www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Kliros One cantor's view of T/t traditions and change

The following is offered as MY opinion:


There has been much talk of late about "fiddling" with our traditions, liturgical text,music and what not. On the Fatih & Worship forum this was said in response to a qustion regarding the fasting regulations on Theophany eve.

Administrator wrote:
Followed by this:
Part of our understanding of particular history is in the dialogue right here on this BBS. How does the Orthodox Church do Theophany eve? How does our typicon advise? We are all free to do our own things in private, but the typicon is the normative instruction for the church.

If our "received tradition" was corrupted over the years and we wish to return to an "authentic" tradition, at what point looking back in time do we stop the clock and say "this is the 'correct' way."? To me, [opinion alert] vespers in the morning make no sense at all. What then was the compulsion for that original move to have vespers in the morning of the eve of Theophany? Mitigation of fasting??? Or was it always that way?

With other posts on the kliros forum regarding the proper music, translation, rubrics and debate over IEMC vs Levkulic texts I myself get somewhat frustrated. There are those whose strongly oppose the work of the IEMC/IELC and staunchly support text/music from Fr. Levkulic while others are supporters of the efforts of the IEMC/IELC. I have opinions pro and con for both.

This Theophany eve our parish used the Levkulic book which for the vespers half of the liturgy omitted the verses of Ps 140 after the music for "O Lord, I have cried..". That to me seems an innovation "fiddling" if it were put another way. Yet, here we are with some arguing that this is our tradition! So, when the IELC and IEMC publish revised material, they are "fiddling" according to others.

Also, I have questions about the "tradition" of priest/cantor&people vs cantor/people responses on the Troparion with verses in the priest-cantor ed of Theophany Vesper. In Levkulic the priest reads (recitando) the verse while the people repond in the prokimenon tone, whereas the IEMC version the people lead in the troparion tone, as indicated, with the verse SUNG by the cantor in the troparion tone!

Hmmmm, I have noticed other differences of this sort (between IEMC/Levkulic)with the Akathist Hymn arranged for being chanted almost entirely by the priests with the congregation singing the most simple responses in Levkulic.

Perhaps these were "innovations" of the time when there were fewer trained cantors who knew how to sing special services? Or perhaps priests who didn't trust cantors? Who knows.

These things seem to be much more recent than the changing of vesperliturgies to mornings of the eve of feasts but are nonetheless issues we face.

It is no secret that I have been in support of the IEMC, having been a student in the cantor program in the previous five years. I wouldn't have travelled so much if I didn't see some good coming from it. I find the material from the IEMC to be quite singable. I have watched the settings change and improve over time with the input from several cantors. At times am frustrated with the Levkulic (and even the 1965) arrangements of music with texts when compared to the more complex styles of the original settings in Bokshai/Ratsin/Papp. Even those editions had their shortcomings with copied transcription mistakes perpetuated for 100 years.

Steve

I gather this post will not last long as the prevailing mood of late is to excise posts rather than respond to them, which is another opinion, so back to lurking I go...

Steve,
There's a nice story, posted here and there, about this very issues.

On Akathists, there is not necessarily one way to do them, depending on who you talk to. It can be very interactive if music is prepared in advance for parishioners to sing.

Our Typicon directs the Vespers and Divine Liturgy be served at 10 AM on the eves of Christmas and Theophany. I�d have to double check but I believe that the Russian Typicon directs this at 1 PM. According to the received tradition these services (like those of Great Week) were celebrated in the morning.

I have never advocated a rigid interpretation of the typicon. What I advocate is allowing parishes to continue to follow the typicon and not the rearranged order of the Divine Services.

The additional issue is that these Divine Services continued to develop long after they became morning services. We have discussed this before. Pascha Matins, with numerous references to �this saving night� and candlelight processions, is no longer a morning service but developed as a night time service. Holy Saturday Vespers and Divine Liturgy of St. Basil became a morning service, complete with music that is not exactly in the spirit of the resurrection. And etc. Simply rearranging the times of these services without considering the continued historical development of them is rather reckless.

Steve�s question gets to heart of the matter. It seems that those who argue for going back to some earlier period for �perfect liturgy� should be able to name a date when the Divine Services were perfect. Yet it appears that they have merely chosen older customs based upon personal taste. As I have said numerous times, I admire their love of the Lord and their dedication to Church. But neither of these is enough to justify the revision of our Divine Services.

Does vespers in the morning (or much earlier than sunset) bother me? No. The celebration of multiple Divine Liturgies which teaches people that they can fit their worship obligation around other more important things in their schedule (like sleep or soccer on Sunday morning) is what bothers me.

There are two issues here.

First, the verses of Psalm 140 are part of the received tradition. I have never suggested that anyone be prohibited from singing them. In fact, I have included them in every vesper book that I have published in at least the past 15 years (excluding books produced for where the priest requesting the book has specifically asked that they not be included). I would argue, however, against a mandates requiring that these verses be taken as well as a mandate that they may not be taken. Such mandates would ignore the thousand year tradition of allowing the priest to decide, as well as the long established custom of omitting the remaining verses of Psalm 140, Psalms 141 and 129.

