www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholic churches

Good grief. Now we have two "quick and dirty" informal anecdotal surveys.

It might be a lot easier just to read Fr. Hal Stockert's Clash of Titans on cin.org. It's a lucid and poignant narrative of the Rysin experience in the United States. It clarified, at least for me, the dynamics of the Pittsburg/Philadephia split and the Rysin/Ukrainian differentiation.

Antrodox

ps Zakarpattia also had a number of very vibrant Jewish/Hassidic communities, there was the Roma, and the Armenians.

The Administrator reports that "The informal conversations didn�t go very far because the Rusins stated that they would need guarantees respecting their Carpatho-Rusin liturgical customs, the use of Church Slavonic in the Liturgy and the use of Prostopinije (Carpatho-Rusin Liturgical Chant). Lviv said that such guarantees were impossible and that if they became part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church they would conform to Ukrainian usage in the Liturgy, use Ukrainian, and use Ukrainian chant in the Liturgy."

Someone somewhere is not being entirely honest.

As to Church-Slavonic, Patriarch Lubomyr has stated plainly that those who desire to serve in Church-Slavonic are at liberty to do so.

The expression that the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church desires to suppress protopinije in the Liturgy (in Transcarpathia or anywhere else) and to compel people to use "Ukrainian chant" is incredible on the face of it, for several reasons, the first of which is that Ukrainian Greek-Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox do not tend to be musically aggressive and do not regard one particular chant system as being peculiarly "theirs" while consigning all others to the musical equivalent of Outer Darkness. There are several different systems of chant in day-to-day use in the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, and this is the first time I've ever heard of any attempt to ban any of them. Either someone concocted this fish story in the belief that the Administrator was far away from Ukraine and would not be able to verify the information, or someone thought that it would be humorous to make such suggestions to the Administrator.

"conform to Ukrainian usage in the Liturgy" - would someone please define that, and tell us all what usage they are referring to? If the reference is to the 1941 recensio rutena Liturgicon, that was published shortly thereafter by Blessed Theodore Romzha who quite certainly wanted it used in the Eparchy of Mukachevo. If the reference is to the Nikonian usage, while one can find a few parishes of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church that follow Nikonian usage, they are a small minority. If the reference is to the Old Rite, we are once again facing someone's idea of a joke. If, however - and this is possible - the reference is to the 1905 L'viv Sluzhebnyk, we are facing the horrendous but real possibility that someone thinks that all these ghastly hybridisms are somehow the authentic "heritage" of Transcarpathia - and the victim of such an illusion should be disabused of it forthwith, as I devoutly hope the seminary in Uzhhorod is doing.

Incognitus

That, in a nutshell, describes Rusyn self-identification.

The key sentence:

"They are who they are and know who they are not."

--Tim

An excellent read and I had forgotten about it. It can be found at: http://www.cin.org/clash.html


It is far more likely that such a requirement would be the result of a zeal for uniformity.

I agree that it would be difficult to see differences between Rusin and Ukrainian usage in the Liturgy. The source books are the same and one would think that any differences would be at the level of the minor differences one may find between two parishes in the same town.

A zeal for uniformity in liturgical music is not a notable characteristic of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, which seems to live contentedly with a variety of chant systems - so the notion that there is a vast musical consipracy lying in wait to suppress the protopinije of Bokshaj and Malynych is illusory.

My apologies in advance, but I can easily think of a jurisdiction which is remarkable for its lack of tolerance for any ecclesiastical music which it perceives as "not ours". Is it possible that the supporters of prostopinije are projecting their own intolerance on others?

There is also an historical cosnideration - when parishes were forcibly aggregated to the State Church of Tsarist Russia in the late nineteenth century, and when the resistance to the celibacy legislation meant that significant numbers of parishes and clergy in the USA left the Greek-Catholics in favor of the Russian Orthodox Church, it was a musically unfortunate moment, when the Russian Church was busy enforcing Bakhmetev's heavily reduced "prostoie" chant everywhere. The result was that other chant tradtions were ruthlessly supporessed, and so was congregational singing; clergy and people were systematically taught to despise their own musical heritage.

It is ironic - at the same time, a movement was gathering strength to look more deeply into the sources of Russian liturgical movement, and to restore Znammeny chant, Kievan chant and so on. With specific reference to prostopinije Johann von Gardner - one of the greatest Russian Orthodox musicologists of the twentieth century - testified that the congregational singing of Transcarpathia was far more authentic than Bakhmetev's puerile stuff.

