is worthless and they need to re-learn everything. The cantors are not consulted over anything. They are given music that makes one wonder if the people who arranged it speak English as a first language. And if they dare to ask questions they are accused of disobedience.

There was nothing wrong with the old music. It worked. And it looks like the old translation was more accurate.

Jason

Stuart,

Please don’t blame the deacons. Their heads are spinning from the changes. Every priest demands something different. Everything and anything is allowed EXCEPT the Ruthenian rubrics.

Jason

Everything is in the Ordo Celebrationis. Nothing else is required nor can anything else be substituted for it.

There are worse things. A quick perusal of those accused by their bishops of disobedience includes St. Athanasius, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, Saint Theodore the Studite. . . .it seems whenever the bishops don't have a leg on which to stand, the old appeal to authority is rolled out.

Our bishops, and many of our priests as well, have difficulty remembering that this isn't the dark side of the Carpathians, where the only literate people in the village are the priest and the cantor (and maybe not him). It irks them to no end that there are, within the laity, people with more expertise in certain areas than they themselves possess. Yet they always need to be seen as "The Smartest Guys in the Room". That was the title of a book about ENRON, and it seems to me that ENRON and the Ruthenian Church have similar management playbooks.

That there is no protodeacon in the Archeparchy is unfortunate. We can only hope that this will be corrected in the future.

To avoid misunderstanding I know that Stuart has spoken in favor of congregational singing as opposed to princpally choral responses. My post left room for misunderstanding; I was responding to several posters in my comments.

With regard to banishing all pew books and encourage singing from memory....if this were the case I would have been lost when singing Slavonic. We all need crutches, I still rely on the book for assistance when I'm filling in for our regular cantor. I undertand the point which is being made, but eliminating the books will eventually lead to fewer people singing within two generations. A literate American culture has made books mandatory. I agree there are some shortfalls with the new music, versions, settings, wording, etc but this can be corrected over time. I'm confident that it will be, just as it has been corrected in the past.

It seems the funeral of Metropolitan Archbishop Basil became a catalyst to voice some legitimate shortcomings....and some nitpicking, but I consider both to be rude. Archbishop Basil's funeral comments should be made with dignity. There are many other opportunities for criticisms.

I hope that I've not offended anyone; a freedom to express opinions is important. Please be courteous (Christian) and use the proper venues.

Fr Deacon Paul

Thank you Father Paul for asking all to be Christian and courteous in voicing their opinion, especially in regard to the Council of Bishops (they are the Apostles of Christ). Christian Love and prayer must be the starting point of all conversation.

The Ruthenian Church has endured many difficulties over the past 100 years. I hope and pray that as Christians all will work together with a common goal rather than causing further divisions.

Heiromonk Luke

I am now 62 years old, and I don't remember a time when the music of the BCA was ever good. Perhaps that's why I don't criticize the "new" music as opposed to the "old" music. It's been mediocre for as long as I can remember.

I know some criticize paid musicians, but it's true that you get what you pay for. Paying for professional musicians can indicate that the church takes good liturgical music seriously and is willing to support it. That's not the current case in our church, in my observation.

I've heard that argument, and the miserable state of liturgical music in the Roman Catholic Church (which does pay its music ministers, organists, etc.) is the best rebuttal to that one.

Besides, there were always places where the music in the Ruthenian Church was exquisite. Your misfortune was not to have heard it.

No, I didn't hear it in the BCA where it was good, I only heard the bad. And let's face it, Ruthenian music at its best was much simpler and plainer than what was available in the local Orthodox churches.

I am also one of those paid musicians in the RC Church, and our music is excellent. If I couldn't do it well, I wouldn't take the salary.

The Roman Masses we've attended are locked into what some of us call "Blue Grass Hymns". They lack reverence and beauty. In plain English - they're awful!

For a very good reason. Prostopinje is the plainchant of the Carpath-Rusyn people. Put another way, the Ruthenians invented the true folk mass, taking the chants they inherited from Kiev and adapting them to their own unique melodies and folk harmonies. Whereas the introduction of polyphony in Russia in the 17th century resulted in increasingly elaborate arrangements that could only be sung by trained choirs, in the Carpathians (and also among the Old Ritualists in Russia) the older tradition of congregational singing continued unchanged.

Gardner wrote about this during his 1920s excursion to the Sub-Carpathian, in a quote I have cited several times already (my emphasis in red):



This, then, is the ideal towards which the Metropolia should strive. I might point out that this is still the case in Mukachevo and Uzherod, and it was very much the case in some of our better parishes. Recent services at which the visiting Theodore Romzha Seminary Choir led the responses--in Slavonic--proved that this spirit and this ability is still present in our faithful. It is our bishops and our clergy who have lost faith in us and in the power of the Tradition.

