www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy The Revised Liturgy

Hello fellow members!
I am new to the forum and also a relatively recent convert to Catholicism, being chrysmated on the Feast of the Exaltation in September, 2001 at Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic church in San Diego. I just wanted to respond to a topic that has been discussed quite often and offer my dos centavos and I would welcome any comments. Since Holy Angels is the only Byzantine church I have been a member of my experiences so far are quite narrow as regards the Divine Liturgy.
1. As regards the prayers taken aloud by the
priest that has always been the case since
I have attended this church(starting 11
March, 2001.

2. We have never done the little litanies
between the antiphons if for no other
reason than our pew book does not have
them.

3. When I first joined the church we only sang
the first verse of all three antiphons, but
on September 1, 2002 our cantor decreed we
would sing all 3 verses of all 3 antiphons.
(We don't sing the third verse of the 3rd
antiphon because that is when the Little
Entrance procession stops at the ambon.
Maybe Father Mel can walk a little slower.)

4. The second "it is proper and just to
worship...." we have not, so far, shortened
to "it is proper and just".

5. In the pew book which we use for some
reason the communion hymn comes not after
the singing of "Holy things for the Holy',
but rather after the communion prayer. I am
not personally aware of a Byzantine church,
Catholic or Orthodox, which does it that
way.

Does the proposed shortening of the antiphons
include the special festal antiphons for major feasts, shuch as the Theophany? I might be upset at that.
byzcath convert,
Paul Heim

Welcome Paul!!!!!!!!!!

Holy Angels was my parish from 1988-2000 during the years of Father JOseph Ridella, Fr John Kovach and then Father Mel. I have many good memories of the people there especially the Rusnak's. Please say hello from me to El NOra and to Father Mel.

Af as the "Little LItanies" during the ANtiphons. I do remember these being taken for a short period in 2000 along with the prayers of the priest. Holy Angels seemed to be going towards restoration of it's Orthodox ethos.

Again, Welcome to the Forum

Brian in Sacramento

Welcome, Paul. In most parishes of the Byzantine Catholic metropolia only the first verse of each antiphon is taken, and hence the small ektenias at the conclusion of each antiphon are dropped because of the abbreviations.

In common Ukrainian Catholic usage, two complete antiphons (usually the first and third) are taken with the small ektenia in between, but in some parishes the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes are taken. The Beatitudes, especially if the appointed troparia especially for the Beatitudes are taken with them, give ample time not only for the Small Entrance but also for all of the faithful to approach and venerate the Holy Gospels.

I am glad to see your parish returning to full antiphons. The abbreviation of the antiphons has caused the aberration in most Byzantine Catholic parishes of the Small Entrance occurring during the Hymn of the Incarnation ("O Only Begotten Son") and not during the Third Antiphon as was the tradition, and which is still done in the Ukrainian Catholic usage.

When I was attending professional school in Pittsburgh in 1975, the Byzantine Catholic church I sometimes attended—Holy Spirit—had an English Divine Liturgy at 8:30 a.m. and a Slavonic Divine Liturgy at 10:30 a.m.

The interesting thing was that the priest took no shortcuts: the priest and choir sang the three ektenias with the full antiphons and almost everything else that the service books called for. Even more interesting was that the liturgical practice was identical to the OCA parishes I had attended earlier in my undergraduate years. In fact, they used the same music. The only noticeable difference was in the endings to prayers—“ now and ever and forever” vs. “now and . . . unto ages of ages.”

The Divine Liturgy was a beautiful and uplifting experience.

Years later, I met some Byzantine Catholics who talked about priests cutting some of these things.

Can anyone tell me when this cutting started and why? Maybe I'm off, but I always used “don't mess with success” as one of my yardsticks. And this particular parish seemed to have it right.

BOB

Dear BOB,

Those are interesting observations! If memory serves me the Ruthenian "pew book" from that time did not contain the little litanies (I think that is what you mean?, two not three) between the antiphons and it also did not contain a third antiphon except for feasts. And, did that BC parish sing Russian choral music for all liturgies? Or did you attend OCA parishes previously that had a prostopinije tradition. I'm sorry it is not clear to me from your post.

