Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great: Responses and Hymns Set to Carpathian Plainchant. 467+ pages, hardcover. ISBN 0-9774069-3-8. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church, 2006. Available from Byzantine Seminary Press. $15.00.
The Byzantine Catholic Church of the USA ("Pittsburgh Metropolia") has taken an epochal step toward the renewal and adaptation of its liturgical tradition in America. In January 2007, its Council of Hierarchs (the near-equivalent of a synod) published The Divine Liturgies. This pew book is accompanied by a seven-CD instructional recording by the renowned Schola Cantorum of St. Peter the Apostle, directed by its founder, J. Michael Thompson, who is also director of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute of Saints Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary in Pittsburgh. Years in the making, this book is epochal because its translation of the Chrysostom and Basil formularies and propers corrects many of the mistakes (both semantic and stylistic) found in the Byzantine Catholic Church's first pew book (1978). Equally-if not more important � it "rationalizes" the musical setting. As pioneers in the use of English in Catholic liturgy, the Byzantine Catholics were limited by the scholarly resources available in the 1960s and '70s when they produced their first official texts. To the great credit of the Council of Hierarchs, they were willing to revisit their Church's work in spite of the fact that a generation of faithful has already memorized the (flawed) text. The hierarchs also realized that the previous setting of Carpathian plainchant ("prostopinije") sometimes displayed a collision of musical and textual accentuation. In other words, the cadences of the English translation frequently conflicted with the cadences of the plainchant. This is a common occurrence when those who know a chant in one language (e.g., Slavonic) are suddenly required to transpose that chant's melody and rhythm to a text for which that melody and rhythm were never intended. Musically, the equivalent is "broken English." To the extent possible, the new pew book corrects this flaw. There remain instances when this has not proved possible be-cause of the nature of the chant and the requirements of accuracy and consistency in translation. However, the pew book provides so many options for the ordinary of the Divine Liturgy that one need not use the more cumbersome settings. A final reason why the new book is epochal is that its production was thoroughly collaborative and official. In other words, this was the effort of a Church guided by its chief shepherds. Anyone familiar with Eastern Christianity realizes how significant this is. Thousands of resources for Eastern Christian worship exist in English, but only a handful express the consensus of a Church's leadership, thus facilitating liturgical unity. Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version. The fact that the Council of Hierarchs stands unanimously behind this change guarantees that the transition will be crowned with success (cyber revolutions notwithstanding). Turning to the actual contents of the pew book, one finds that in addition to music for the congregation for the Chrysostom and Basil formularies, the book also includes several prayers of preparation for Holy Communion as well as the vesperal ordinary for Saturday vigil liturgies. This is followed by all of the propers generally needed for parish worship as well as the short memorial service (panachida) and general moleben ("rogation" service) frequently appended to Eucharistic liturgies. The pew book concludes with eight hymns for use before and after the liturgy or du ring Communion and a helpful glossary of liturgical terms. The absence of the presidential prayers from the pew book is presumably intended to compel the congregation to immerse itself in the liturgy rather than in the book. This is certainly a bold corrective to the Western tendency to make every single word of the service available in print. Of course, this will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading. The inclusion of almost every text needed for the celebration of vespers and Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening is certainly a welcome addition and will serve as an example for other Catholics of the Byzantine tradition (e.g., Ukrainian Catholics). Tragically, when the latter introduced Sunday vigil "Masses" (in an understandable attempt to curb the exodus to Roman Rite parishes), they did so in a pseudomorphic fashion, entirely omit-ting the Sunday "first vespers." The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers. As regards the propers, the reconciliation of text and music is a major achievement (though, again, not without its difficulties), and the simultaneous publication of the seven CDs will greatly facilitate mastery of these chants. Every troparion, kontakion, prokeimenon, irmos, and communion verse in the entire book is sung on the CDs. Rarely has a prospective cantor been aided so comprehensively in his or her desire to learn a chant tradition. In the remaining section of the book, the only surprise is that the editors have not included more "devotional hymns," that is, the chorales that constitute part of the unique Ruthenian-Byzantine patrimony. Not being a member of any of the committees that worked on the pew book, and not being privy to their guiding principles, this reviewer can only guess that the publishers wanted to revive the use of scriptural communion verses and encourage the use of matins chants before the Divine Liturgy. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Pittsburgh Metropolia will publish an entirely separate hymnal with English renderings of the aforementioned chorales. This would be a welcome initiative, though at the present time no more than thirty or forty such chorales exist in serviceable translations. Before concluding, permit me a few remarks from the perspective of those for whom the Carpathian chant tradition is a second (or third) "musical language" or one rarely heard at all. There is no doubt that certain aspects of this tradition are an "acquired taste." And it is certainly lamentable that today it is increasingly difficult to find a congregation that sings with the dynamis heard in days past and so central to the chant's genius. This reviewer will never forget the impressions from his teen years when he saw "icons rattle" as the Holy Spirit turned the lungs of 400 or more Carpatho-Rusyns into billows for God's mighty word. Thus, "acquiring" this "taste" is not as easy as it once was. Nonetheless, codifying this chant is an appropriate expression of hope for its revival, especially as the Holy Spirit is no less alive today than two generations ago. This pew book should certainly help the Spirit's servants fill their lungs again with sacred breath. Another remark pertains to the absence of harmonization, both in the pew book and the CDs. This seems to mitigate the potential of these chants, especially as some congregations do add a second or third voice to the melody. The CDs, in particular, can sound tedious after a while. But two observations are in order. First, the pew book and CDs are a foundational resource: They are intended to codify the most basic component of the Carpathian chant tradition for easy mastery. Second, nothing precludes�in fact one expects� subsequent publications and recordings that will showcase the harmonic potential of these chants. J. Michael Thompson has already produced other recordings of harmonized Carpathian chants on The Liturgical Press label, and this reviewer looks forward to a seven-CD set of recordings of similarly arranged chants based on the new pew book. To achieve this, may he and all of those involved in producing these epochal resources enjoy mnohaya, mnohaya lita (ad multos, multos annos). Peter Galadza
Fair enough on the book and its music. What about the missing Litanies, the inclusive language and one verse Antiphons? People haven't even realized that, since they're too confused with the book and music. Just wait until the rest of it hits the fan... my guess is that the Stewardship Campaign will have seen its last year in the year 2007.
Experience the Red Book, you'll never need anything else!
I know that you and I probably aren't in agreement on this subject but it is nice to read different perspectives.
This article has a lot in it, I'm pressed for time so these are only my first impressions.
It is interesting how my review was from the pew, live and in person and his 'review' is not, unless he attended an RDL somewhere that I missed in the article.
"The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers."
'creative solution', that's an interesting label.
It was developed several decades ago and should help revive familiarity with vespers? So let's see, after several decades 90%+ don't have vespers and the vast majority of our people don't know what vespers is. It's pretty safe to say that reviving familiarity with vespers isn't going to happen this way. In fact, in the unlikely event that this idea took off getting 'pure' Vespers practiced would be even more arduous than it is now.
Here's a crazy idea, offering Vespers on Saturday evenings! Wouldn't that be a better way of improving familiarity with Vespers?
Father Peter Galadza is with the UGCC in Canada. So it will be interesting to see if those who criticized Father Serge, who is also from the UGCC, for being outside our juridiction and commenting on our new liturgy will do the same with Father Peter. I welcome all educated views on this myself, especially from our UGCC brethern.
If he's been to St. Elias in Brampton, Ontario I wonder how he can put up with some of the watered down parishes across North America in the UGCC. St. Andrews in Parma, OH for example has recited liturgies, no incense, altar girls, 40 minutes in and out. Definitely a far cry from St. Elias.
Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
Equally-if not more important � it "rationalizes" the musical setting.
