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

It seems unfortunate that changes in the text and in the music are being implemented at the same time. I cannot really comment on the music, but, reading Fr. Serge's book, I'm unhappy with the changes in the text. Could it be that people that like the new music are not so keen about the new
text?


By the way, I bought Fr. Serge's book from:

Stauropegion Press
P.O. Box 11096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

Cost: $20 + $4 per book shipping & handling.

"Time was when practicing the Faith was centered in prayer, fasting, and alms to the poor. The above proposal does not do that for me. Sorry. "

I hope this means that the Revisionists are going to make Vespers and Matins MANDATORY for ALL Parishes. (Right after publishing a Julian Eccliastical Calendar with ALL Fasts PROPERLY marked.)While they are at it they may as well set up a St. John the Almsgiver Society for the care of the poor, widowed, and orphans.

Excellent points, Pseudo-Athanasius!

I still plan on reading Father David's book. I very much enjoyed his articles.

Gordo

If the hierarchs abandon the faith, God will provide new hierarchs. The Chirch will not fail.
Jesus Christ came in meekness and humility, renouncing the emblems of power and status. He did not impose his ways on anyone or force a form of worship. When his disciples jockeyed for position, he urged them to serve one another. His followers thorugh the ages did not always graps the implication of this teaching or follow it.


A case in point occurred in the events which led a council to depose Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow, on December 12, 1667.Greek and Russian prelates joined in making the decision.
Mistakes and mistranslations had crept into the Russian liturgy. For instance, the Russians signed the cross with two fingers, rather than three as the Greeks did. Nikon insisted on reform. But many Christians who grew up with the traditional Russian forms protested the change back to Greek forms. If the Greeks were so correct, why had God placed most of Orthodoxy under Turkish rule? Nikon responded in autocratic fashion and, with full state cooperation, attempted to crush anyone who refused to accept his new service book.

Under pressure from the Tsar, Nikon resigned, but was reluctant to let go his power. He continued to agitate for a restoration of his authority. In fact, he even returned to Moscow and tried to take up his duties as if nothing had happened. The Tsar wanted to replace him, but, to avoid charges that there were two patriarchs, requested that Nikon be formally deposed.

The synod agreed. Anger, hurt feelings, and retaliation were apparent in its decision: "Whereas we have now learned that Nikon lived tyrannically, and not meekly as befits a prelate, and that he was given to iniquity, rapacity, and tyranny, we debar him, in accordance with the divine and sacred canons of the evangelizing apostles and of the ecumenical and local Orthodox councils, from every sacerdotal function, so that henceforth he shall have no power to perform any episcopal act ... and we decree with the entire local church council that henceforth he be known as a common monk called Nikon, and not as patriarch of Moscow; he will be assigned a place to dwell to the very end of his days, and may it be some old and suitable monastery, where he can lament his sins in great silence."

Though he was banished to a monastery on the White Sea, Nikon's reforms were kept. The persecution of Old Believers that had been instigated by Nikon persisted. Later, the dying Alexis implored the forgiveness of the man he had ruined. After fourteen years of imprisonment (which was sometimes very harsh) Nikon was invited back to Moscow by a new Tsar, but he died on the way.

This is what happens to hierarchs who fool with Tradition. We are still feeling the effects of this today.

Alexandr

Zeeker - I do not ask for your "allegiance" or anyone else's - I am not a sovereign state. I do, however, suggest that you be sufficiently open-minded to read both sides of the discussion.

Fr. Serge

Even if the "tradition" is only 40 years old? I have several body parts older than that.

Dear Theist Gal,
If you seriously believe that the Byzantine Divine Liturgy is only 40 years old, then you are in drastic need of help on several levels. If you are simply confused, please look again - there are quite a few texts of the Divine Liturgy published in English which are at least twice that age (Isabel Hapgood's translation is a century old, and it was not the first by any means).

Father Serge

Father Serge, your blessing!

There are a number of posters here who have insisted that the texts and music promulgated must not be changed, as many parishioners have used them for 40 years - for example, "It is really not just to fiddle with something people have embraced and accepted for several generations now." This suggests that the bishops might be unjust, for example, in promulgating a common English translation for Eastern Catholics!

