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

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

You wrote: �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!�

I have been saying so for a very long time. Please spend some time reading what I have posted about Liturgy on this forum.

Regarding your response to my comments on music, much of it is in agreement with what I have been doing for the past 25 years.

Our disagreements appear to be these:

1. I very much respect that we now have a 40 year tradition of singing the fixed texts a certain way in English and believe a desire to literally apply the Boksaj (and other Slavonic melodies) to the English text is not enough of a justification to force people to abandon English settings they have embraced for two generations. You have not responded to my repeated questions about this issue so I do not know your position. Can you please speak to this? (And not just in terms of how beautiful Boksaj is.)

As I have noted numerous times, the original settings in English were not notated correctly. This can be easily fixed. It is also quite easy to make simple modifications to the settings to accommodate corrections in the text.

2. I believe that since the chant always serves the text that it is OK to adjust the chant for reasons of proper accentuation of the English text. You say that you believe the same thing but I�m not sure you do. Your stated position seems to support a much more literal application of the Slavonic chant to the English text, one where proper accentuation of the English text oftentimes comes only after a literal preservation of the Slavonic chant. The evidence I have for this understanding is that you have strongly defended a setting that improperly accents the English text with an admittance that you might not set it that way in a new composition while also stating that at least the music is not compromised. Other evidence is that you appear to strongly defend other settings in which proper accentuation of English is sacrificed to obtain a literal adherence to the Slavonic melody.

You wrote: �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, which the people must learn to follow if they hope to sing together.�

I�m not sure why you keep stating this in our conversations. Has some part of my work of the past 25 years in providing just this to 200 parishes who continue to ask for this material or anything I have stated in these discussions indicated that I am against the employment of Prostopinije or that I do not want to see the people with quality music in their hands for worship? Is it not possible for someone with a different premise (i.e., more faithfulness to proper accentuation that to the Slavonic melody) to want these same things?

You wrote: �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).�

Your summary is incorrect. I have very clearly stated my complaint. Please see my comments above.

To repeat, my specific complaint about the settings we have discussed is that they sacrifice proper accentuation of English text in order to be literally faithful to the Slavonic melody.

Please consider that it is not correct to place Boksaj at the same level of Holy Tradition as the Liturgy. Chant serves the Liturgy. Liturgy does not serve the chant.

You wrote: �If you can find any places in the proposed settings where a REAL �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.

Any additional comments I have about these settings will be given directly to those in authority who are in positions to affect change.

John / Admin

I just realized that I have not responded to the original post about protest.

Pravoslavna most certainly has the right to protest in the manner he suggested. I would, however, suggest a different tactic. I would recommend a much more positive approach. Simply tell your pastor and bishop (and keep telling them) that you support a full embracement and restoration of the Ruthenian recension and that you are willing to help him (them) to attain that goal. Then match your actions to your intentions (meaning that as a minimum you should be participating regularly at Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy).

I have every belief that if enough people actually communicated their support for our Ruthenian liturgical tradition (and not the proposed alterations to it) it would become the norm in our Church.

John / Admin

I guess what bothers me about all this heated discussion is that I'm hearing a lot of the same rhetoric that I heard (albeit as a tiny little child ) back in the '60's and '70's about the "New Mass", culminating in a schism which hasn't been healed to this day.

It would be a shame to see the same thing happen in the Byzantine Church. Yet it does seem to be happening, and for basically the same reason - people assuming the worst possible motives of those they disagree with.

Maybe this time around we could try something radical -- like, for example, actually waiting for the official version of the revised liturgy to be published before protesting it?

Nahhh ...

Theist Gal,

I think you are incorrect on several counts.

Most of those posting here on both sides of the issue assume the best motives of those on the other side. Speaking for myself, I am friends with a few of those who support the revision (including priests, deacons and laymen). I know their motives and intentions to be good have continually stated so.

Good intentions and motives, however, are not enough.

We can see from the texts that have already been published (a copy of the October 2004 Draft was given to the clergy in some of our eparchies) that the texts and rubrics are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome. We can see that the liturgical rubrics currently promulgated in some eparchies are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome (and they came with statements by those in authority that the proposed forthcoming revision is very similar). Anyone who spends a few hours with the Roman editions and the Vatican directives to the Eastern Churches on Liturgy can easily see this for himself. So it is entirely appropriate and within the Catholic Tradition to raise questions about the faithfulness of this revision to what our Liturgy is supposed to be like. It is far better to understand what is proposed and ask for corrections to it before it is promulgated than it is to make corrections afterwards (even when viewed from the bishops perspective).

Always remember that the bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity share equally in the responsibility to preserve Holy Tradition. Liturgy is an important part of Holy Tradition and changes cannot be taken lightly.

You might wish to read up on the concept of �Sensus Fidelium�. The Holy Spirit actively leads the entire body of the Faithful (bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity) to actively protect and lead the Church.

Have you read my comments in A Discussion with Father David about Reform� (see the third post on page 1 of that thread). I think you will find that there is a lot of good material there that can bring you up to speed on these discussions.

John / Admin

That's undoubtedly true.