There is, today, two Holy Spirit and one Holy Ghost parishes in Pittsburgh, was it one of these that is still in existence?

Tony

Edited to correct number of parishes, was reversed.

There is no Byzantine Catholic parish in Pittsburgh that uses Great Russian chant. It was
probably a case were a few OCA parishes that had strong ties to their Carpatho-Rusyn heritage
and they used the Rusyn Prostopinije instead of the standard Moscovite music. There still exists certain OCA parishes even today in Western PA that make a habit of using Rusyn Prostopinije.

Ung-Certez

Tony:

The particular church was on Fifth Avenue in Oakland, near a large synagogue. They had no pew books around, but everyone seemed to know all the music and parts.

Ung Certez:

I believe you are right, too. The music was Carpatho-Russian in both cases. I have had experience with the music of the Great Russian tradition and it is different.

I had the chance to sing with a mixed Orthodox choir during the millenium celebrations in 1988 and the music sung at that time was of the latter tradition.

The priest in Pittsburgh at the time told me he had come from the tradition of married clergy but that he, himself, had had to remain unmarried because of the Ea Semper decree. Seems he had come from a long line of priests--father, grandfather, uncles, etc. And he said he was the last of his family. Seemed to me to be a shame. He was a good man and a solid priest.

Thanks for the posts.

But I still don't know what is the impetus for cutting. My Byzantine Catholic friend--met him at a retreat--told me his priest in the late 1980s cut everything between the end of the first antiphon to the Epistle in order to get things over in three quarters of an hour. So who's looking at their watch?

BOB

Randy,

I'm surprised when you mentioned the common Ukrainian usage is 2 antiphons. Hmm...I thought we should be using 3 antiphons plus troparion & kontakion (of the day) and using little litanies in between.

"...Ohh only begotton Son and Immortal Word of God..." is indeed part of the 2nd antiophon as oppose to the "third antiphon" that the Ruthenians consider it to be. (correct me if I'm wrong)

So we make Little Entrance after the 3rd Antiphon. And I think we make it during the Troparion (you know me being Deaf and it's hard for me to pay attention when I'm moving all over the place during that time getting ready for Little Entrance..yeah I'm an altar server, so not so sure if it's during 3rd Antiphon or Troparion).

I'm just curious as to what you respond to this and maybe you can enlighten me on few things which I may have misunderstood here.

I'm pleased that Father absolutely takes NO short cuts at our Divine Liturgy. He takes it to the fullness of the Liturgy.

We've used the Ruthenian style book since we started and Fr. didn't like it due to it's short cuts, so he recently added more antiphons, prayers, etc. in there plus he made up new "missal books" that also have Greek style. He's coming up with Russian and Ukrainian styles very soon, hopefully start using them during Great Lent. So now we have 4 styles: Ruthenian (with all the appropriate prayers..NO SHORT CUTS), Greek, Russian & Ukrainian. So it's very interesting.

The faithful now is standing more often and longer than usual. Except I was hoping we could eliminate kneeling after "Holy Holy Holy..." Kneel only after the elevation "...for these are for the holy" that's when I think is most appropriate time to kneel...and then rise up after he chants the song to the Theotokos "especially our all holy immaculate Lady Theotokos and ever virgin Mary." (of course while Fr. is incensing the Holy Gifts then blesses the Holy Bread) "It is truly meet and bless the all holy Theotokos. More honorable than the Cherubim, more glorious than the Seraphim...etc." But it's a matter of time. (GRIN)

Not to put down kneeling which is good, but it's not of the authenic Byzantine tradition. Prostrating would be more appropriate especially during the Great Entrance at the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy.