All of this, however, is in no sense whatever the fault of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. One might just as well produce a catalogue of outrages perpetrated by the Communists and blame it all on the Tsar!

So please, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, let us refrain from thinking that there is a dastardly Ukrainian plot to deracinate the people in Transcarpathia by depriving them of their traditional liturgical music.

Incognitus

Incognitus,

I never suggested that there was a �dastardly Ukrainian plot to deracinate the people in Transcarpathia� and I take great offense at your turning my report of an informal discussion into a plot only so you can attack it. Nothing I have said can be construed to indicate any sort of plot, let alone the one you have suggested.

What I reported can only be taken at face value. Nothing more should be added to it.

Admin

Dear Administrator, Sorry that you have taken offense when nothing I wrote was intended as a personal criticism of you. Upon re-reading what I wrote, I can't find anything which could reasonably be read as a personal criticism of you.

You reported that "Lviv said that such guarantees were impossible and that if they became part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church they would conform to Ukrainian usage in the Liturgy, use Ukrainian, and use Ukrainian chant in the Liturgy." You made this report, not upon your own knowledge (you obviously were not part of whatever conversation took place) but on the basis of what has since been said to you. Thus by suggesting that this is better NOT taken at face value, I am not impugning your personal honesty in the least. I believe that someone is, to say the least, embellishing a story - I do not believe that you are the guilty party.

Perhaps I should explain something - it is my own analysis that protopinije is a key element in the Cartpaho-Russian/ Carpatho-Rusyn/ Carpatho-Ukrainian [or whatever other term one might prefer] self-perception or identity. It is certainly true that their Greek-Catholic Church is the most important institiuon this community has. Hence desciribing any attack on these two elements as aimed at de-racination is not altogether unreasonable.

I shall attempt to get hold of some responsible hierarchx in Ukraine and ask a simple question: has the Synod any objection at all to the use of prostopinije, now or in the future. I have every reason to think that the bishops will unanimously tell me that I must have taken leave of my senses even to ask such a question, and that I should know perfectly well that no such objection exists. People and choirs may sing prostopinije, znammeny chant of any variety, harmonizaitons by various composers, etc. etc.

For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Incognitus

I have used prostopinje occasionally as a diak in UGCC parish. I have used Kievan chant often in a UGCC parish as well as Bulgarian. Neither precipitated any complaints or adverse comments whatsoever from either clergy or laity.

I have, on the other hand, received negative comments for attempting to exercize some basic BYZANTINE musical tolerance with another Greek Catholic jurisdiction in the USA of Slavic descent. I have been berated on this Forum for even suggesting that a larger, more BYZANTINE tolerance be given for other liturgical music within that jurisdiction.

In agreement with the above posts, the musical tolerance is much greater with the UGCC, Russian and the Romanian GCC than that other jurisdiction, which exhibits anything other than a traditional BYZANTINE tolerance for musical diversity. I am not at all saying prostopinje should be diminished or removed or even lose place as the primary chant form of the PM. To the contrary, it deserves preservation as do all of the BYZANTINE musical forms.

The OCA and churches in commmunion with Constantinople don't seem to have an inferiority/paranoia/superiority complex over one set of music and liturgical translations. That is a much more truly BYZANTINE sense of inclusivity, respecting diversity as well as individual expression.

My thanks to Diak. I shall resist (for the moment) the temptation to recount some experiences which would substantiate the matter further.

But I've a linguistic point. It's been a busy weekend, as most of us are well aware, but I finally managed to look up "dastardly" in the dictionary (my previously mentioned 1965 Webster's). To my surprise, I found that there is an actual noun, "dastard", which I've never run across before. It basically means a coward. The adjective "dastardly" means cowardly, malicious.

In more recent usage - at least in my limited experience - the sense of "malicious" remains a strong component of the meaning of "dastardly", but that's still compatible with the older meaning of "cowardly" - who has not encountered the sort of obnoxious person that is both a coward and a bully?

A program to attack the national/ethnic identity of a smaller community can certainly be called "cowardly" - meriting the rebuke "pick on somebody your own size!". Whether such a program is "malicious" depends on other factors than numbers, but the program which was described certainly seems malicious to me - assuming, of course, that someone is seriously trying to apply that program.