Fr. Deacons Lance and Paul have asked the question regarding the service of the deacon during the funeral of Metropolitan Basil, which has not been answered, so here goes a third request from a third deacon- what specifically was the problem with the "deacon's deaconing"?

Brother deacons,

Apparently someone was just venting and its not really an issue.

Anything to find fault (with the RDL). There is never a time when everything goes smoothly, especially during such a rarely served liturgy. I commend you Frs. for your service to the church.

When Chesterton said, "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly", I don't think he was advocating it as the norm. "Close enough for liturgical work"? I don't think so.

Don't blame the deacons - they are doing what they were commanded to do. They need watch a video of the funeral with the Ordo at hand to see all the differences.

I also understand emotion at funerals. But most people go into auto mode and function according to what they were taught. Clergy communion was utter chaos. Following the rubrics would have made it dignified and faster.

I can't remember all the deacon differences from the Ordo. I think the one video shows the deacons facing west for the "Wisdom! Be attentive!"? When in doubt face east. Or maybe the RDL has changed that, too.

Again, don't judge the deacons - the Ruthenian rubrics are verboten!

Thank you; I appreciate the reply; allow me to reply. Below is a quote from Ordo Celebrationis, the rubrics according to the Ruthenian Recension (just before the Prokeimenon):

125. When the Trisagion is finished, the deacon comes near the royal doors, holds up the orarion with the first three fingers of his right hand says: Let us be attentive! Blessing the people the priest announces: Peace be with all. And the deacon again: Wisdom! Be attentive! and returns to the priest.

There is no mentions of the placement of the deacon except (the deacon) "comes near the royal doors" which is what we were taught. Keep in mind that the role model in our first year of training was (then) Fr Deacon Valerian who was trained and ordained in Ukraine.




I take it that you are referencing Ordo Celebrationis when you reference "Ruthenian rubrics." I appreciate your sympathy, but I don't recall anything from Ordo being forbidden, except perhaps we were told not to put the discos on our head for the Great Entrance. it really wasn't forbidden, though.

IMHO, your suggestion to face east when in doubt makes sense; however it makes sense that a deacon would default to what a priest would do if he has no deacon (deacon parts,so as not to be misunderstood).

You've got the wrong "Wisdom! Be attentive!" Watch the first video and you'll see the deacon is facing west when he raises the Gospel Book and says "Wisdom! Be attentive!" See the Ordo #122. The priest blesses towards the east. The deacon presents the Gospel to to the priest to kiss (and this deacon presented it to Bishop William twice and he ignored it twice). The deacon stands before the priest. It does not specifically say the deacon faces east but he always does at the Little Entrance. It is simple lack of knowledge that comes from our church's abandonment of its own liturgy.

Parts of the Ordo are forbidden. Do a rubric by rubric comparison and you will see that there is a lot missing and a lot that is different. The RDL Liturgicon by mandate of the Council of Hierarchs replaces the Roman mandates for the Ruthenian Liturgy and the Ordo.

There were a number of such mistakes - most coming from simple lack of knowledge. But I blame the bishops for their destruction of the liturgy.

That was definitely an error. At the Little Entrance, the deacon, upon presenting the Gospel to the celebrant and then receiving back, should be facing the Holy Table when he elevates the book and proclaims "Wisdom". I have never, in any celebration Orthodox or Catholic, seen the deacon face the people to do this.

As to Bishop William's performance, my observations of him on several occasions makes me wonder how he celebrated as a priest, and by virtue of what knowledge he was entitled to rule on the acceptability of the RDL. That's a polite way of saying he doesn't know his way around a Liturgicon.

In order to get a complete set of rubrics for the Ruthenian recension, one must take both the rubrics in the Liturgicon and the rubrics presented in the Ordo Celebrationis. In some cases, rubrics missing in the Liturgicon have been restored in the Ordo; in others, the rubrics are expanded, clarified or corrected. In a few rare instances, a rubric given in the Liturgicon is omitted from the Ordo. So you have to correlate the two in order to get a complete picture.

At Hierarchical Liturgies, many (Orthodox) deacons will face east for "Wisdom, be attentive!" and then face the hierarch (i.e. west) for "Come, let us adore..." so that the hierarch is coming, adoring and bowing down before Christ, as iconically represented in the Gospel Book. Perhaps the deacon had this practice in mind.

Having served as a subdeacon and now as a deacon at hierarchical services, I can say with certainty that it is very easy to get flustered at such celebrations. One missed rubric in a sequence of rubrics can throw you off. I do believe that we should strive for well-executed liturgies, but harping on about a deacon making a mistake at a funeral is just not productive.

Deacon David
(ACROD)

Ok, I'm with you now. Yes, I noticed that, too, and I think your observation is correct about the gaff. Normally the deacon WILL face east.

On the "forbidden" subject, I guess you could say that some things were on the "forbidden list" even before the RDL, to be fair.