Of course kneeling is forbidden during Great Paschal Divine Liturgy and throughout 40 days Pascha-tide. I've had my priest tell people to stand up (some RC get hussy and fussy about it thinking we're so disrespectful. To us that's the contorary). (then again not to put RC down...we're trying to help them understand our traditions, and sometimes they refuse to accept it). But most of the time the RCs have been charitable in respecting our tradition and Byzantine ways. It's all about education and learning. Of course this forum is an excellent tool for all Christian to have a fruitful dialogue. I truly believe that it's through awareness, understanding and education it will bring closer towards Christian unity...without any uniformity.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear Shane, the Hymn to the Incarnation (O Only Begotten Son) is not an antiphon, but a hymn that was added to the Second Antiphon.

This hymn is attributed to the emperor Justinian and probably dates from around 565 A.D. or so and affirms both the divinity and humanity of Christ. It was written in a time where there were schools of thought either doubting the humanity or the divinity of Christ.

My opinion is that this was not intended as a processional hymn but a sort of communal creed sung congregationally in praise of the Incarnation of Christ, both as God and man. Antiphons were already well in use, so I am not sure Justinian added this hymn solely for adding length to the second antiphon.

No Orthodox church I have visited, Carpatho- Russians included, has performed the Small Entrance during the Hymn to the Incarnation but rather during the Third Antiphon or Beatitudes as is the Ukrainian, Melkite and Russian Catholic practice.

The troparia at the Beatitudes are separate troparia and not the same as troparia and kondakia for that particular day which are sung after the Small Entrance before the Trisagion. The troparia at the Beatitudes are interspersed with the stanzas of the Beatitudes. Most Byzantine Catholics are not familiar with this practice.

And with regards to kneeling, you will have to ask my wife her tricks. She gets in the front row and stands for the Liturgy, she seems to have this Pied Piper knack of getting everyone to do what she is doing.

My Nebesnaja Manna (copyright 1941) has: 3 verses plus Glory be... of Antiphon 1; 3 verses of Antiphon 2 plus Monogenes; and 3 verses of Antiphon 3 with small litanties in between. A pew book for the consecration of Bishop Stephen (1956) has the same.

Pew books from Passaic and Pittsburgh (from the 1965 Byzantine Liturgial Conference) and a 1979 pew book adapted from these sources all have: 1 verse plus Glory be... of Antiphon 1; 1 verses of Antiphon 2 plus Monogenes; and 0 verses of Antiphon 3 with no small litanies in between. The 1979 version included in the text much of the silent prayers. I suppose the decision for abbreviation in this mode was made by the 1965 Byzantine Liturgial Conference.

Randy,

You are quite right about this Hymn of Incarnation. I only merely meant that it was "part of" the 2nd Antiphon...by the fact it was added by Emperor Justin. Yes, you are correct about the reasons for why it was added.

WOW. Your wife is just sneaky! Ha! I can tell couple of people at Holy Apostles Fellowship to be at the front pew or at least the 2nd pew. Ha. Yeah, we've got couple people who are as Orthodox as we are.

That's a good tip to help remind people to remain standing during Pascha.

Thanks for your help. BOY, there are a lot to learn!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

::cough cough:: Actually, it was written by Mor Severios the Patriarch of Antioch (whose feast, if I'm not mistaken, is coming up this Thursday, the day after the Fast of Nineveh) :p

Djs, yes I remember when we had the c.1979 Divine Liturgy book printed. Our pastor did a good job with it, I especially liked it because he included the priest's silent prayers which are now read out loud in most parishes of the Ruthenian Metropolia. It was implemented at a time when "liturgical economics" was practiced by many of our parishes. I still remember the "abridged liturgies" where we elimanted the Tropars and Kondaks and the Epistle was chanted at the altar by one of the altar boys while the congregation sang the trisagion hymn. Again, it was an interesting pew book at a time when the more progressive parishes with younger priests were starting to "de-Latinize" our liturgy. But if I remember correctly, Fr. Thomas always included in small print which parts were to be taken and which parts (in some parishes with Eparchial permission) could be omitted. I still use that book for reference.