As pioneers in the use of English in Catholic liturgy, the Byzantine Catholics were limited by the scholarly resources available in the 1960s and '70s when they produced their first official texts.
To the great credit of the Council of Hierarchs, they were willing to revisit their Church's work in spite of the fact that a generation of faithful has already memorized the (flawed) text. The hierarchs also realized that the previous setting of Carpathian plainchant ("prostopinije") sometimes displayed a collision of musical and textual accentuation. In other words, the cadences of the English translation frequently conflicted with the cadences of the plainchant.
This is a common occurrence when those who know a chant in one language (e.g., Slavonic) are suddenly required to transpose that chant's melody and rhythm to a text for which that melody and rhythm were never intended. Musically, the equivalent is "broken English." To the extent possible, the new pew book corrects this flaw. There remain instances when this has not proved possible be-cause of the nature of the chant and the requirements of accuracy and consistency in translation.
Verbally tracking and backtracking over his own estimations the author of this review makes it very plain to all that the music settings for the RDL remain significantly flawed.
His apparent reaction to that is kin to saying "Ahwell..."
There is always the question of whether or not to hew so closely to an "original" setting that one produces, in reality, ugly and unsingable and spiritually bereft settings.
Apparently that's ok for the reviewer who will never have to sing them, much less sing them in the sacred context of the liturgy.
Thank you for posting this review. The author apparently sits the middle ground between skirting obvious truth, and keeping "professional" peace. Not alway an enviable skill.
From Father Peter's review: "The absence of the presidential prayers from the pew book is presumably intended to compel the congregation to immerse itself in the liturgy rather than in the book. This is certainly a bold corrective to the Western tendency to make every single word of the service available in print. Of course, this will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading."
Unfortunately, the we've also picked up the "Western tendency" to have none of the prayers taken silently either. Everything has to be "heard" or recited, otherwise, you're "not really participating in the liturgy." Eventually what will happen, as it has in the Roman mass, the prayers loose their effectiveness and will not be LISTENED to or paid attention to by the people, because they're heard over and over and over, and end up meaning nothing in their recitation and their hearing.
As for the praise for the "creative solution" of the vespers/liturgy combo and it's effectiveness on reviving familiarity with vespers, I have no comment.
It's true that this book is good in it's completeness and it's attempt to restore more of the tradition and practices lost over the last century or more. Also in it's attempt to provide music for all parts. I will concede that point.
It is really interesting to me how I keep hearing that the reason we are changing the music is because we want to make it 'authentic' and 'traditional'.
But with Vespers this talk goes out the window.
With multiple verse antiphons this goes out the window.
Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great: Responses and Hymns Set to Carpathian Plainchant. 467+ pages, hardcover. ISBN 0-9774069-3-8. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church, 2006. Available from Byzantine Seminary Press. $15.00.
Response to a Book Review
Our colleague, Father Peter Galadza of the Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Saint Paul�s University, Ottawa, has published a review in the journal Pastoral Music of the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, discussing the new �pew book� of the Pittsburgh Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia. Father Peter is himself an outstanding student of liturgiology � his recent book on Metropolitan Andrew and the liturgical problem in the first half of the twentieth century is a scholarly landmark which all of us should read with careful attention.
However, back to Father Peter�s comments on the new Ruthenian �pew-book�. He describes this as �an epochal step toward the renewal and adaptation of its liturgical tradition in America.� He then tells his readers that the Council of Hierarchs of the Pittsburgh Metropolia is �the near-equivalent of a synod�, which is not exact: a synod can elect bishops; a council of hierarchs cannot. This review is primarily a list of various aspects of the �pew book� which our colleague finds utterly praise-worthy, almost to the point that one begins to wonder about the cause of this remarkable panegyric or encomium. But perhaps a closer look at some of our colleague�s specific points will help.
Our colleague asserts that �this book is epochal because its translation of the Chrysostom and Basil formularies and propers corrects many of the mistakes (both semantic and stylistic) found in the Byzantine Catholic Church's first pew book (1978)� Maybe and maybe not; there are those, including the present writer, who would suggest that in at least some cases the book offers a translation which is inferior to that which the Ruthenians were using previously.
Our colleague then tells us that the new book �rationalizes� the musical setting (since the book contains many varied musical settings, one might ask which musical setting Father Peter is referring to). More importantly, to say that someone is �rationalizing� is not always taken as a compliment. The dictionary tells us that this verb means, for example �to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable�, �to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives�, or even �to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct�. If this really what our colleague wishes to say, I can only agree � but somehow I suspect that this is not what Father Peter meant.
Our colleague praises the book for correcting the inevitably flaws which arise when chant forms composed for use in one language are transposed into another. In itself, the point is quite valid. Whether the �corrections� in the new book are much of an improvement � or indeed are enough of an improvement to justify the inconvenience � will remain a matter of opinion. In this connection, our colleague comments that �the pew book provides so many options for the ordinary of the Divine Liturgy that one need not use the more cumbersome settings� � I could wish that Father Peter had specified which settings he finds more cumbersome�.
Father Peter is particularly happy with the process which produced this book. He writes that: �A final reason why the new book is epochal is that its production was thoroughly collaborative and official. In other words, this was the effort of a Church guided by its chief shepherds.� This assertion is disingenuous, not to use stronger expressions. The production of this book and the other books to match it was not collaborative in the least; the overwhelming majority of the Reverend Clergy, let alone the faithful, of the Church upon whom this book is being imposed, were not even consulted, much less invited to participate in any process of discussion or criticism. I shall not even discuss how the signatures of the hierarchs may have been obtained. But I suggest that our colleague, who has written an excellent history and analysis of how the editions of the �Ruthenian Recension� published in the nineteen-forties and thereafter, came into being, should have applied the same standards of inquiry in this present instance.
Father Peter asserts that this book is �thus facilitating liturgical unity�. That is strange. The book distances the Pittsburgh Metropolia still further from the other Local Churches of the Ruthenian tradition. It distances the Pittsburgh Metropolia even more severely from the rest of the Catholic Churches of the Byzantine liturgical family. As for the Orthodox Churches, anyone who can read should compare this �pew book� with a normal Orthodox edition and notice the overwhelming number of discrepancies. One has the strong impression that a serious aim of this book is to �create� a Byzantine-Ruthenian-American �Rite� to wall off this Metropolia from everyone else.
With seigneurial disdain, our colleague writes that �Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version. The fact that the Council of Hierarchs stands unanimously behind this change guarantees that the transition will be crowned with success (cyber revolutions notwithstanding).�
Whether this particular liturgical change will be �crowned with success� is very much still to be seen � partly it depends on just how one defines �success�. The �cyber revolution� normally refers to the effect on information technology brought about by cybernetics; it is not in itself a value-laden term. Our colleague does not choose to explain why he is using this term in what appears to be a pejorative sense. If he advocates a collaborative production � and he certainly seems to advocate that sort of process � why should he object to people making use of modern information technology to seek the relevant information and offer their input? Or, perhaps, does he only advocate the sort of �collaboration� that says �oh, that�s just wonderful!� If so, one would ask our colleague to reflect on the slender value of the collaboration of sycophants.
Father Peter observes, quite correctly, that the pew book lacks the bulk of the texts of the episcopal, presbyteral and diaconal prayers � both those done aloud and those which are properly done in mystica. Our colleague further observes, again correctly, that this �will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading.�
The trouble here is that the overwhelming majority of our hierarchs, priests, and deacons do not have the talents for enunciation of Charles Laughton, nor have they received the much-needed specialized training that this sort of reading requires. Father Peter may not fully realize that simply attempting to accomplish this by decree is unlikely to succeed.