Second, I do have an issue regarding the way these additional verses are sung when they are taken (in some places). Singing the first two verses of 140 in the proper tone and then switching to the �psalm tone� comes across as silly. Sing the first two lines of the �Our Father� to any familiar melody and switch to the �psalm tone� for the rest and you�ll see what I mean. My point on this is that if the verses are sung straight through they should be at least sung in the same key as the �O Lord� and in a melody that goes with the �O Lord�. The possibility of having the cantor sing the verses and the people continue with the refrain �Hear me O Lord� should be considered. In the end, these psalms should come across as a single hymn, rather than a mish mash of melodies.

Admin

What criteria is the priest to use when omitting certain parts of liturgical worship? If one influential person (parishioner) complains about how long vespers/matins/DL is and the priest decides to follow them instead of the greater number who may be less rooted in their opinion, (or worried about the length of the liturgy), is this what then becomes 't' tradition? What then would the underlying reason be for omitting the remaining Psalm verses? My point previously was not meant as a reflection on your work, rather of the published materials from Levkulic, which fully omit the remaining verses of Psalm 140, 141 and 129. If these verses aren't in the book, then who will chant them? No note or reference is made in the text that there are additional verses to Psalm 140 to be sung. Since these books are used so often as a reference, often by those who are less learned in the proper form of vespers, there should be understanding that they are not entirely representative of "T" tradition or even necessarily that of "t" tradition, but more representative of a local tradition.

Actually, I would hope the first verse would be sung by the cantor leading the right side with the second verse being lead by the cantor on the left side. If only most parishes had the luxury of two cantors for Vespers! (we're lucky to have a handful of parishioner show up for Vespers, and often just one cantor: me)In the practical matters the cantor leads with the first two verses then revert to the psalm tone, which is easier for the congregation,( and is faster), which is used up to the pripiv melodies for the stichera, at which point the cantor(s) leads and the people follow. If two cantors, first right side, then left with the pripiv/stichera etc.

I do agree that following such a routine with "Our Father" would seem silly. However, "Our Father" is much shorter being only five sentences long which would leave only three sentences left for a Psalm tone anyway. However, for longer Psalms, there is the sake of expedience which seems to be so prevalent among many of our priests and congregations. :rolleyes:

As to a "mish mash of melodies", that may be what sets us apart. ( !!!) Our Liturgies (Vespers, Matins included) are a jumble of varied melodies. Like a tossed mixed salad, there is variety of flavour and texture.

Respectfully,

Steve

Jim,

Most Akathists I have attended in the Van Nuys Eparchy seem to have been predetermind to be that the priest does 95% and the people do the 'other' 5%.
Only once recently have I heard the Akathist sung more interactively by the people. That was at OL IX (West) in San Diego last June. Music was prepared in advance for this, and everybody sang!!!

Yes, it CAN be interactive. I just have yet to see it become a 'received' tradition in our Eparchy. Hopefully it will happen soon. I do have music ready for this year, and can hopefully persuade the various priests that it is OK for the people to sing more of the akathist. I don't have high expectations since my influence on such matters is rather limited. Our current 'received' tradition seems to be that the people can't/shouldn't sing the Akathist and only the priest can/should.... :rolleyes:

Respectfully,

Steve

We introduced a more interactive Akathist for the Theotokos the Sunday before Dormition last summer in the place of the Third Hour, just prior to Divine Liturgy. That way most of the congregation had an opportunity to participate and experience it. It was a very satisfying service, and I don't expect we will do it the old way again as a congregation. The old booklets refer to various tones, so I set all applicable sections to music. It was the same service, just with a sharing of the wealth. The priest still had a good bit to do, just not ALL of it.

The year before, we had done it the way you have usually experienced. My reaction to that was that I didn't need to be there. Since there was almost no role for the congregation to play, the priest could handle it all by himself, instead- a solo tour-de-force, sotospeak. We changed it instead.

Steve,

While there is AFAIK no written �you must take this� and �you cannot omit that� criteria there is the longstanding tradition of the way it�s been taken and it meshes fairly well across Byzantine Orthodoxy. The verses for 140, 141 and 129 were seldom, if ever, done in parishes. Msgr. Levkulic probably did not put them in his books because few, if any, parishes had a history of taking these verses. I have attended Vespers in many Orthodox parishes and monasteries over the years. I only remember the additional verses being taken at a few monasteries, and never in a parish. [Likewise, most parishes also abbreviate Psalm 103.]

On a similar note, many Russian parishes that take the Vigil (Vespers + Matins + First Hour) for feasts have a habit of skipping from the end of the Litija prayers right to Simeon�s Canticle (thus skipping the Apostica Hymns). A Russian Orthodox priest from Russia told me that this is actually the standard way of serving the Vigil in Russia.