(Note: I am NOT suggesting that anyone here believes that, but I am drawing out the argument to its unfortunate conclusion. One should not WITHOUT GOOD REASON fiddle with something people have embraced and accepted for several generations. The concensus here seems to be that there is good reason, for example, to expect parishioners to accept longer services, more litanies, and so on, in order to have a fuller liturgical life - but they should not be expected to sing differently or hear different translations than they are used to. This will HAVE to be settled before we can have common liturgical texts.)

So untangling the issues of fidelity to the initial English translations and music used in the Pittsburgh Metropolia, fidelity to the work of the Ruthenian reform of the 1930's and 1940's, and fidelity to the broader "Byzantine tradition", would help.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

I think that your post poses some excellent questions, not only for Father Serge but for others. Might I suggest that they be copied and started in a new thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Perhaps I'm confused, but one of the points of several of the posters in the past few weeks has been that "we've been using this translation for 40 years so why change now?". That's what I'm referring to.

Jeff,

Are you referring to my comments?

If yes, you�ve presented my beliefs incorrectly and your conclusion is a non sequitur. You seem to be conflating some of my beliefs with those (maybe?) of others.

I�ve stated my position at great length but maybe another summary of everything I have stated earlier is in order to make sure no one re-presents my beliefs incorrectly.


Translation and Rubrics

I believe that the English language editions of the Liturgicon and other liturgical books prepared and promulgated by the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church should be as literally identical to the official Roman editions as is possible (while still being presented in elegant English).

The Liturgy is not ours to do what we want with and we do not have a right to change it as we please. The Liturgy belongs to the entire Byzantine Church (Orthodox and Catholic) and should only be changed by common agreement of the entire Church. Those elements of the Liturgy that belong only to the Ruthenian recension should only be changed by common agreement of those Churches that belong to the Ruthenian recension (Orthodox and Catholic).

The Vatican issued a Liturgical Instruction in 1996 directing us to prepare such common translations of our liturgical books with other Churches. Ideally, all Byzantine Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) would work together to produce a single text of the common texts and rubrics, including specific editions for each recension (Greek, Ruthenian, Russian, etc.). Of course this is not an ideal world and that day is probably a long time off. In the meantime it should be possible for all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Orthodox and Catholic) to produce common editions (two Orthodox bishops have spoken in support of such a project for a number of years). Since this project, too, would take a few years it seems pastorally prudent to reprint the current Liturgicon with corrections. [There is absolutely no pastoral sense in promulgating texts and rubrics that are purposeful changes away from the official texts and rubrics when we will someday (hopefully within 5-10 years) prepare (with the other Byzantine Churches) and use common texts and rubrics that are accurate to the official texts.]

Since the liturgical celebration in many parishes does not come anywhere near to the official �Ordo Celebrationis� directed by Rome (1942/1944) our Church should finally promulgate it as the standard and then spend the next generation restoring the fullness of the Ruthenian recension (Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy) to our parishes. Any thoughts of updating or revising should be put on hold until after we (as a Church) have been formed by the fullness of the Liturgy. People not only enjoy the Divine Services (Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy) when they are well done, they actually embrace it. Of course, when Liturgy is poorly done 15 minutes can be too long!


Music

I start with the premise that as Byzantine Catholics of the Ruthenian Church living in America we have no obligation whatsoever to retain Slavic chant. Our mission here is to convert all of (the non-Catholic / non-Orthodox) America to Jesus Christ and make Byzantine Catholics of each. Liturgical chant is vital to worship and must serve this goal. Further, any chant used must serve the English text (when people sing it we must come across as if English is our native language). We who are the inheritors of Ruthenian Chant have a great gift in our Prostopinije. Much of it (but not all) can be adapted without too much change to serve the English text. At some point we here in America will follow the example of the Slavs. They took Greek chant and turned into a new and wonderful gift that the various forms of Slavic chant and choral music have become. Byzantine Catholics in America will someday place a new and similar gift upon the altar alongside them. In the meantime quality English settings of Prostopinije are needed.

Fixed Texts - If this were the early 1960s and if I were one of those responsible for setting the text I would not have set some of the texts the way it was done. But this is not the early 1960s and the settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy have been accepted and embraced by our Church. Not every parish sings them identically. That is always going to be the case. They are not always notated correctly. That can be easily fixed. I believe that it is unjust to make unnecessary changes to musical settings that many people have sung all their lives. After 40 years of singing these arrangements it is not right to take them away from the people. For most of our people these settings are Prostopinije. Good pastoral sense needs to always be paramount.