Father Peter is pleased that the new book provides for the combination of Vespers and the Divine Liturgy for the Eucharist on Saturday evenings and the evenings before the feast days. I�m sorry. I do realize that in many parishes these �Saturday evening Masses� are the best-attended �weekend Mass� available. I still consider the whole business deplorable, for reasons which I am prepared to state but shall abstain from here, because these comments are already long.
Patient pastoral work in some parishes � including at least one parish with which Father Peter is quite familiar � has shown that it is entirely possible to make Vespers, or even the Vigil Service, significant and attractive to good numbers of the faithful without sugar-coating it by tacking on the Eucharist so as to �excuse� the faithful from coming to Church on Sunday.
Still, the effort of our colleague to stimulate some further discussion on this book should be welcomed � and the best way to welcome it is to respond with further discussion.
Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version.
There is a certain complacency amongst American Catholics that allows them to get used to almost anything. And then there are those for whom the Hierarchs are responsible, whether they acknowledge it or not, who have left for other jursidictions.
And finally, one can only hope that congregations will not find it hard to believe that they ever recited the Creed in a version that comports with that handed down from the Councils and with Rome's current directives.
It is really interesting to me how I keep hearing that the reason we are changing the music is because we want to make it 'authentic' and 'traditional'.
But with Vespers this talk goes out the window.
With multiple verse antiphons this goes out the window.
With litanies this goes out the window.
etc.
?????????
Monomakh
Keep in mind that the music is not the translation, nor vice versa, they are two seperate issues!
What does vespers have to do with Fr. Peter's review? If parishes don't do vespers, perhaps they would dare to inject a small portion of vespers into a vigil Liturgy and at least have some exposure to the beauty of vespers?
Multiple antiphon verses, or the disuse of them has nothing to do with the music at all!
It is really interesting to me how I keep hearing that the reason we are changing the music is because we want to make it 'authentic' and 'traditional'.
But with Vespers this talk goes out the window.
With multiple verse antiphons this goes out the window.
With litanies this goes out the window.
etc.
?????????
Monomakh
Keep in mind that the music is not the translation, nor vice versa, they are two seperate issues!
What does vespers have to do with Fr. Peter's review? If parishes don't do vespers, perhaps they would dare to inject a small portion of vespers into a vigil Liturgy and at least have some exposure to the beauty of vespers?
Multiple antiphon verses, or the disuse of them has nothing to do with the music at all!
Same is true regarding the litanies.
Yes, Steve, but to say that we have a better Liturgy now that the music is more authentic is simply not true. Add all the other missing elements in, combined with the restored music, and now we've got something that could have been history in the making, not only for us but for our Orthodox brethren. Right now, we've got a lopsided Revised Divine Liturgy.
Last edited by Stephanie Kotyuh; 05/02/0707:13 AM.
It is true, of course, that one can legitimately distinguish a discussion of the liturgical music from a discussion of the texts and/or a discussion of liturgical changes.
However, it is also true that the liturgical music is closely intertwined with the text, and is affected by various sorts of liturgical changes, so that these phenomena can properly be seen as a "unity in complexity".
By way of analogy: in theory one could serve the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom wearing Ethiopian vestments and using a church edifice appointed for Unitarian rituals. But would anyone seriously assert that "nothing had changed"?
Your point raises a question, which maybe you or others might know the answer to. Does it ever appear that the translation was ever changed to fit the music--ie, we need an extra syllable here or one less there, to make the music work?
Many translators have adjusted their translations to fit particular preferences in liturgical music. Other translators find this practice abhorrent.
My personal view of the matter might be stated as follows: we must begin with a scientifically accurate, schlolarly, non-polemic and non-ideological translation - and to acheive this we need a carefully done translation of at least the LXX Psalter.
Then it becomes possible to invite the various jurisdictions, ethnic communities, and musicologists to apply this translation to their specific circumstances, Inevitably, this will mean some changes in the translated text.
Meanwhile, if we can find some sufficiently qualified musical experts - they don't grow on trees, and I'm not such a musical expert - it would be possible to develop a musical setting related to but not identical to existing musical settings, so that when we come together, be it on special occasions or be it in some parish situations where no one particular tradition has a monopoly, we can all sing together.
How's that to keep everyone busy for the next couple of generations?
That sounds like a good solid plan for the melting pot in America and I think, by necessity, it rises above your personal opinion because although the music is vitally important, matters of the intellect have to come first.
But for this,
Quote
Then it becomes possible to invite the various jurisdictions, ethnic communities, and musicologists to apply this translation to their specific circumstances,
there must be some good punch line, but I just can't think of it.
What happens when you invite various jurisdictions, ethnic communities, and musicologists to apply this translation to their specific circumstances?
What does vespers have to do with Fr. Peter's review?
If you read the article again you'll see this:
"The inclusion of almost every text needed for the celebration of vespers and Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening is certainly a welcome addition and will serve as an example for other Catholics of the Byzantine tradition (e.g., Ukrainian Catholics). Tragically, when the latter introduced Sunday vigil "Masses" (in an understandable attempt to curb the exodus to Roman Rite parishes), they did so in a pseudomorphic fashion, entirely omit-ting the Sunday "first vespers." The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers."
Originally Posted by Steve Petach
If parishes don't do vespers, perhaps they would dare to inject a small portion of vespers into a vigil Liturgy and at least have some exposure to the beauty of vespers?
Having Vespers every Saturday unlike 90%+ of our parishes do would be the solution to having exposure to the beauty of vespers. I don't know why some people can't bring themselves to admit this. It is a travesty that 90%+ of our parishes don't have Vespers, I can't say it in a pretty way, it's an inexcusable situation. Why in the world for example does our Cathedral in Munhall, that has a full time priest and a highly qualified cantor, not have Vespers and yet can find the time for Saturday evening liturgy?
Originally Posted by Steve Petach
Multiple antiphon verses, or the disuse of them has nothing to do with the music at all!
Same is true regarding the litanies.
Since the salient point of my last post did not come across I'll give it another try. I was pointing out that it is interesting how the 'traditional' and 'authentic' banners are waved by the revisionists when discussing the music but not when discussing other aspects (i.e. antiphons, litanies, Vespers, Matins). Yes they are separate issues with inconsistent reasoning behind them.
What does vespers have to do with Fr. Peter's review?
If you read the article again you'll see this:
"The inclusion of almost every text needed for the celebration of vespers and Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening is certainly a welcome addition and will serve as an example for other Catholics of the Byzantine tradition (e.g., Ukrainian Catholics). Tragically, when the latter introduced Sunday vigil "Masses" (in an understandable attempt to curb the exodus to Roman Rite parishes), they did so in a pseudomorphic fashion, entirely omit-ting the Sunday "first vespers." The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers."
Originally Posted by Steve Petach
If parishes don't do vespers, perhaps they would dare to inject a small portion of vespers into a vigil Liturgy and at least have some exposure to the beauty of vespers?
Having Vespers every Saturday unlike 90%+ of our parishes do would be the solution to having exposure to the beauty of vespers. I don't know why some people can't bring themselves to admit this. It is a travesty that 90%+ of our parishes don't have Vespers, I can't say it in a pretty way, it's an inexcusable situation. Why in the world for example does our Cathedral in Munhall, that has a full time priest and a highly qualified cantor, not have Vespers and yet can find the time for Saturday evening liturgy?
Originally Posted by Steve Petach
Multiple antiphon verses, or the disuse of them has nothing to do with the music at all!
Same is true regarding the litanies.
Since the salient point of my last post did not come across I'll give it another try. I was pointing out that it is interesting how the 'traditional' and 'authentic' banners are waved by the revisionists when discussing the music but not when discussing other aspects (i.e. antiphons, litanies, Vespers, Matins). Yes they are separate issues with inconsistent reasoning behind them.