Most people don�t even realize that Vespers has the Kathisma Psalms. On Saturday Evenings, for example, this survives as �Blessed is the man�, which is a selection of psalm verses from the Kathisma Psalms (although one certainly could take all the prescribed psalms rather than just selected verses). See �Vespers for Weekday Evenings during the Great Fast� . It includes all the Kathisma Psalms and the proper litanies that tie the service together. Kathisma 1 is Psalms 119-123, Kathisma 2 is Psalms 124-128 and Kathisma 3 is Psalms 129-133. These psalms are seldom done in parishes. Msgr. Levkulic includes one psalm from each of the Kathisma to represent the whole in his Presanctified book. The Father Petras influenced versions of the Presanctified includes them but he divides the psalms up based upon the day of the week and excludes the litanies. [I find this unpastoral because it makes it much more difficult for the people to �own� the service.]

My larger point here is that we have a �received� method of abbreviating the Divine Services. This includes taking only the first two verses of Psalm 140 and skipping the rest. I have no objection to those who wish to take the other verses. Psalm 140 is the main evening prayer in the Church and one can make a compelling argument that it should be taken in full. I do object to those who would mandate a different form of abbreviation than that which has been received (for me, respecting practices which are common across Orthodoxy is vital). The Levkulic edition of the Presanctified included the full text of 140. In most parishes they just chanted the whole psalm (including the first two verses). While I would have personally preferred that the �O Lord� be sung according to the proper melody, no one can argue that the Levkulic edition did not work and work well. I would have liked to see his form of abbreviation kept (for the most part) but to have the full hymns proper to each Wednesday and Friday included. [The new form has been a disaster in many parishes. At the parish I belong to the attendance dropped from 120 down to 30 when the new Presanctified books were introduced five or so years ago and never recovered. People still talk about someday doing it the �old way� again.]

Yes, the �Our Father� is shorter but the larger point is that one is breaking up a single prayer into the equivalent of different songs. Perhaps a better comparison with singing the first two lines of the Creed and then plain chanting the rest would be better?

My suggestion here is that those who wish to take all of Psalms 140, 141 and 129 do so in a way that meshes with the way the first two verses are sung. If the cantor is to take the verses alone he could easily sing them in a style that allows the people to sing the refrain �Hear me, O Lord� as they did with the first two verses. That would tie it all together nicely. Or once could simply chant the entire psalm.

Admin

John, you are correct. Bulgakov and most other Russian Typikons directs the Vesperal Liturgy at the "seventh hour" or 1 p.m.

"(for me, respecting practices which are common across Orthodoxy is vital)"

John, you have said so much in this thread it would take weeks to discuss it all. Thanks and God bless.
DD

Regarding Akathists, there is a very interactive way to do them with the Pochaiv or other congregational Akathist melodies. Priest or Deacon sings the Kontakion, Reader or Cantor the beginning of the Ikos, and the people the "Rejoices" and "Alleluias". Or if you have no clergy, a "Lead Reader" can do those parts. Quite beautiful, simple, and easy to harmonize.

We do them quite regularly including Fridays of the Great Fast and often sing them for our regular evening meals/discussions in the domestic churches. When we recently had the Nativity Akathist I didn't bother to pass out music or neume the text - everyone is getting the hang of it quite well.
DD

A few more thoughts/questions/opinions on what 'received' tradition is......

The variety of replies offered in this thread give some thought about the argument of what could/should be considered as 'received tradition'. Each parish in each Eparchy has a sllightly different idea of what the 'received' part of ongoing traditions is exactly. So as one travels to other parishes, things are done somewhat differently in each. While some might argue that because a certain tradition is not done in their parish, it isn't done elsewhere, which more often than not turns out to be incorrect.

The differences in how Akathists/vespers/Divine Liturgies are celebrated between various parishes in the Pittsburgh Metropolia are some examples. Is the concept of 'received tradition' larger than at the parish level, or is ' received tradition' as so commonly tossed about only for certain key T traditions while lesser {local} practices (both 'received' and defined traditions) are left to the discretion of the various priests?

Admin writes:

And my larger question is how were these 'received' methods determined?

Was it through the evolution of society or loss of tradition and rediscovery or loss of interest that drove such changes? Some answers we may never learn some are already known yet still debated. In the debate there are some who call for restoration of those abbreviations, while others argue for maintaining the abbreviations.

Admin writes:

Especially true if their parish has a local received tradition of never regularly celbrating vespers.

On another thread the practice of kissing of the hand cross after Divine Liturgy is being debated; Arystarcus wrote:
Again, this is an assumption based on an observation of a small subset of the whole and applying the finding to the whole set without any further research. I know this because in my own parish in the Van Nuys Eparchy we DO venerate the cross at the end of Divine Liturgy.

Many of these debates of 'received tradition' are fought using similar arguments which, to me and perhaps others, makes for a confusing picture of what constitutes true T tradition versus t tradition in some liturgical practices, and even in the paraliturgical practices surrounding many of the major feasts.

In the end there will always be local "T/t" traditions that vary among parishes as well as regional/Metropolia-wide T/t traditions between parishes. Rubrics only define particulars of worship if and when they are followed. (Even if there is the occasional error in the typicon as discussed here ) When an innovation or omission comes into play and is used long enough, does it then it becomes 'received' tradition? Whether this new 'tradition' is 'correct' is for further debate.


Respectfully,

Steve