Ung-Certez

Althouth the texts of Msgr. Levkulic (1978) include more text for the first and second antiphons, these are in smaller type font and no indication is made of the insertion of small ektenias in between.

In practice it seems at most Byzantine Catholic parishes of the Pittsburg Metropolia the rest of the verses of the antiphons are rarely taken except the first. The omission of the small ektenia texts may possibly also reflect not only a desire for abbreviation but the decline of the diaconate as the deacon takes the ektenias.

The 1978 Levkulic version also indicates the possibility of a third antiphon being taken but provides no other text or instructions.

The UGCC pew books (1988), to compare, have the full text of the First Antiphon with all of the verses in the same text font (bold) with the option of Psalm 102, the "Only Begotten Son", the small ektenia, and then the full Third Antiphon or option of the Beatitudes. The UGCC Liturgikon includes the text for the second antiphon (or option of Psalm 145) and the addition of another small ektenia.

But there are also many individual parish variations on these themes. There are some UGCC as well as some Byzantine-Ruthenian parishes that take all of the antiphons (or in the case of some UGCC parishes, all of the Typical Psalms and the Beatitudes) but these parishes are certainly in the minority.

Dear UC:

You are exactly right about the source of my 1979 pew book. It is a beautiful opus.

I am curious if anyone here has any connection to the 1965 Liturgical Conference or any idea of what, exaclty, was informing their decisions.

djs

PS UC: So delightful to see you post with a smile!

DJS, I'm not all negative about everything.

All I know is that currently, Michael Thompson is teaching the Cantor Weekend Classes. Our Cantor at Holy Resurrection parish showed me a collection of new hymns composed by Micheal Thompson. He has a hymn for every Sunday of the liturgical year. The melodies our based on the Carpatho-Rusyn Marian hymns. Don't know much about the current state other than that.

Ung-Certez

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
SLAVA NA VIKI BOHU!

It would be REALLY interesting to know what happened to all the chant material and audio cassettes that JERRY JUMBA put together so many years ago.

mark

Mark, nothing happened because each new Archbishop (Dolinay, Procyk and now Shott) do not care about Prostopinije Chant. So now Professor Jumba was hired by the Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown's Rankin parish. He is their Cantor and teaches Prostopinije to the parishioners once a week.

Ung-Certez

Dear Ung,

While I respect your experience, and the disappointment you may feel, my view is somewhat different. Though I am sympathetic to the discouragement you may feel, I have witnessed the reverse to be true.

The late Metropolitan Judson asked me (not only me, but myself among others), to help to begin the present Cantor School in Pittsburgh, precisely because he was anxious to help and support cantors in this important ministry. He loved our chant tradition, and music in general, and he was very keen to help cantors in their important work.

This commitment has been maintained, at considerable sacrifice, by our new Metropolitan. Even though I am no longer a part of the Cantor Institute, or a participant in the work that is being done for music and Liturgy in the Archeparchy, I witness that considerable work is going on at the seminary, with the support and commitment of the Metropolitan.

So, with great respect, I must disagree with your conclusion, and testify to considerable interest and commitment on the part of our Church and its archpastors.

Elias

I have been in the Russian Church over 40 years and have never before heard of the faithful venerating the Gospel at the Little Entrance during the Divine Liturgy. Is this a custom carried over from the veneration of the Gospel at Matins? Admittedly, I am pretty unfamiliar with parochial practice in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

David James

It is a common Carpathian village church practice, and also extends into Transylvania as well. It is veneration of the Word which is being processed at the Little Entrance, and has little to do with Matins.

I am new to this forum and I don't know if this is the proper place to post this. If I am in error, please let me know, someone. But what I want to say is, regarding the RDL, I object to the substitution of the word "oblation" with the capitalized word "Anaphora," since it seems to change the meaning from offering the un-bloody sacrifice of Christ to simply offering a group of prayers called the "Anaphora." Am I putting too fine a point on it? or has this been discussed elsewhere? Thank you.