Honestly, because Fr. Peter is correct. If we didn't have mass on Saturday night, many of those who come would end up going somewhere that does have mass, whether that's a Greek Catholic or Roman Catholic church. Catechesis has to take place before Saturday evening mass is dropped and vespers are instituted, and that'll be a hard job! The WORST thing that came out of Vatican II (for all the Catholic churches) was the introduction of the Saturday afternoon/evening "anticipated" masses.
Catechesis has to take place before Saturday evening mass is dropped and vespers are instituted, and that'll be a hard job! The WORST thing that came out of Vatican II (for all the Catholic churches) was the introduction of the Saturday afternoon/evening "anticipated" masses.
So instead of spending money and time on catechesis and evangelization it was spent on revising?
Originally Posted by John K
If we didn't have mass on Saturday night, many of those who come would end up going somewhere that does have mass, whether that's a Greek Catholic or Roman Catholic church.
Where is the concern for loosing the traditional minded Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy? Why does this only exist for the Saturday evening crowd? We're back to the old 'pastoral sensitivy' that is cried out in a crowded room whenever traditional principles are called out for. Yet when the RDL is jammed down our throats 'pastor sensitivity' is forgotten.
I'm so glad Fr. Peter likes the "revised liturgy". I had no idea he had any expertise in the Ruthenian Chant tradition and in the pastoral needs of our Byzantine Catholic parishes.
It is so interesting that we have to get Roman Catholic professors and Ukrainian Catholic priests to tell us what we should be doing, and what our tradition really is. Why didn't anyone ask us?
How sad. Thank God I have a pastor who has put these new books in his basement, waiting for the 'right time' to introduce them. God bless my pastor, and pray that the 'right time' for this Liturgy never arrives.
The cantor (he is a good one!) told our pastor that he will gently retire when the new books are implemented, and let a new generation introduce the new music.
But we don't have a new cantor, so until we get one, the 'right time' will have to wait!
As I point out in my notorious book, anybody who wants to has a right to offer comments on the matter, and that particularly includes Greek-Catholics of any jurisdiction or ethnic background (for that matter, it also particularly includes Eastern Orthodox Christians). So even though I may disagree with some of Father Peter's comments, he has every right to express them.
The same applies (in spades) to clergy and faithful of the Ruthenian-American Metropolitanate. In this day of the Internet, there is no need to wait to be asked. One reason which motivated me to make that text available was to encourage people to speak up.
If it's any consolation, the English-language Roman Catholics are in the midst of an even more bizarre language crisis. It seems that towards the end of 2006, Pope Benedict (God bless him and grant him long life) decided the time had come, and sent a directive via Cardinal Arrinze's office to all the Latin-rite episcopal conferences in the Anglophone world, instructing them to restore the accurate meaning of "pro multis" in the Institution Narrative as offered over the Chalice. This followed upon the already painful (for ICEL supporters) prescriptions of Liturgiam Authenticam. But the new ICEL prepared a draft translation of the Novus Ordo attempting, begrudgingly, to do as the Pope wanted.
According to the London Tablet, 28 April 2007, p. 40, an unnamed priest (presumably in England) put this draft on his blog, to make it available to the clergy and faithful - what a revolutionary thought. I have no idea who this priest is.
Nevertheless, the bishops promptly ordered him to remove the draft from his blog, or face legal action for "infringement of copyright". Evidently the exclusive inner ring of ICEL believes that no one else is competent in the English language - or believes that the said inner ring has divine inspiration to discern what is good for the clergy and faithful, whether the clergy and faithful like it or not.
It is so interesting that we have to get Roman Catholic professors and Ukrainian Catholic priests to tell us what we should be doing, and what our tradition really is. Why didn't anyone ask us?
Your question may be unfolding what, "for us and our salvation" really means and that it is not so inclusive after all.
Nevertheless, the bishops promptly ordered him to remove the draft from his blog, or face legal action for "infringement of copyright". Evidently the exclusive inner ring of ICEL believes that no one else is competent in the English language - or believes that the said inner ring has divine inspiration to discern what is good for the clergy and faithful, whether the clergy and faithful like it or not.
One wonders what kind of lawyer the members of ICEL will need as they stand at the pearly gates with their copyright in hand arguing, "Yes, but I had a copyright!" I don't think Thomas More will offer a helping hand.
"When More some time had Chancellor been, No more suits did remain. The like will never-more be seen, till More there be again!"
Or perhaps this one:
To a Dignitary who spoke contemptuously of a Saint:
"Tell me not, Dean, I am unkind, if from the snuggery, of thy well-cluttered, cultured mind to Chelesea's strand I flee, Where England's Chancellor by grace of courage so was steeled, To meet thy tyrant, face to face; to die - but not to yield!
And though his views, dear Dean, were such as you will still deplore; I could not love thee Dean, so much, Loved I not Thomas More!"
Has anyone read the latest edition of "Byzantine Catholic World?" The review by Rev Peter Galadza, praising the RDL, is printed this month. It is interesting that not one word of criticism has been written in this magazine since the reformation of our Liturgy. I suppose I am a part of this pesky "cyber revolution" to which Rev Galadza refers. But I suppose I should take solace in the fact that, according to Rev Galadza:
"but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version."
Patient pastoral work in some parishes � including at least one parish with which Father Peter is quite familiar � has shown that it is entirely possible to make Vespers, or even the Vigil Service, significant and attractive to good numbers of the faithful without sugar-coating it by tacking on the Eucharist so as to �excuse� the faithful from coming to Church on Sunday.
Bless Fr Serge,
At some point, perhaps in a different thread, could you talk about this? I'm very interested how you get people to come to Vespers/Orthros.
Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great: Responses and Hymns Set to Carpathian Plainchant. 467+ pages, hardcover. ISBN 0-9774069-3-8. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church, 2006. Available from Byzantine Seminary Press. $15.00.