The Ordo Celebrationis does not address the rubrics for the deacons during the Hierarchical Liturgy.

Fr Deacon David has commented on the practice of "many" (therefore, not all) (Orthodox) deacons. I'm afraid I do not read Slavonic so I have no idea what the ARCHIERATIKON states as the proper direction for the deacon at the end of the Little Entrance before the Holy Doors.

The rubric in our English translation of the Hierarchical Liturgy states:

"the first deacon then presents the Holy Gospel to the celebrant who kisses it. The first deacon kisses the celebrant's right hand.

The celebrant and deacons proceed closer to the Holy Doors. The second deacon goes first carrying the censer. When the last refrain of the Antiphon is concluded, the first deacon, at the solea, turns and faces the Celebrant. Raising the Holy Gospel, he intones," Wisdom! Be attentive!

Eternal Memory to Metropolitan Basil!

On the question of which way the deacon faces for the "Wisdom! Stand Aright!" of the Little Entrance, he faces East. Always. If someone suggests otherwise make them prove it with documentation. Note, however, the RDL very often departs from our tradition and cannot be trusted as accurate. [And the deacon was correct to follow the instructions given to him.]

The Ruthenian Church has forgotten so much. I dare say that the good people in charge of the funeral did not have an inkling that when he is resting in the temple the deceased Metropolitan should have been facing EAST, not WEST. If anyone is interested in seeing this done correctly they can visit the videos for Patriarch Alexi's funeral last year [ YouTube Link ].

In translating the rubrics of the Archeiretikon some time back, I do not remember anything implying that the deacon should face the bishop while proclaiming wisdom. A project to publish an accurate study edition of the book has been hanging fire for some time, but I can vouch for the accuracy of the translation. Just how closely it will match the translation issued by the Joint Intereparchial Liturgical Commission is an interesting question. Experience would tell us to set our expectations on low.

I think though they are the general, common rubrics that would be followed except for explicit rubrics in the particular service book, e.g. the ARCHIERATIKON. The Ordo has generic priest and deacon(s). The bishop is a priest.

This is good information and may be a consideration but I feel we should first know and even follow what is ours.


Yes, what does it actually say: Archieratikon 038-039. But how relevant is it for our church? The recension text (rubrics) was not treated well in the RDL translation.


Thanks for providing this. "Celebrant"? Why celebrant? Hierarch or bishop perhaps. Who else would be the priest using the Archieratikon? The deacon does kiss a hand -- interesting designation in the Slavonic. Where in the recension text does he face the bishop?

[emphasis added]

Yes, this is the point and the question: Liturgy by the book within reason or the selective liturgical preference of the select few?

I like the discussion of language. I am not able to translate much but can read Cyrillic and can compare, forgive my bad transliteration. In the Hierarchical Liturgy it uses the Slavonic Archiereu During the Great Entrance archierea and archiepiskopa are use in refering to the Pope and archbishop. Likewise in the regular liturgy this entrance uses the word for priest ijereu. The regular Liturgy also has the deacon kiss the hand of the priest (vozvishajet malo rutzja). The difference with the regular Liturgy is that after that is added that the deacon i stav pred which I think means stands in front. The line that has vchodit diakon (hierarchial protodiakon) posred which I am not sure of the meaning. I think there is a line in the Liturgy that says posred i nas but I cannot remember where.

Usually the anointing at mirovanije (other than at Pascha or Christmas) is "Christos Posred i nas" (Christ Is Amongst Us). Hope that helps.

Thanks Deacon Bob. I was just thinking of that so the word might mean near. Even though in English I say Christ is among us It would make sense to say Christ is near us. I know there are others on this forum better at translating than I am but I just wanted to have some fun. I grew up with this language and heard it for over 25 years. It also brings back memories of my Slavonic Liturgy class.

Same/similar phrases are in the rubrics of the Archieratikon p 38 and the Liturgicon/Sluzhebnik p 206 at this entrance. In fact they are mostly using the same wording. The difference is that the bishop's hand is to be kissed. In both the deacon stands in the center (posredi), elevates hands a little (vozvishajet malo rutsi), and shows the Holy Gospel. The rubric that the deacon stands in front of the priest is not in the Archieratikon; there is no rubric that the priest's hand is kissed; there is no rubric that the deacon faces the bishop. Regarding the last then, what is the source for "the first deacon, at the solea, turns and faces the Celebrant" in the current BCC translation?

Not sure where the "new" rubric comes from in our new archieraticon. However, I've been provided with a you-tube clip of a Hierarchical Liturgy at St. George ROCOR parish in Howell, NJ, on St. George's day. It is interesting to note that the protodeacon faces Met. Hilarion with the Gospel at the Little Entrance. Here's the clip.