The group of prayers called the Anaphora is the offering of the unbloody sacrifice of Christ. Anaphora means offering and is the word used in Greek. A really literal translation would be: "Let us be attentive to offer the holy Offering in peace." That said many objected to not translating this word. If you do a search of this topic you'll find a thread or two.

True, but is this not a secondary use of the word Anaphora given by liturgical scholarship?

True, but our most immediate standard for the liturgy is the Ruthenian Recension which is in Slavonic not Greek. The Recension text (as do Slavonic texts in general) does not transliterate the Greek but gives a translation that I'd say means oblation.

It should be noted that the "to offer" and "Offering" are two different though somewhat similar words in the Greek. The Slavonic does not preserve this similitude.

The issue with the RDL is why Hellenize the rendering with transliterations when the Slavonic has provided a translation? More significantly, however, does the diaconal admonition direct that we are to offer the holy "group of prayers called the Anaphora [that] is the offering of the unbloody sacrifice of Christ" or, prescinding from the (derivative) meaning of liturgical scholarship, that we are directed to offer that which is tangible and immediate, that which is on the Holy Table, the bread and cup of wine, the Holy Oblation?

Oblation and anaphora are synonyms, and thus "offer the Holy Oblation" was perfectly good--dignified, euphonious, accurate, comprehensible. One could have said "offer the Holy Offering", but that would have been both excessively literal and redundant. "Offer the Holy Anaphora", on the other hand, is awkward, obscurantist and pedantic--all the things I have come to expect from the RDL.

I always thought it the primary use.

Many keep repeating this, and it is true for the rubrics, but it seems to me that Rome sees the Greek edition as the standard for translating to vernacular. Not translating Anaphora seems to be a judgement call like Theotokos.

I would say both rather than one or the other.

How can the Greek be normative for translation into the vernacular when all the extant Greek editions are newer than the Slavonic editions? Are we making the same error that Patriarch Nikon did back in the 1650s?

The Barberini Eucholgion is 8th century, nothing Slavonic older than that. The Roman published Greek Liturgicon of 1950 relied on this and other Greek manuscripts in the Vatican older than the Slavonic editions. The Slavonic manuscripts Patriarch Nikon had available were older than what the Greeks were publishing at Venice, but he didn't use any critical scholarship. He simply adopted what they were publishing. On the otherhand, Rome has been fastidious with its scholarship and publishing of Eastern liturgical texts. In using the Greek as the base for translation to vernacular, we are using the best available to us.

The Revised Divine Liturgy is nowhere near an accurate, complete and graceful translation of either the new or old Slavonic texts or of the 1950 Greek texts. It is nothing more than a group of bishops and their directives to a commission to "bring the Liturgy into the 21st century". That's a quote from Bishop Skurla.

Parishes that have use the Revised Divine Liturgy have lost 25-30% of their faithful since the mandate. The bishops know this, acknowledge this, but say there is no turning back.

If I may reply to my own post to clarify--my ultimate problem with the Anaphora for oblation substitution is that, well, I came to the Eastern Church in the first place to escape the Novus Ordo, as my username implies, and to find orthodox Catholic liturgy that was legitimate and unambiguous. So much of the Novus Ordo attacks belief in the Real Presence, and I feel that the Anaphora/oblation thing is a subtle but unmistakable step in the same direction. It seems to be part of the agendas of the liturgical "experts" who keep coming up with these things. I feel that perhaps, since my city is blessed with several Eastern Rite Churches, it is time to start spending more time with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who wisely has not "reformed" their liturgy. I have only been aware of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for about 10 years, and so I am ignorant of changes that may have been made before that, but I am learning a great deal by reading this forum. Thank you and bless you all.

Refugee,

I am sorry that your experience has been less than fulfilling; speaking as someone who works in ministry, generally when someone is running from something rather than to something he will remain unfulfilled.

All Eastern Catholic churches will have their problems because it is also a human institution. I would suggest talking to a priest or a spiritual director if you are having problems.