The Byzantine Catholic Church of the USA ("Pittsburgh Metropolia") has taken an epochal step toward the renewal and adaptation of its liturgical tradition in America. In January 2007, its Council of Hierarchs (the near-equivalent of a synod) published The Divine Liturgies. This pew book is accompanied by a seven-CD instructional recording by the renowned Schola Cantorum of St. Peter the Apostle, directed by its founder, J. Michael Thompson, who is also director of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute of Saints Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary in Pittsburgh. Years in the making, this book is epochal because its translation of the Chrysostom and Basil formularies and propers corrects many of the mistakes (both semantic and stylistic) found in the Byzantine Catholic Church's first pew book (1978). Equally-if not more important � it "rationalizes" the musical setting. As pioneers in the use of English in Catholic liturgy, the Byzantine Catholics were limited by the scholarly resources available in the 1960s and '70s when they produced their first official texts. To the great credit of the Council of Hierarchs, they were willing to revisit their Church's work in spite of the fact that a generation of faithful has already memorized the (flawed) text. The hierarchs also realized that the previous setting of Carpathian plainchant ("prostopinije") sometimes displayed a collision of musical and textual accentuation. In other words, the cadences of the English translation frequently conflicted with the cadences of the plainchant. This is a common occurrence when those who know a chant in one language (e.g., Slavonic) are suddenly required to transpose that chant's melody and rhythm to a text for which that melody and rhythm were never intended. Musically, the equivalent is "broken English." To the extent possible, the new pew book corrects this flaw. There remain instances when this has not proved possible be-cause of the nature of the chant and the requirements of accuracy and consistency in translation. However, the pew book provides so many options for the ordinary of the Divine Liturgy that one need not use the more cumbersome settings. A final reason why the new book is epochal is that its production was thoroughly collaborative and official. In other words, this was the effort of a Church guided by its chief shepherds. Anyone familiar with Eastern Christianity realizes how significant this is. Thousands of resources for Eastern Christian worship exist in English, but only a handful express the consensus of a Church's leadership, thus facilitating liturgical unity. Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version. The fact that the Council of Hierarchs stands unanimously behind this change guarantees that the transition will be crowned with success (cyber revolutions notwithstanding). Turning to the actual contents of the pew book, one finds that in addition to music for the congregation for the Chrysostom and Basil formularies, the book also includes several prayers of preparation for Holy Communion as well as the vesperal ordinary for Saturday vigil liturgies. This is followed by all of the propers generally needed for parish worship as well as the short memorial service (panachida) and general moleben ("rogation" service) frequently appended to Eucharistic liturgies. The pew book concludes with eight hymns for use before and after the liturgy or du ring Communion and a helpful glossary of liturgical terms. The absence of the presidential prayers from the pew book is presumably intended to compel the congregation to immerse itself in the liturgy rather than in the book. This is certainly a bold corrective to the Western tendency to make every single word of the service available in print. Of course, this will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading. The inclusion of almost every text needed for the celebration of vespers and Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening is certainly a welcome addition and will serve as an example for other Catholics of the Byzantine tradition (e.g., Ukrainian Catholics). Tragically, when the latter introduced Sunday vigil "Masses" (in an understandable attempt to curb the exodus to Roman Rite parishes), they did so in a pseudomorphic fashion, entirely omit-ting the Sunday "first vespers." The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers. As regards the propers, the reconciliation of text and music is a major achievement (though, again, not without its difficulties), and the simultaneous publication of the seven CDs will greatly facilitate mastery of these chants. Every troparion, kontakion, prokeimenon, irmos, and communion verse in the entire book is sung on the CDs. Rarely has a prospective cantor been aided so comprehensively in his or her desire to learn a chant tradition. In the remaining section of the book, the only surprise is that the editors have not included more "devotional hymns," that is, the chorales that constitute part of the unique Ruthenian-Byzantine patrimony. Not being a member of any of the committees that worked on the pew book, and not being privy to their guiding principles, this reviewer can only guess that the publishers wanted to revive the use of scriptural communion verses and encourage the use of matins chants before the Divine Liturgy. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Pittsburgh Metropolia will publish an entirely separate hymnal with English renderings of the aforementioned chorales. This would be a welcome initiative, though at the present time no more than thirty or forty such chorales exist in serviceable translations. Before concluding, permit me a few remarks from the perspective of those for whom the Carpathian chant tradition is a second (or third) "musical language" or one rarely heard at all. There is no doubt that certain aspects of this tradition are an "acquired taste." And it is certainly lamentable that today it is increasingly difficult to find a congregation that sings with the dynamis heard in days past and so central to the chant's genius. This reviewer will never forget the impressions from his teen years when he saw "icons rattle" as the Holy Spirit turned the lungs of 400 or more Carpatho-Rusyns into billows for God's mighty word. Thus, "acquiring" this "taste" is not as easy as it once was. Nonetheless, codifying this chant is an appropriate expression of hope for its revival, especially as the Holy Spirit is no less alive today than two generations ago. This pew book should certainly help the Spirit's servants fill their lungs again with sacred breath. Another remark pertains to the absence of harmonization, both in the pew book and the CDs. This seems to mitigate the potential of these chants, especially as some congregations do add a second or third voice to the melody. The CDs, in particular, can sound tedious after a while. But two observations are in order. First, the pew book and CDs are a foundational resource: They are intended to codify the most basic component of the Carpathian chant tradition for easy mastery. Second, nothing precludes�in fact one expects� subsequent publications and recordings that will showcase the harmonic potential of these chants. J. Michael Thompson has already produced other recordings of harmonized Carpathian chants on The Liturgical Press label, and this reviewer looks forward to a seven-CD set of recordings of similarly arranged chants based on the new pew book. To achieve this, may he and all of those involved in producing these epochal resources enjoy mnohaya, mnohaya lita (ad multos, multos annos). Peter Galadza
St. Josaphat's cathedral doesn't take the whole liturgy but they certainly don't follow the RDL. Is it only the UGCC in Canada that mandated the RDL? Ugh.
Well, the DL at St. Josaphat would have been great if they didn't RECITE half of it like they do during the English-language DLs. That's why the English language DLs are usually ghost towns (or at least judging from the couple of times I attended there in the last few months). I'm sure their DLs are more traditional and more sung when they have their choir at the 11 AM DL, possibly, but I usually don't attend DLs that I'd have trouble picking up the language at. That's one reason why I still favor the Ruthenian Church is because they keep to tradition and sing most of the DL, and they use incense. Although I have heard a Ruthenian Church in St. Mary Magdalene in Fairview Park have a choir that responds in Galician (UGCC) Chant, as found here:
OK. He doesn't like it enough to use it. That says something. Good for him. His church is probably not empty.
He is bound to the UGCC Synodal promulgated text so he couldn't use it even if he wanted to. On the other hand there a plenty of Ruthenian parishes using the RDL that aren't anywhere near empty, quite full in fact, and there are parishes still using the Levkulic books some full, some empty.
OK. He doesn't like it enough to use it. That says something. Good for him. His church is probably not empty.
My parish uses the RDL and is full every Sunday. Not just full but growing with lots of young families.
Well, the parishes closer to the Cathedral and in the urban areas might have older and fewer people, but in the smaller suburbs, they are like how Nelson Chase describes. It all depends on the neighborhood demographics, and how things are in those areas.
OK. He doesn't like it enough to use it. That says something. Good for him. His church is probably not empty.
My parish uses the RDL and is full every Sunday. Not just full but growing with lots of young families.
It's always encouraging to hear good news about our Church. Anecdotal evidence, however, abounds and though usually correct in its domain, can also lead to contradictions as in comparing the two examples above.
So I would be interested -- in general of the BCC faithful -- in the answer to some basic questions:
1. Have you ever experienced the "full" liturgy celebrated according to the Ruthenian Recension as give in the Slavonic typical edition on equivalent translation as the 1965 English Liturgicon? If not, would that be desirable?
2. Should we, as a Church, be celebrating according to this complete form, at least occasionally, or at least that it be available and permitted in English?
3. Is this complete form not suitable for the present condition of our Church?
4. Is the abridged form that is the RDL better suited for the present needs of the Church?
5. Should we adhere to the text of our Recension as the standard for our liturgical expression as much as possible?
6. Do we have the best translation in English of the Recension text?
7. Does/should the person in the pew even care about the above questions?
1. Yes, but only because the Administrator compiled a full translation and arranged for it to be celebrated in the Ruthenian chapel of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was glorious.
2. We should always be striving to celebrate the Liturgy as fully and perfectly as possible, according to the normative texts.
3. I cannot see why not--other than the Metropolia paid for all those books.
4. No, because it suffers from fatal flaws.
5. Yes, why should it not be?
6. The 1965 Book was a good start. The Administrator's study edition works from there and improves upon it.
7. Apparently so, since they vote with their feet.
My opinion is of no consequence; I concelebrate as my bishop instructs.
7. Do the people care? 90% will abide by what the pastor decides is the norm. The other 10% will generally find something to grumble about regardless.
One questionable item with regard to the Ruthenian Recension is the instruction of the deacon for the catechumens to leave before the Anaphora. This would have to include unbaptized infants an non-Catholic spouses, family and visitors. This could prove to be a scandal if not instructed properly.
I thought the hierarchs of the BCCA had already decided on all of your questions via the decree of promulgation in 2007:
Quote
From this date forward this is the only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., anything else to the contrary whatsoever, even worthy of special mention, notwithstanding.
I thought the hierarchs of the BCCA had already decided on all of your questions via the decree of promulgation in 2007:
Quote
From this date forward this is the only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., anything else to the contrary whatsoever, even worthy of special mention, notwithstanding.
