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?