Dn. Robert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjG1J4atIqQ&feature=related

Since the process of "translation" (my apologies to qualified translators) is not transparent, since the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission does not see fit to submit its work to peer review or to discuss in any detail either its methodology or its scholarly apparatus, one must assume it is an innovation.

Or, at least, it is "borrowed" from elsewhere (i.e. Great Russian usage), since it is not explicit in the traditional "Ruthenian" Slavonic archieratikon.

The problem being the Ruthenian Recension reflects pre-Nikonian Slavic usage. So what do the Old Ritualists do? One might think our hierarchs have an inferiority complex, and feel the need to be Great Russians in order to cease being "Little Russians". And to think of all the times I was castigated for using Russian pronunciation of Slavonic!

Still, one has to remember the mandate of the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission, which was simply to provide a complete and accurate translation of the Ruthenian Slavonic recension, not to create a new liturgy or to bring Ruthenian usage into line with that of the Greeks or the Russians. There is a Slavonic Archieretikon for the Ruthenian Churches, and a full and accurate translation of it has already been made. It would be interesting to compare it with that which the IELC invented.

Yes, it has seemed to me to be too often the case of replacing Latinization with Russian-ification (if you will) and/or Hellenization. And who is going to follow the Ruthenian Recension if not the Ruthenians?

What is the source and availability of this translation? Could the translation of the small entrance rubrics, pp 38 to 41, at the least, be obtained?

Regarding the Ruthenian Archieratikon it should be noted, however, that in another current thread (link) it is said:

See my PM to you.

Russification of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches is a constant risk, and has been since the Muskovite Patriarchate came into being.

Russian Imperialism was both civil and religious; it still seems to be so.

As somewhat of an outsider, I've got to ask. What are some examples of Hellenization and Russianification in the Ruthenian Church ?

Thanks Fr Deacon Robert for the clip reference, but this poor "little Russian" is confused by the vestments. The Hierarchy and priest have gold/white vestment but the deacons, subdeacon and acolytes are wearing white sticharia and RED oraria???? What's up with that? May 10 was a Thursday; St Geeorge is a martyr....shouldn't all the clergy be wearing either red (dark?) or light vestments?

Hmmm, maybe our Rusin Church has been doing it wrong all along?

hellenizations: Theotokos instead of Bohorodicen is the most obvious. The new books being essentially greek with some ruthenianizations being another.

As for russifications... large numbers of Russian prostopinije arrangements in 4 part have found their way into the Ukrainian and Ruthenian uses.

What in the world is "Russian prostopinje"? There are polyphonic Kyivan, Obikhod and choral arrangements that would seem to fit this description, but certainly not Carpatho-Rusyn Prostopinje.

The deacon most certainly does not do the intonation at the Small Entrance facing versus populum in any Old Rite hierarchal celebrations I am aware of. The deacon is leading an Entrance and is facing this way for a definite liturgical reason. This reminds me of the Latin Pauline practice to face the people with the Gospel book prior to reading. Perhaps this is an example of neolatinization rather than hellenization or russification?

This is still a common practice, one which is violated at one's peril. My daughter was once selected to read for BCY, and did so from the center of the nave, versus apsidem, as opposed to just before the solea, versus populum (normal in the parish). She was never asked to read again.

Nor does he do so in the you-tube clip of a Hierarchical Liturgy at St. George ROCOR parish given in a previous post. He does turn around afterward, but the bishop is giving the blessing immediately rather than proceeding forward as I believe the Ruthenian Archieratikon specifies. In the clip the bishop also gives a second round of blessings -- 2 then, 4 previously -- before entering the Altar -- again, not in the Ruthenian ritual. (The deacon also appears to make the sign of the cross with the book as opposed to just raising it.)

The two online videos I have seen of an Old Rite Hierarchical Small Entrance begin after "Premudrost, prosti." Regardless, Deacon Randy is right--they would not face the hierarch.

From Bishop Daniel's funeral:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBC-XJJVzdo

From an Old Rite community in Romania:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX0UsU8BPec

(What did we ever do before YouTube?!)

Dn. David

Great Russian usage has much which is different from our way. I could write a book.

Dn. Robert

Father Deacon Robert tells us:



Lead me not into temptation!

Fr. Serge

Are you inferring that we should alter the received Prostopinje back to the Greek chant because of missing syllables or should we substanially alter the plain chant to fit the English text?

The plainchant should be adapted to accommodate English, even if it requires a degree of simplification. Simplification goes on all the time--what is sung in Mukachevo today bears no resemblance to what Boskaj compiled in 1906 (its much closer to what we were singing, in fact). As someone famously said, "The curlicues don't work". Gradually, a uniquely "American" Prostopinje will emerge, just as Prostopinje evolved out of Kievan Chant, which in turn evolved out of Byzantine Chant.

The beauty of the Byzantine rite is its ability to adapt to whatever culture it is in, while still remaining fundamentally Byzantine.