Indeed to a considerable extent they have decided on the questions; hence, the very need for asking (the) questions which, at least, is not prohibited.
My opinion is of no consequence; I concelebrate as my bishop instructs.
Your obedience is commendable insofar as it is not a blind obedience stemming from the low esteem you have of your own opinions.
Originally Posted by Paul B
7. Do the people care? 90% will abide by what the pastor decides is the norm. The other 10% will generally find something to grumble about regardless.
So, an opinion of consequence after all. This almost comes off sounding like, 90% don't care and those 10% who do are all troublemakers. Or perhaps it is that all are good sheep but only the 10% are, as the Akathist puts it so well, "rational sheep." BTW, question 1 is the first for a reason and doesn't require an "opinion."
Originally Posted by Paul B
One questionable item with regard to the Ruthenian Recension is the instruction of the deacon for the catechumens to leave before the Anaphora. This would have to include unbaptized infants an non-Catholic spouses, family and visitors. This could prove to be a scandal if not instructed properly.
Yes, this is a question that arises for the Recension and the RDL since we no longer adhere to the Disciplina Arcani. But, I submit, there are unfortunately much bigger questions, and they are seemingly ignored.
One questionable item with regard to the Ruthenian Recension is the instruction of the deacon for the catechumens to leave before the Anaphora. This would have to include unbaptized infants an non-Catholic spouses, family and visitors. This could prove to be a scandal if not instructed properly.
The Melkites dismiss the catechumens, and there is no scandal (leave it to the Ruthenians to think of why NOT to do something): only those adults who have formally enrolled in the catechumenate are dismissed (they are sent out for catechetical instruction during the Liturgy of the Eucharist). Unbaptized infants, infidels and heathens get to stay. This may seem anomalous (since the original purpose of dismissing the catechumens was to preserve the secrecy of the Mysteries), but now the ritual is largely turned on its head, since everybody knows what happens in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, anyway. That is, the catechumen is now singled out as an important individual who gets particular treatment. And, by dismissing the catechumens, the desire for illumination is intensified, since there is something very tangible about being allowed to remain for the entire Liturgy.
Much better than simply dropping the dismissal and the acclamation of "The doors, the doors!"
My opinion is of no consequence; I concelebrate as my bishop instructs.
Your obedience is commendable insofar as it is not a blind obedience stemming from the low esteem you have of your own opinions.
My opinion, as are anyone else's, just an opinion; not a command or mandate. I offer them for people to give or take; my faith commands me to choose humility over pride.
My opinion is of no consequence; I concelebrate as my bishop instructs.
Your obedience is commendable insofar as it is not a blind obedience stemming from the low esteem you have of your own opinions.
My opinion, as are anyone else's, just an opinion; not a command or mandate. I offer them for people to give or take; my faith commands me to choose humility over pride.
Well, of course, which is why I'd say there's no real need to state it, especially that "humility over pride" part.
But what about question 1:
Quote
1. Have you ever experienced the "full" liturgy celebrated according to the Ruthenian Recension as give in the Slavonic typical edition or equivalent translation as the 1965 English Liturgicon?
Are you aware of its form and content? Note: Answers do not require an opinion just facts.
I thought the hierarchs of the BCCA had already decided on all of your questions via the decree of promulgation in 2007:
Quote
From this date forward this is the only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., anything else to the contrary whatsoever, even worthy of special mention, notwithstanding.
It's always encouraging to hear good news about our Church. Anecdotal evidence, however, abounds and though usually correct in its domain, can also lead to contradictions as in comparing the two examples above.
So I would be interested -- in general of the BCC faithful -- in the answer to some basic questions:
1. Have you ever experienced the "full" liturgy celebrated according to the Ruthenian Recension as give in the Slavonic typical edition on equivalent translation as the 1965 English Liturgicon? If not, would that be desirable?
2. Should we, as a Church, be celebrating according to this complete form, at least occasionally, or at least that it be available and permitted in English?
3. Is this complete form not suitable for the present condition of our Church?
4. Is the abridged form that is the RDL better suited for the present needs of the Church?
5. Should we adhere to the text of our Recension as the standard for our liturgical expression as much as possible?
6. Do we have the best translation in English of the Recension text?
7. Does/should the person in the pew even care about the above questions?
1. Yes, I have in fact served it.
2. It should be permitted.
3./4. Harder to answer. It would be longer and some pastors would fear losing parishioners if the Liturgy goes to 1.5 hours from 1 hour.
So I would be interested -- in general of the BCC faithful -- in the answer to some basic questions:
1. Have you ever experienced the "full" liturgy celebrated according to the Ruthenian Recension as give in the Slavonic typical edition on equivalent translation as the 1965 English Liturgicon? If not, would that be desirable?
2. Should we, as a Church, be celebrating according to this complete form, at least occasionally, or at least that it be available and permitted in English?
3. Is this complete form not suitable for the present condition of our Church?
4. Is the abridged form that is the RDL better suited for the present needs of the Church?
5. Should we adhere to the text of our Recension as the standard for our liturgical expression as much as possible?
6. Do we have the best translation in English of the Recension text?
7. Does/should the person in the pew even care about the above questions?
1. Yes. But not in a Ruthenian or any Greek Catholic Church. I've experienced it in Orthodox Churches. They all seem to come much closer to that standard. It's really beautiful.
2. Yes.
3. The complete form is certainly suitable for the present condition of our church. Our future is not in the political correctness of the RDL. It's in the prayerfulness of our own liturgy.
4. No. See above. The RDL is a hobby horse of a certain liturgist who sided with the very liberal crowd of the RCC after V2.
5. Yes.
6. No. The old translation was more accurate and easier to sing.
7. Yes. Lots of people have left because of RDL. The bishops should do a mea culpa and fix the problems that they created.
The think I don't get is that the liturgy is beautiful. I mean the full form like most of the Orthodox use. It just works. Why do Ruthenian liturgists and bishops have such visceral hatred for it?
I thought the hierarchs of the BCCA had already decided on all of your questions via the decree of promulgation in 2007:
Quote
From this date forward this is the only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., anything else to the contrary whatsoever, even worthy of special mention, notwithstanding.
In Pittsburgh, at least, this is not enforced.
However, many if not most parishes did implement the new book, but not necessarily the new music, with little incident.
Our future is not in the political correctness of the RDL.
Yes. Especially disturbing, (as has been indicated many times), is the gender neutral language. See the following link for an example of gender neutrality and political correctness.
Our future is not in the political correctness of the RDL.
Yes. Especially disturbing, (as has been indicated many times), is the gender neutral language. ...
Whether judged insidious or just plain stupid, this is a foundational element of the RDL, as so stated by Fr. David (Petras) in these very forums, that is continually debunked by just listening to, for instance, radio and tv, liberal and conservative discourse, commercial and educational content, male and female voices. Its stated purpose and justification is a shameful fabrication that has cheapened the text and our liturgical expression. And we have it every Divine Liturgy and every Presanctified and, for the sake of uniformity, apparently, future rites in preparation (e.g.betrothal & crowning).
Its stated purpose and justification is a shameful fabrication that has cheapened the text and our liturgical expression. And we have it every Divine Liturgy and every Presanctified and, for the sake of uniformity, apparently, future rites in preparation (e.g.betrothal & crowning).
Yes. During my time in the Byzantine Catholic Church, it was impossible for me to hear this intentional PC distortion. It was impossible for me to keep my peace and remain prayerful during the Liturgy.
Yes. During my time in the Byzantine Catholic Church, it was impossible for me to hear this intentional PC distortion. It was impossible for me to keep my peace and remain prayerful during the Liturgy.
I feel very similarly. It's not a situation that can last forever.