Ed

Roman refugee, every jurisdiction, Greek Catholic and Orthodox, has tinkered with their English version of the Divine Liturgy to a greater or lesser extent.

The big question for all is the best way to render Greek, Slavonic, Arabic, and Romanian into English. And about that, there are as many answers as their are translators. You will find similar comments about translating the Bible--a nearly identical task.

As I have said elsewhere, don't come to an Eastern Catholic church expecting to find the last vestiges of 1950's American Latin piety. You'll be greatly disappointed.

Accept us as we are--and you will find us a blessing beyond your dreams of what was possible in this world.

A great comment Pasisozi

Both for the Bible and the Liturgy there has been too great a tendency to tinker and not enough to translate rigorously -- translations and modifications, such as the RDL, that are in places too much of the translator and not enough of the text.

While liturgical Slavonic follows Greek syntax (word order), you can't get English to do that at all times without coming up with gibberish. If you don't believe me, look at Professor Orloff's translations of a century ago, where "God is with us" in Great Compline becomes, "For with us is the God" (Oti meth' imon o Theos in Greek).

Any good translation of the Liturgy or Bible will have to balance formal equivalence (word for word) with dynamic equivalence (thought for thought, with occasional substitutions of a figure of speech to fit the receptor language).

Example: One of the Theotokia before Christmas literally reads, "A young heifer comes bearing a fatted calf," but it's an insult in English to call a woman a heifer. I've usually seen this rendered, "The virgin comes bearing Christ in her womb," with a footnote giving a more literal rendering.

Extreme examples plucked from the air ultimately miss the mark in lacking pertinence. The topic is the RDL. Put the 1965 English liturgicon text next to the Ruthenian Recension Slavonic (Rome, 1943), and that next to the 1950 (Rome, ed.) Greek also if desired, and then give examples, pro and con as found. Also see the study text here .

While there can be agreement on the goal, what actually constitutes the proper "balance" is the issue. I've liked "As literal as possible, as free as necessary." Those who believe, however, that the NRSV actually follows its stated dictum must have a different definition for the words "possible" and "necessary." link .

ajk, I admit I've had only passing experience (maybe twice?) with the RDL. I don't know what the previous praxis was in either English or Slavonic.

I won't argue with "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." I think we're saying the same thing in different words.

I'm not familiar with the NRSV. I was brought up as a Baptist on the KJV 1611-1769. Even the original RSV was not trusted.

My own preferences for contemporary translations are the NKJV and the OSB. Even though the NKJV is based on the Masoretic text, significant variations in the LXX are noted. The NT of the NKJV/OSB is the only one I know that is based on the Received Text.

Of course, all translations have their faults--and virtues.

As a curious outside observer, I'd like to hear an update regarding if the efforts on this forum and elsewhere to critique, correct, or replace the RDL are meeting with any response (positive or negative) with the BCC hierarchy or anyone with influence/ authority on liturgical matters.

There is no significant ongoing effort to critique, correct, or replace the RDL.
The Council of Hierarchs have been very vocal that the normative form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy as promulgated by Rome in 1942 is so awful that it cannot be allowed.
All those who disagreed were labeled “disloyal” and “unwilling to change”.
Many were told to leave and left.
The bishops are happy that they left.
It’s a real shame since they were the best workers in the parishes.
During Holy Week we get to bring out the old Levkulic books. It’s like “old home week”.
Msgr. Levkulic’s books were far from perfect.
But when compared to the Revised texts and music they are indeed perfect.

