www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Byzantine Catholic Church Extinct? Not if i can help it

Frank,

Did he tell you personally that his work would be the only chant allowable?

I also understand that the parishioners of the Pittsburgh cathedral still kneel during the anaphora on Sundays even though the other eparchies have changed that practice years ago. It seems that there is stubborn resistance to ANY change there, let alone just the music.

I WILL be at the cathedral on Sept 21 to hear first hand what you describe as impossible to sing music.


Steve

Is there such a thing as "promulgating" music?

Let's get real for a moment, shall we? How exactly, aside from confiscating from the private collections of cantors & other laypeople every collection of prostopinije (and other music) that's come before it, do these bishops supposedly plan to disallow any other chant?

There were plenty of books of "Byzantine[sic] Liturgical Chant" published in the past, but did they lead to a uniformity? You still have every cantor doing his or her own thing, where you have everything from the simplest dumbed-down gray book melody being sung unintelligibly, to discarding prostopinije wherever possible and singing Greek & Russian melodies like in my home parish.

Correcting English grammatical errors in the pew books is one thing, but gosh, there's all of this hysteria over what's really just a rearranging of deck chairs you-know-where. Is this really where the $$ resources are to be used when even the simplest English chant we've got now is no longer sung well? Change "Master" to "reverend Father", omit that litany, move this to a Liturgy "supplement", publishing thousands of new books every few years (thanks, Bishop x, for spending my diocesan development money on a book that was obsolete the day it arrived), etc. Is this what an empty seminary is telling these folks needs to be done?

I would be most interested to see an actual percentage of people who don't like the new music. I would also like to know how many people who "like" the new music weren't born Byzantine Catholic. No offense, i am thrilled to have new parishoners, but to newer people it may not seem like that big of a deal if we re getting new music. To people who have been singing the same beatiful music it hurts alot to think that we are going to loose it.

-Katie g

I wish our Metropolia had a Archeparchial "Sobor" where such issues as liturgical chant would be voted on by representatives from every parish (lay persons, clergy, cantors and bishops). This is far too big of an issue to be handled only by a select few. If a real liturgical commission had existed in the first place, where lay parishioners, cantors(John Vernoski, Jerry Jumba,etc.) were part of the process, people would be more apted to accept the final decisions. When decisions are being made by the bishops and a few select clergy, this seems to be a form of Latinization and not the way a "sui juris" should operate.

Ung-Certez

Katie,

What are we going to loose? A half dozen 'interpretations' of Samohlasen Tone Two?

Cantor Joe Thur

Ung-C,

I don't think our church knows how to operate sui juris-ly. Never had. Never will.

Joe

Frank C.,

But it is OK for you to monopolize every thread with your anger and venting? Mr. Administrator certainly doesn't mind, but probably encourages it.

I certainly don't look at what Pittsburgh has done to our traditions as being a role model for implementing our rite. Take a good hard look at the 75th Anniversary of our Metropolia book, the one with pictures of the insides of our temples. You folks don't know what the Byzantine rite is. Half of your temples are geared up for a Latin Tridentine HIgh "Mass." Hardly a reputable source fo knowing what is our church's traditions.

You still have not told us who these priests were who told you (hearsay) about a mandatory promulgation of our new chant on Sept. 1. The ONLY mandatory anything that we are familiar with coming out of Pittsburgh is mandatory celibacy. Anything else since then has only been footnotes.

What we need is leadership, not assisted suicide or drift.

Cantor Joe Thur

Cantor Joe,
Perhaps you can clear this up for me. Are we going to be using new tones on Sptember 1rst? And is there going to be a new liturgy? My dad is a cantor at our church and has been for 32 years but he doesn't like talking about the new music with me.Maybe if you could clear this up for me we could stop these arguments and put a stop to possible "assisted suicide."

-Katie g

Katie,

You are talking to the wrong person. Frank C. will have to come clean on that one. He is the one promoting hearsay and mandatory this and mandatory that with his insider priests.

As for 'new liturgies,' I've seen a number of eparchial changes come thru. We fix and repair. Then we move on. I can't seem to imagine what the big, fat hairy deal is.

My "assisted suicide" refers to the current church model we are utilizing. We have bigger problems than worrying if the new Samohlasen Tone 2 has a different cadence than the old one.

Frank C. needs a timeout.

Joe

Frank C. wrote

How many years do you suggest? We have been singing the new music at the cathedral for well over a year. They don�t work. No one can sing them. Is music that no one can sing the mark of perfect music? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, the English settings that came out in the 1970's have been sung for about 30 years. So, i suppose it will take 30 years until we are as comfortable with the new settings as we are with the present ones.