The pc "inclusiveness" bothered me when I first heard it at Uniontown during the Akathist in the mid-90's, but it can be overcome.
Reading "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" by St John Climacus helped me to overcome my passion. Life can be difficult, but if we are open, it becomes bearable.....then, with prayer and reflection the troubles fade into non-existence.
During the Great Fast I re-read the Ladder; allow me quote on a similar subject,
If the height of gluttony is that you force yourself to eat even when you are not hungry, then the height of temperance in a hungry man is that he restrains even the justifiable urges of nature.
Our future is not in the political correctness of the RDL.
Yes. Especially disturbing, (as has been indicated many times), is the gender neutral language. ...
Whether judged insidious or just plain stupid, this is a foundational element of the RDL, as so stated by Fr. David (Petras) in these very forums, that is continually debunked by just listening to, for instance, radio and tv, liberal and conservative discourse, commercial and educational content, male and female voices. Its stated purpose and justification is a shameful fabrication that has cheapened the text and our liturgical expression. And we have it every Divine Liturgy and every Presanctified and, for the sake of uniformity, apparently, future rites in preparation (e.g.betrothal & crowning).
Fr. Deacon,
Fr David said:
"I reiterate that I was not primarily responsible for either the introductioin of nor wording of inclusive language as it appears in the latest working documents of the IELC. This is my last word on the subject, I am not lying, but I will not respond further on this subject."
Our future is not in the political correctness of the RDL.
Yes. Especially disturbing, (as has been indicated many times), is the gender neutral language. ...
Whether judged insidious or just plain stupid, this is a foundational element of the RDL, as so stated by Fr. David (Petras) in these very forums, that is continually debunked by just listening to, for instance, radio and tv, liberal and conservative discourse, commercial and educational content, male and female voices. Its stated purpose and justification is a shameful fabrication that has cheapened the text and our liturgical expression. And we have it every Divine Liturgy and every Presanctified and, for the sake of uniformity, apparently, future rites in preparation (e.g.betrothal & crowning).
Fr. Deacon,
Fr David said:
"I reiterate that I was not primarily responsible for either the introductioin of nor wording of inclusive language as it appears in the latest working documents of the IELC. This is my last word on the subject, I am not lying, but I will not respond further on this subject."
Fr. Deacon Lance,
Thank you for this disclaimer by Fr. David; I recall it well and was aware of it when I commented as above. A close reading of my comment should confirm that I did not attribute the inclusive language debacle to Fr. David, only that it was a foundational element of the RDL, and that he, Fr. David, informed us of this, writing in this forum. For anyone who read more into my comment than is there, Fr. David's disclaimer serves as a clarification that I certainly endorse.
Whoever is responsible remains anonymous. Also, a close reading of Fr. David's comment, which I accept as he states it, is that he is "not primarily responsible for either the introductioin of nor wording of inclusive language as it appears..." [emphasis added]. He does say, for instance as quoted in the context of a previous post, "In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often.":
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by ByzBob
This part of the defense I found particularly troubling
Originally Posted by Fr. David
"In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term “lover of mankind,” Philanthropos, “mankind” being labeled as a sexist term."
[emphasis added]
How am I to understand this? "Lover of Mankind," a problem? A problem for who? My wife never complained, nor any other females that I know of be they Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
The question and issue have been raised several times but, of course, to no avail. What more can be said? Dear bishops and IELC, where's the data? On what premise was this change made? It seems we have no standing to receive an explanation: Indeed, "Why the silence?" On an unsubstantiated appraisal, contrary to the present direction of Catholic liturgical translation, giving into the fashion of the day -- being led rather that leading -- you have dear Fathers, IMHO, cheapened for all the world to see, cheapened our liturgical expression.
Reading "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" by St John Climacus helped me to overcome my passion.
I have read "The Ladder of Divine Ascent"....The Philokalia series....Unseen Warfare.....and any number of other writings from the Holy Fathers. But alas, it does not quell my displeasure regarding the gender neutral language that is forced into the Divine Liturgy.
Reading "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" by St John Climacus helped me to overcome my passion.
I have read "The Ladder of Divine Ascent"....The Philokalia series....Unseen Warfare.....and any number of other writings from the Holy Fathers. But alas, it does not quell my displeasure regarding the gender neutral language that is forced into the Divine Liturgy.
Right, especially in the Nicene Creed. Even in the RC, they still have the Creed said the right way, despite the New Roman Missal.
Reading "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" by St John Climacus helped me to overcome my passion.
I have read "The Ladder of Divine Ascent"....The Philokalia series....Unseen Warfare.....and any number of other writings from the Holy Fathers. But alas, it does not quell my displeasure regarding the gender neutral language that is forced into the Divine Liturgy.
I'm sympathetic with your concern about the language. However, its best to find a way to overcome the dislikes, whether of language, people, religious art, or whatever keeps us from a communion with God, especially during the Divine Liturgy. Everyone finds consolation in a unique way and everyone needs help carrying his cross. I found that reading a paragraph or two, then contemplating how the holy writer John's lesson can help me has been very comforting and teaches me about virtues of which I am lacking.
Just reading the book doesn't help a whole lot; in fact it could lead one to disdain piety and humility. If so, John's lesson about fear of death and judgment takes on extraordinary importance.
However, its best to find a way to overcome the dislikes, whether of language, people, religious art, or whatever keeps us from a communion with God, especially during the Divine Liturgy.
Bad translation is bad translation. Words have meanings, so the wrong words convey the wrong meaning. To say otherwise is to fall into the error of relativism.
When Chesterton said "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly", he was not establishing a standard.
However, its best to find a way to overcome the dislikes, whether of language, people, religious art, or whatever keeps us from a communion with God, especially during the Divine Liturgy.
Bad translation is bad translation. Words have meanings, so the wrong words convey the wrong meaning. To say otherwise is to fall into the error of relativism.
When Chesterton said "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly", he was not establishing a standard.
Yes, apart from obedience and humility and the practice of virtue in general there is the objective issue of the translation. Some, perhaps too many, have overcome their "dislikes" by leaving which, while understandable, is also considered so regrettable, I would think, by many of us who remain: had only they too remained to give "witness," for our poor BCCA is so wanting in souls. This translation issue is a matter of integrity of the text and the form of the liturgy; surely that must count for something. Yet while so transparent -- apparent -- to some it seems opaque to others, especially to those in authority. Or are they really satisfied with the RDL? If not, as the old saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
I was addressing a serious issue of a child of God stating the the translation interrupting his peace during the Divine Liturgy. I suggested, as a cleric (deacon) to layperson, a way to overcome temptation. I can't change the translation so I offered the best advice that I can out of pastoral concern.
I don't see how I am part of the problem because of this or because I have overcome a dislike over translation. I truly believe that some reversion will eventually occur and will tolerate the current format in the meantime. Are we adopting a "us" versus "them" mentality?
You know, there have been gender neutral changes which haven't been confronted, why is that? For example, in the beatitudes compared below are the old and the new:
OLD: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. NEW: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
I was addressing a serious issue of a child of God stating the the translation interrupting his peace during the Divine Liturgy.
They certainly interrupted mine--and my wife's and my daughter's. Anyone who knows the Slavonic can only cringe upon hearing the words and the meaning of the normative text distorted, and in some cases inverted, by the inept hands of the translators, who decided to impose their own meaning upon the text, rather than letting it speak for itself. In so doing, the translators elevated themselves above the Tradition, which is certainly more than sufficient cause to be ill at ease and have second thoughts about whether the liturgical text accurately reflects the mind of the Church.
Quote
I don't see how I am part of the problem because of this or because I have overcome a dislike over translation. I truly believe that some reversion will eventually occur and will tolerate the current format in the meantime. Are we adopting a "us" versus "them" mentality?