Meanwhile, please note that I did not apply the adjective "dastardly" to any person or persons, but rather to the described program itself.

Now back to the ice cream.
Incognitus

Subdeacon Randolph,

In my experience Ukrainian parishes are as likely to recite the Liturgy as chant it, so perhaps they are less picky because they are just glad to have someone chanting. The same could be said of the Romanians.

Holding the OCA up as an example of musical tolerance is hardly justifiable. Even though the majority of the parishes are of Rusyn heritage one will have to look long and hard to find one in which Prostopinije is used in any significant manner.

I think it is impractical to introduce other chant forms because it is hard enough to train cantors and teach people one system let alone two or three. Also the people of the Pittsburgh Metropolia are sensitive about their chant. One is likely to get raised eyebrows for changing the tone of the Cherubic Hymn or Our Father let alone introducing a different form of chant.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Diak is correct in that there is a great reluctance among Byzantine Catholic parishes that use Carpatho-Rusin chant to use chant from other traditions.

At least one of the reasons supporting the reluctance to welcome other chant traditions is the almost total loss of Prostopinije in the Orthodox Church in America. Almost all of the Carpatho-Rusin Greek Catholic parishes that joined the OCA have lost the Prostopinije chant tradition and replaced it with Russian choral music. I might be wrong, but I don�t know of a single OCA parish that still uses Prostopinije as its main chant system. Ruthenians see this and figure it can happen to them, too, if they do not safeguard their Prostopinije.

Diak should not have been reprimanded for using another chant system while serving as a cantor in a Ruthenian parish (if Ruthenian was the other Slavic church he referenced). But if we note the often irrational levels of fear that Ukrainians have towards anything Russian (i.e., the fear of any minority against the majority) we should be able to acknowledge why the fear among Carpatho-Rusins of losing their Prostopinije chant tradition exists and understand it. Understanding it will not make this fear acceptable but it will help us deal with it.

Speaking from the position of cantor, I have had absolutely no problem introducing a few pieces of chant / music from other traditions. The only restriction place upon me was to always use the official or customary texts known in our parishes. But then, I am a member of the Ruthenian Church and will not be seen as an outsider.

The problem does work both ways. There have been two occasions over the years when I have been visiting a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish, knew the priest, found that there was no cantor for a Liturgy, and offered to sing Prostopinje (since that is all I know well). Both times my offer was rejected, once with a smile from the priest and �the people will kill me if they hear Ruthenian chant in this parish�. But just this past Great Fast I was invited to chant a Presanctified Liturgy at a Greek Orthodox parish. Go figure.

One can readily appreciate the apprehensions of the priest at introducing an entire Divine Liturgy, sung by a stranger, with music with which the congregation was unfamiliar. Much, however, can be accomplished with preparation and finesse. Here's a thought: can you select a pleasant, appropriate Transcarpathian melody or setting of "WE have seen the true Light . . ." that would lend itself to other languages? The usual Galician setting is far too plain for my taste.
Incognitus

Father Deacon, it is quite justifiable when the OCA can manage to be tolerant of a wide variety of usages from Russian to Romanian to Bulgarian to Albanian.

These latter three dioceses within the OCA are certainly not forced to use obikhod in the way that no other musical use than prostopinje is generally allowed in the PM.

People with sensible, inclusive and tolerant musical tastes such as Mark Bailey, Professor Driscoll, etc. have done a marvelous job in the OCA expanding the musical horizon to include much of the entire BYZANINE tradition [including some Carpathian melodies] and much could be learned by their efforts.

And recited liturgies or not, the Ukrainians are generally much more tolerant of incorporating different musical usages than the PM. I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Somehow I feel this is a trick question. Languages other than what? Is the custommary setting, in Tone 2 Samohlasen, not different from the Galician? It is found here in a SATB rendering - in another language:
http://grkat.nfo.sk/eng/music.html


Apart from that usual setting, I have heard this sung in the analogous Tone 2 Obikhod used in OCA in our churches.

There is an evolution within the OCA. As incognitus points out, in the early days there were forces at work that resulted in some suppression of prostopinije. And Bishop Job helps.

I have a older (?1980ish?) book of music for the pre-sanctified liturgy from Driscoll that has no Carpathian melodies at all. But in a more recent version from SVS our Beatitudes, Taste and See, and others are there.