www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall RE: Removing threads part II...

Dear Fr. Deacon John:

I admire your patience!

Amado

Amado,

if you think I'm patient, you should meet my bride. She's been married to me for 20 years... and raised 7 children (8 if you include me ).

Dear Fr. Deacon John:

Then your wife, as mother to 8 children (including yourself ), must be doubly--make that eternally, patient!

Now, you remind me how my wife has been patient as well through all these years: she has been married to me for more than 26 years, with 4 children, myself included, in tow!

Amado

O.K., will you guys stop kidding around now?

Alex

It is not necessary at all! That is why no one can convince you.

Of course, there is always someone who believes that the moon is made of cheese.

So there will always be someone who thinks that a "new improved shortened inclusive and updated" Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom is a good idea.

Tsk Nicholas - everyone sensible knows that the moon is made of dark Chocolate - at least 70%.

And as well HADaMPI also appreciates the stuff too - healer of all ailments it is

The proverbial cat seems to have gotten U-C�s tongue. Perhaps we can consider the �...� to be hairballs that need to be cleared before the meow can be sung? :p

On a serious note I think I do understand U-C�s position. Those advocating this huge change to our Liturgy have not put forwarded a serious case supporting the need for change (everything presented to support the revision so far amounts to nothing more than personal preference). The changes to the liturgical rubrics, the inclusive language of the new texts (and etc.) are just wrong. When you fiddle with the way someone has prayed all his or her life (and the Church for a millennium) you are bound to cause controversy. If someone needs an example think of what would happen if you walked into any church on Christmas Eve and announced: �We have improved �Silent Night�. Instead of singing it quietly as we hold candles (like we have for the past 50 years) we have turned it into a dance number backed by a jazz band. Oh! And the words are all different and we�ve fixed all the mistakes in the musical setting.� Can anyone not expect a righteous revolt?

Actually, It probably is way more than what I current earn!

Ungcsertezs

Esteemed Administrator, thank you for your words and perspective concerning this contraversial issue. I would like to think that those who oppose these changes will be given the opportunity to be heard and not just systematically censored and/or ignored.

Djakuju krasna!

Ungcsertezs

:rolleyes: Administrator, You have spoken seriously before, but what offer here cannot reasonably be considered as serious. Sadly, it argues against the utility of the suggested six-month test period.

What are you talking about UC? Go to the MCI website and look over the music. Compare it to Bokshaj or Papp. And tell me what specifically are you objecting to that is not prostopinije? (Surely you are not arguing that if it is not Slavonic it is not real?) Don't give up your day job.

From the thread I, by UC:

I don't worry about the anarchy, like ByzKat. It is inevitable and is the fertile ground of musical growth. But I am trying to figure out what is it that you think is "correct", but different from MCI materials. Did it ever occur to you that given the situation that you describe, the chanting in Windber may have some strong local idiosyncracies? Is it accurate to the gray book or black binder music? (Is that music, in your opinion "correct" or "incorrect" prostopinije.) Or are there strong deviations?
And what, exactly, is this venerable oral tradition that you talk about?
And what in your opinion does good prostopinje sound like?

Djs,

When I say "good" Prostopinije, I'm referring to what Dormition parish was singing in the late 1960's and early 1970's which of course was mostly sung in Church Slavonic. I even have excerpts of English translations that we used in the late 1960's that were very interesting. I found them among many of my father's prayer books. They were manually typed out on heavy card stock. I've been meaning to asked our retired pastor who authored these unique English translations. They may even be from 1958-1962. Interior renovations were completed by 1958 and Bp. Nicholas Elko was present at the redication liturgy that year. It was Bp. Elko who had first initiated the push to an English Divine Liturgy. I'll have to scan them to a file and e-mail them to you.

Ungcsertezs

OK, strike the jazz band. But I think the example still holds and holds well.