FWIT, for those who ascribe blame on reduction of parish numbers on your liturgical translation I will offer this. We have used the same pew books in two editions since the early 1980's in the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox diocese of Johnstown, the Orthodox 'alter ego' if you will of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. Like you, we have experienced large losses of membership over the years. A lack of immigration from the old world (unlike our Ukrainian or Arab brothers and sisters in the same period), economic decline in the old Rust Belt where we started and simple demographics and the passage of time are to blame more than anything. It's tough to acknowledge this but I was contrasting a group picture of St. Michael's Orthodox Church in Binghamton, NY from our centennial in 2004 to our recent 110th Anniversary last November. St. Michael's was once one of the larger Greek Catholic parishes of the Eparchy prior to 1939 when it joined the Orthodox church and Holy Spirit Byzantine Catholic church in Binghamton was founded by those unwilling to switch. Someone bemoaned the obvious loss of members over that ten year period of time and asked out loud, what are we doing wrong? My simple blunt answer - dying. At an average of 30 burials per year in the parish, the math quickly points out the cause. And with the under forty population nearly non existant - like in many parishes in Jersey, Ohio and western PA...it is a sobering reality. Sorry to be such a downer in Holy Week, but it is a mutual problem.

I'd have to second DMD- much as I can sympathize to an attempt to pin the blame for declining membership on the bishops' liturgical tomfoolery, it does seem to really depend on other, more important factors. The sad fact is, even with beautiful liturgies and pristine teaching, if your parishioners aren't having many kids, or people are moving away, it's going to die out eventually. Bishop Gregory yesterday was giving our parish high praise for the number of children in attendance. Why? Because we're an exception to the rule. And part of it might have something to do with the fact that we're in a rust-belt town that's managed to reinvent itself. Of course good outreach, a lively parish culture, and an attitude of welcoming strangers are all helpful too.

Also, FWIW, Bishop Gregory noted good parish growth in other, non-traditional (for Carpatho-Rusyns) places, like Florida. So I wouldn't say the Carpatho-Rusyn tradition is doomed. I think it does need to break out of an ethnic mold, as with many Orthodox groups here, and some are taking that need seriously. I'd also like to see Carpatho-Rusyns "evangelize" the rest of the American Orthodox with some of their wonderful, unique traditions- particularly prostopinije. I think it's an ideal system of chant (versus Byzantine, Znamenny, or modern Russian choral stuff) for getting congregations involved while maintaining a high standard of beauty and possibilities for professional musicianship. I would especially like to see OCA parishes start giving more respect to their Carpatho-Rusyn roots and start using prostopinije more earnestly (as opposed to a handful of token CR settings here and there.)

I don't think anyone on this forum has done what you accuse them of. Most people seem to be saying the RDL is only a symptom of a larger problem. ISTR there were longs discussions about this years back.

there are some communities who use a different book set altogether, season pending.

For example, one community uses the old translation due to such a convenient presentation of liturgical flow. It features full antiphons, and augmented litanies, the works - older melodies, too. I can't wait to use this, again

I can only speak for myself and my family. The RDL was the final straw (amongst many other issues) which led me to the Holy Orthodox Church. It was intolerable for me and my wife...especially the gender neutral language.

Also, I have experienced Byzantine chant, Znamenny, and Russian choral....I like them all better than Prostopinije. Znamenny is my favorite. But that is just my opinion.

Fair enough, but as you say, it was the final straw, not necessarily the biggest one. I'm sure you had bigger underlying motivations for coming over to Orthodoxy.


A few years ago I would probably have said the same thing. Prostopinije has grown on me- the more I explore it, the more i love it. That said, prostopinije is actually a form of znamenny, and a lot of the melodies are very close or the same, but there are fewer of the very complicated melodies you sometimes see in znamenny.

Indeed!


Yes. When I was with the Ruthenian Catholics....I certainly enjoyed it.

You are correct to say that the Ukrainian Churches are experiencing at least maintenance if not growth because of the immigration. Our demographics have changed as a result - we're beck to 1949 when my parents' generation came over and took over from the old immigration. This new immigration has revitalized parishes primarily in cities, like Toronto, but elsewhere in Ontario we are experiencing the same decline, as well as the need to accommodate both Ukrainian and English speakers under one small roof. Toronto's big enough that you can find what you want, Catholic or Orthodox. The trick is bring the different groups together. My own children who speak reasonable Ukrainian get flack from their new wave classmates.