Changeable Texts � Since changeable texts are used less often there is more room to adjust them. Some � like Alleluia Tone 4 and much of Holy Week � have become so well known and well accepted I simply would not change them at all. Others can be changed. Overall any adjustments to the style cannot be too different than that chosen for the 1960s fixed texts. There is ample room to be much more faithful to Boksaj if we (as a Church) wish but the melody must always serve the text (that is, any settings must have proper accentuation of the English texts).

For those who wish to read a more detailed account of what I have stated I suggest reading the second post in �A Discussion with Father David about Reform� .

---

Liturgical Worship (texts, rubrics and, yes, to a certain extent even music) is not fundamentally about man and should not be adapted to anyone�s individual taste. Worship is fundamentally about God. As long as we keep adapting our Liturgy to suit the taste of each generation we � as a Church � will wander in the desert.

John / Admin

And another classic example of the lack of charity on Byzcath!

Fr Serge, if you bothered to read any of Theist Gal's other posts you might realise that she is more than aware of the age of the Divine Liturgy. I would say that she may be more well read on this subject than you are giving credit. I find your attitude her in your reply as being arrogant.

Many of us do not have the years of liturgical experience and verstility of languages you possess, but as a priest you should at least try to be a help to others rather than putting them down by assuming one is in "drastic need of help on several levels."

Steve

Dear Steve,

Originally posted by Theist Gal:

I did not write that; I merely responded to it.

Fr. Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

John,

I wasn't referring to your belief, but to your statement: if you mean that things should not be changed WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, say so! In fact, there is MUCH more variation in our parish singing (and liturgy, with significant differences between Pittsburgh and Passaic, for example, which your proposal does not address) than you seem to admit. Furthermore, perhaps 3/4 of our chant melodies from the Divine Liturgy alone did not even appear in the 1964 and 1970 collections, or differed between the two - and this music, while still around, is sung differently in every parish.

I generally agree with the proposals you made under Translation and Rubrics, and when preparing the Vespers and Matins books for the MCI, I actually asked and received permission for changes to the Uniontown books to bring us back into conformity with the Roman rubrics in a number of places, as well as restoring several litanies and prayers that the Sisters omitted. (Monomakh probably would call me a "Revisionist", but I HAVE been explaining the history of the 1944 Ordo to people and calling for its promulgation for 15 years or more. Our bishops made a number of changes to implement the 1996 Instruction, changes for which they receive little or no credit here; this should be remembered even as we ask them to complete the task.)

As to your proposals under Music: I disagree with them, for the same reason I agree with your first set of proposals. It takes a century or more to develop a chant tradition, especially one adapted to the complexities of the Byzantine liturgy. We have such a chant tradition - less complicated perhaps than the Galician music for the Divine Liturgy, but beautiful nonetheless, and widely praised in Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the same 1964 and 1970 editions that gave us a DRASTICALLY "chopped up" parochial liturgy gave us two different sets of music for the Divine Liturgy, which not only differed one from another, but even internally could not seem to use a melody twice without significantly altering it.

Like many other cantors, both parochial and monastic, I have been working toward restoring the chant melodies which were either mutilated or ignored by the clergy who set the 1960's and 1970's editions. Furthermore, I want to see our music in the hands of our people at worship, reducing the recent tendency for each cantor to have his own repertoire of music and his own interpretation of it, which the people must learn to follow if they hope to sing together.

The new music settings use the same melodies our grandparents sang, and the English accent has been respected throughout, by design. Your complaint so far SEEMS to be that there are simply too many notes on some words, even if those are key words; this for me is like saying there are too many litanies (at least when applied to the music in question, which is no where NEAR as complicated as, say, Gregorian chant). If you can find any places in the proposed settings where a "bad accent" occurs, or where an UNimportant word is highlighted above the important words nearby, or where the music stops in the middle of a phrase, I would like to know where they are.

I argue for the same "repristinization" to occur now, in our chant, was was provided for our text and rubrics in the 1940's. (The major difference between the two is that with music we have to look back 40 years, not 400.) I do not think this makes me a "Revisionist." The same reasons which allow for common, complete and correct liturgical translations, when the bishops provide them (God grant it be soon!), apply to their providing common, complete and correct settings of liturgical chant.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Swept away?