Let�s take a different example, djs. You are probably of an age where, if you were at a parish meeting in a Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Ohio parish and the priest tapped you on the shoulder and whispered, �After I get everyone�s attention start �Dostonjo Jest��, you would be able to sing it without reference to any words or music. Most of the people would also be able to sing it without reference to any words or music. Why is this? It is because you have sung it that way all your life. Now imagine that someone comes along and says �Some of the Slavonic words were wrong and we fixed them. Oh, and we are no longer using samohlasen 6 so here is a new Slavonic setting for the real prostopinije melody for �Dostonjo Jest�. You might be very willing to change the way you have sung something all your life but I can guarantee you that the vast majority of your fellow parishioners are going to object to such a change. Now, re-evaluate this with the consideration that (in many parishes) we have been singing the English language texts and settings for nearly 40 years. Do you really think that the people are going to embrace changes in texts, liturgical rubrics and music when they see absolutely no need for such changes? See my point? At one level it really does not matter what the change is. Any change to the Liturgy (text and rubrics) or music directly affects each individual�s personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If it is to be accomplished at all it must be done so with great gentleness over a very long period of time.

OK, here�s another example, this one from the Roman Catholics. In the 1960�s the Latin Church updated its text for the �Hail Mary� from Elizabethan English to American English. The text went from ��the Lord is with Thee, blessed art Thou amongst women�.� to ��the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women�.� How many Roman Catholics over 40 do you know that do not automatically say the Elizabethan English version of this prayer? Why have they not embraced the new translation by now? People simply do not like to give up something they are comfortable with during a lifetime. They do so only when convinced that is absolutely necessary.

Regarding a six month test period, one first has to get to the point where the majority of our people, cantors and clergy have bought into the need for radical change to the Liturgy. Since the clergy, priests and people were not involved in the process of determining: 1) the need for reform, 2) the goals of the reform (should we be loyal to our tradition or revise it) and 3) the specifics of the reform, it is highly unlikely that they will embrace it with enthusiasm.

It is my sincere prayer that the bishops decide not to promulgate the new Liturgy. To do so will cause much consternation in our Church and we will loose people over it. I would like to see the bishops direct the liturgical commissions to revisit their work (I do admire all the hard work they have done even if I don�t agree with it) to prepare texts and rubrics that are very exacting to the official Ruthenian liturgical books published at Rome. English texts and musical settings which are now so well known should not be fiddled with unless absolutely necessary.

Admin

OK, strike the jazz band. But I think the example still holds and holds well.

Let�s take a different example, djs. You are probably of an age where, if you were at a parish meeting in a Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Ohio parish and the priest tapped you on the shoulder and whispered, �After I get everyone�s attention start �Dostonjo Jest��, you would be able to sing it without reference to any words or music. Most of the people would also be able to sing it without reference to any words or music. Why is this? It is because you have sung it that way all your life. Now imagine that someone comes along and says �Some of the Slavonic words were wrong and we fixed them. Oh, and we are no longer using samohlasen 6 so here is a new Slavonic setting for the real prostopinije melody for �Dostonjo Jest�. You might be very willing to change the way you have sung something all your life but I can guarantee you that the vast majority of your fellow parishioners are going to object to such a change. Now, re-evaluate this with the consideration that (in many parishes) we have been singing the English language texts and settings for nearly 40 years. Do you really think that the people are going to embrace changes in texts, liturgical rubrics and music when they see absolutely no need for such changes? See my point? At one level it really does not matter what the change is. Any change to the Liturgy (text and rubrics) or music directly affects each individual�s personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If it is to be accomplished at all it must be done so with great gentleness over a very long period of time.

OK, here�s another example, this one from the Roman Catholics. In the 1960�s the Latin Church updated its text for the �Hail Mary� from Elizabethan English to American English. The text went from ��the Lord is with Thee, blessed art Thou amongst women�.� to ��the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women�.� How many Roman Catholics over 40 do you know that do not automatically say the Elizabethan English version of this prayer? Why have they not embraced the new translation by now? People simply do not like to give up something they are comfortable with during a lifetime. They do so only when convinced that is absolutely necessary.

Regarding a six month test period, one first has to get to the point where the majority of our people, cantors and clergy have bought into the need for radical change to the Liturgy. Since the clergy, priests and people were not involved in the process of determining: 1) the need for reform, 2) the goals of the reform (should we be loyal to our tradition or revise it) and 3) the specifics of the reform, it is highly unlikely that they will embrace it with enthusiasm.

It is my sincere prayer that the bishops decide not to promulgate the new Liturgy. To do so will cause much consternation in our Church and we will loose people over it. I would like to see the bishops direct the liturgical commissions to revisit their work (I do admire all the hard work they have done even if I don�t agree with it) to prepare texts that are very exacting to the official Ruthenian liturgical books published at Rome. English texts and musical settings which are now so well known should not be fiddled with unless absolutely necessary.

Admin