It certainly goes far beyond the inclusive language (which in itself is a manifestation of a secular frame of mind at odds with the Tradition). This is why developing the "translation" in secret, and not allowing it to be reviewed by competent scholars and translators (in other words, to subject it to some sort of peer review and quality control) was an error of the first magnitude, a reflection of the extreme clericalism of the Ruthenian Church which has been, and continues to be, the bane of its existence.
I'm sympathetic with your concern about the language. However, its best to find a way to overcome the dislikes, whether of language, people, religious art, or whatever keeps us from a communion with God, especially during the Divine Liturgy. Everyone finds consolation in a unique way and everyone needs help carrying his cross. I found that reading a paragraph or two, then contemplating how the holy writer John's lesson can help me has been very comforting and teaches me about virtues of which I am lacking.
Just reading the book doesn't help a whole lot; in fact it could lead one to disdain piety and humility. If so, John's lesson about fear of death and judgment takes on extraordinary importance.
I certainly understand....and I found a solution that worked for me. I went to the Holy Orthodox Church. Of course my primary reasons were not because of the gender neutral language....but it was a nice little bonus for me.
You know, there have been gender neutral changes which haven't been confronted, why is that? For example, in the beatitudes compared below are the old and the new:
OLD: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. NEW: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
I'm still waiting for Fr. David to explain why inclusive language was needed. Are the Orthodox wrong for not using it?
I hope not.
It ain't gonna happen. If it really was about theology then the good Father would have answered my question from almost a year ago about using *childrern* instead of *sons* of God in the Beatitudes.
As Prof. Thompson has correctly noted above, the RDL for the beatitudes is just using the current NAB translation of the bible: hence "children of God". Given the avowed use of PC-correct gender language in the RDL, this NAB translation fits in nicely.
For those who have a problem with the RDL implementation of PC-correct gender language, finding the same in the NAB - a translation of sacred scripture, the inerrant word of God in text - expands the depth of the problem significantly.
Fr. David correctly notes:
Quote
I would hope that more attention is paid to the theology of the Liturgy.
Is there a theology of sonship in the liturgy? In the beatitudes? In Matthew's Gospel? In scripture?
If yes, then "children of God" for "uioi theou" is reprehensible.
One finds, for instance, also in the same NAB Gal.4:4&7 that "God sent his Son (uios) ... so you are a ... [drum roll] ... child (uios)." What? I think not. God sent his Son that we might become sons. We are all "Filii in Filio," sons in the Son as Emil Mersch popularized it so well.
But somehow the translator is allowed to slap the hand of God who writes "uios (son)" but has it "corrected" to child (To what purpose, "child" makes no sense in Gal 4:7 passim?). And the result robs theology of its content, and is the literary equivalent of turning gold into lead.
Dn. Anthony
With the present understanding, for those missing the point (and they appear at times to be legion), the Trinity is not Father, child, and Holy Spirit nor Father, sons and daughters, and Holy Spirit.
The nifty, relevant, hip translation of uioi theou (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) as children of God mocks theology and the Trinity and belittles Mankind and soteriology.
Unfortunately for your argument, the phrase "children of God" in the translation of Mt. 5:9 is also used in the Challoner revision of the Douai-Rheims NT (1582) and Msgr. Ronald Knox's The Holy Bible Translated From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek (1944). I don't see either espousing a "relevant, hip" new translation, and devoutly hope that neither was belittling Mankind and soteriology.
And lest there be confusion: the 1970 NAB as used in the Byzantine Catholic Church has the following translation for Galatians 4:5:
"God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to deliver from the law those who were subjected to it, so the we might receive our status as adopted sons."
On the one hand, the translation of the Beatitudes was certainly not driven by current politics; and the text you cited from Galatians is not in fact in the translation our bishops chose to use.
Unfortunately for your argument, the phrase "children of God" in the translation of Mt. 5:9 is also used in the Challoner revision of the Douai-Rheims NT (1582) and Msgr. Ronald Knox's The Holy Bible Translated From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek (1944). I don't see either espousing a "relevant, hip" new translation, and devoutly hope that neither was belittling Mankind and soteriology.
Your non sequitur here, I think, is from failing to give my comment a close reading with your resulting eisegesis. I am aware of the translations you mention. In another thread, Re: Open Question to Father David Petras I posted:
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by lm
I am all in favor of translating Scripture as it is not as what I think it should be. As Father David rightly points out in John 1:12 children is the word in Greek:
Quote
But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God (tekna theou) ; 13* who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
I don't want to change children to sons. I do want to reflect on why tekna theou here and uios elsewhere.
Yes, exactly! John's Gospel (even the whole Johanine canon) is very exclusive in using the word Son/uios theologically as applied only to Jesus. John tells us that is his purpose:
RSV John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Ironically, Douay-Rheims (DR) and King James (KJ) both have "sons of God" for the tekna theou of John 1:12. (Recall they had Matt 5:9 as "children of God" for uioi theou).
If there is an indication in John of a theology of sonship as noted in Galatians, I think it may be found in John 12:36. Consider the significance of Jesus, who has said of Himself (John 8:12; 9:5) "I am the light of the world," also saying:
RSV John 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light (uioi photos). When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them.
DR, KJ, NRSV and NAB have here "children of light."
Originally Posted by lm
In short, while I think there may be much to learn from the experts, they have a duty to be faithful to the text lest we get not the gospel truth but the gospel of Fr so and so or of Bishop so and so.
Amen.
Dn. Anthony
Why were the old translations so inconsistent? I don't know. Do they fall within the scope of my "anathema"? Probably not, they having been written in the past; I specifically wrote (emphasis added here)"With the present understanding, for those missing the point (and they appear at times to be legion), the Trinity is not Father, child, and Holy Spirit nor Father, sons and daughters, and Holy Spirit." Do you disagree with this?
Also, they having been written in the past, I would presume their purpose was not to produce a "nifty, relevant, hip translation of uioi theou (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) as children of God," though I maintain their translations, as I have noted, are inconsistent, sometimes backwards, and thus wanting consistency and an achievable accuracy. In a way, their inconsistency exonerates them in this matter; there is obviously no agenda behind their translation. There is no such inconsistency in what has driven the RDL and, unfortunately, agenda screams from its pages. Given the avowed inclusive language thrust of the RDL and even as attested in these forums, do you not perceive the "nifty, relevant, hip" aspect of that endeavor? And if that is the case as I must conclude, it, even though short of being machinations -- I say again -- it "mocks theology and the Trinity and belittles Mankind and soteriology."
Originally Posted by ByzKat
And lest there be confusion: the 1970 NAB as used in the Byzantine Catholic Church has the following translation for Galatians 4:5:
"God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to deliver from the law those who were subjected to it, so the we might receive our status as adopted sons."
I applaud this use and translation and have written on it at some length some 12 years ago. I don't see why there should "be confusion," at least from what I wrote. I'm just being consistent. Do you know what the same 1970 NAB has for Mat 5:9? It has "... sons of God." Why wasn't this then used in the RDL if it is, as you correctly say, "as used in the Byzantine Catholic Church"?
Originally Posted by ByzKat
On the one hand, the translation of the Beatitudes was certainly not driven by current politics; and the text you cited from Galatians is not in fact in the translation our bishops chose to use.
Jeff Mierzejewski
Again, bother to read carefully what I have actually written. By your own words, our bishops had approved and there is in use, the Lectionary using the 1970 NAB with a consistent translation Mat and Gal. using "sons." Now comes the 2007 RDL and the Mat. translation is changed from the consistent 1970 NAB. Why? What I wrote -- read the post -- was about the current NAB of which I said "Given the avowed use of PC-correct gender language in the RDL, this NAB translation fits in nicely." Is that not so? If there's confusion I'd say its from using these different translations.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