Another point, new music has been composed because the experts of liturgy have presented a new translation. A new translation requires new music, there's no getting around that. It is not easy to take a standardized melodic/rhythmic formula and adapt it to a new text. Give it a try. I think M. Thompson needs to be commended for his efforts.

Finally, if the people aren't sing, maybe they are listening. This is good. That's how one learns new melodies if one doesn't read music.

So Frank, I hope to get the Pittsburg sometime and hear how things are going. In the mean time, hang in there. Things will only get better : )

Tim

Frank writes:

He is not asking people to be open to what he is doing. He is asking the bishops to promulgate his work as the only chant allowable in our church. It doesn�t work. Come to the cathedral and hear how bad it is for yourself. [/qb][/QUOTE]Frank,

Dear Frank

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is simply not true, and you really need to stop this, please.
I know the M. Thompson has asked MANY people for feedback on the new chants, Priest, cantors, layity. I know you are unhappy, but please do not spread rumors that are decidedly untrue.

Respectly yours
Tim

What is the use of getting feedback when the "die is already casted"? More cantor and laypersons should have part of the decision process. What we have now is like it or lump it, this is what "we all" are going to use. If more people with educated and constructive opinions were sought in the beginning of this liturgical renewal more people would be more receptive to the final product. Because a lot of educated lay persons and cantors were not asked for input we will have many parishes who will reject it and use more singable English versions of Prostopinije. How could our hierarchy be so short-sighted on this issue?

Ung-Certez,
I get where you are coming from. Maybe the Parish Pastoral Councils should have been called upon to give their two cents since they are suppose to represent different opinions of the church. On the other hand i think that our bishops are smart enough to see what people think about it. Maybe We don't know the whole story.

-Katie g

I am comforted by the dual realities of the Holy Spirit operating in the Church, as well as Thomas Jefferson's perspective of trusting the people to do what's right.

Over the course of time, people generously contribute to the wellbeing of the Church by donating. Whether money, architectural skills, gardens, liturgical texts, statues/icons, vesture or music, their gifts are important. And if the gift serves the community, it will be used and appreciated. If the gift is not quite what the community wants or needs, like the white-elephant wedding gift, it will be placed in the attic far from sight and mind.

For liturgical music (as for any and all liturgical ventures), if the people like it, then they will use it. If they don't like it, they'll probably stop participating in the liturgical life of the parish - either by not singing, or by voting with their feet. The only true way to gauge what will happen is to watch what happens when the innovation is introduced.

As noted above, there have always been changes in the liturgy - especially in the music - from the "oral and not written down" tradition, through Bokshai and Sokol, and the rainbow of Ruthenian books in English. Some worked and survived; others died on the vine with only the books surviving as memorials.

I must admit that when I first started in a Ruthenian parish (some 28 years ago!!) after a history of Greek and Great Russian liturgical participation, I almost convulsed at some of the Ruthenian musicology - i.e., wrenching 4ths cadences!! And some of the hymnody, with the acCENTS of THE wrong sylLABLE, drove me nuts - although the melodies were wonderfully singable. (Someone burst my bubble by telling me that most of the Ruthenian hymns were of Polish or Slovak provenance. Oh well, another bubble burst.)

The music needs to be emended apparently solely beause the texts are being emended. And the texts are being emended apparently because the vernacular has developed and the texts no longer correspond well to Standard American English. So be it.

So, we'll hear the new texts - and may or may not like them - and then we'll hear the "peoples' music" and we'll do what we can with it. If it works, congregational singing will flourish. If it fails, congregational singing will die. And it will be replaced by the "old stuff" brought back as a life-saver (no, not the candy), or by 'performance cantors', who "lead" no one in singing, and are the moral equivalent of an ecclesiastical barber shop quartet.

I will say: the Ruthenian people have an absolute gem in their history of congregational singing; it is unparalleled in the Eastern churches. If it is allowed to melt away, it will be a big sin.

Blessings!

Well stated.

Each generation of cantors adds to our Church�s collective knowledge and experience with liturgical chant. Boksaj, Sokol, Parvensky, Levkulic, Pataki, Jumba and a whole host of others have all contributed to our liturgical music. J. Michael Thompson, the author of the new arrangements, may have something to say to our Church about liturgical music. His work should be welcomed and given due consideration. If it works and people can easily sing it then it will quickly become the standard. If it does not work the Church will still benefit from his work. In the end, the Lord will bless what He chooses to bless.

I look forward to the day when cantors begin composing new chant for our Church. We must follow the example of the Slavs who adapted the Greek chant they received to fit their culture and the Slavonic texts.

Admin