Perhaps, but I've seen enough uncharitable posts to say "many" rather than "most".

Quote

Speaking for myself, I am friends with a few of those who support the revision (including priests, deacons and laymen). I know their motives and intentions to be good have continually stated so.

Good for you - then you are not one of the people I am criticizing.

Quote

Good intentions and motives, however, are not enough.

No, but they're a good start.

Quote

We can see from the texts that have already been published (a copy of the October 2004 Draft was given to the clergy in some of our eparchies) that the texts and rubrics are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome. We can see that the liturgical rubrics currently promulgated in some eparchies are at great variance with the official editions published by Rome (and they came with statements by those in authority that the proposed forthcoming revision is very similar). Anyone who spends a few hours with the Roman editions and the Vatican directives to the Eastern Churches on Liturgy can easily see this for himself. So it is entirely appropriate and within the Catholic Tradition to raise questions about the faithfulness of this revision to what our Liturgy is supposed to be like. It is far better to understand what is proposed and ask for corrections to it before it is promulgated than it is to make corrections afterwards (even when viewed from the bishops perspective).

Well, I haven't read them myself, being more partial to the novels of Fannie Flagg. However, I've spent a lot of time with someone vastly more familiar with the whole topic than myself, whose opinions I respect (as well as his fine self) . So I will show this to him and ask if I am on the wrong side in this debate.

Quote

Always remember that the bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity share equally in the responsibility to preserve Holy Tradition. Liturgy is an important part of Holy Tradition and changes cannot be taken lightly.

You might wish to read up on the concept of �Sensus Fidelium�. The Holy Spirit actively leads the entire body of the Faithful (bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity) to actively protect and lead the Church.

Well, that all sounds very nice in theory. But the reality is that in the Catholic Church, if 99.9% of the laity thinks the bishops and the Pope are wrong about something, it don't mean diddly squat, because, as Joseph Ratzinger once pointed out, the Church is not a democracy. (Perhaps it should be - but that's another topic! )

Quote

Have you read my comments in A Discussion with Father David about Reform� (see the third post on page 1 of that thread). I think you will find that there is a lot of good material there that can bring you up to speed on these discussions.

John / Admin

No offense, but I've read just about all the threads on this topic I can stand for a while and am going to take some time off and visit Cute Overload [cuteoverload.com] for the rest of the day. Thanks and God bless!

John - thanks for your response.
I believe I have answered every question as clearly as I can, but let me try one more time.

1. The original chant settings in 1964 were truncated. They not only "trimmed" the melodies, but did so in ways which did not respect the existing organization of the chant melodies, and obscured the fact that some texts are sung to the SAME melody (such as prokeimena and alleluia). Most of the body of chant was omitted, meaning that every cantor developed his own versions. Furthermore (according to Monsignor Levkulic) the available typesetting capabilities forced the music to be set in fixed meter; the music was CHANGED the fit the meter.

2. The 1970 revisions removed the fixed meter, but kept some of the metric changes, while changing others a second time. The same melody was sung with a different rhythm in different places, and notes were added or deleted with no apparent scheme. Some music was added back to the repertoire, but by then many cantors simply kept the versions they had already notated. This music was never distributed to the people.

3. A variety of cantors have tried to "fix" the melodies; even your settings, John, seem to continue to develop.

Given this history, and the fact that there are WIDE variations in singing all over the Metropolia, I believe a setting of English texts to the original prostopinije melodies, only keeping the 1964 melodies where they are NEW MUSIC, makes sense. There are no such thing as "Slavonic melodies" and "English melodies"; the chant is an organized BODY of melodies, and has its own rules for what to add or leave out when adapting music to fit text. Individual chant settings must respect the English word and phrase accent, but either a melody should be adapted according to the logic of the chant tradition, or that melody should be abandoned and another used in its place.

You are not the only one who believes this. The Music Commission did this time and time again in their settings, as did the Cantor Institute in working on Vespers and Matins.

What they did not do was simply omit a note here, a note there, half-randomly from one place to the next, or remove all the runs of several notes, as was done in 1964. This "simplification" ("dumbing down") respected neither the chant melodies, nor the people who sang them. They were an "easy way out", just as the same booklet dropped most of the litanies.

We have discussed ONE example on this subject - the singing of "Now" on 4 notes. "Now" is a key word in the text, one of several; in the proposed music, it is sung for 6 beats, the same number of beats as "and ever" and the same number as "and forever." I don't see that it's unbalanced.

Then why did I say I might do it differently if I were writing the text myself? Because one of the primary sources of beauty in English prose is the variability of prosodic feet. If I were WRITING the text, I would have added a syllable to make the number of syllables grow gradually (telescope) through the phrase:

Both NOW | and EVer | and forEVer

Every foot is different. But this has NOTHING to do with whether the accent is bad _for the liturgical doxology_; it has to do with prosody.

Your own solution, as I recall, was to repeat the text:

Now and EVer | and EVer | and forEVer

Not only to does repetition NOT particularly respect the text (!) but this would make "Now" the LEAST important major word in the line, getting only one beat, while turning the phrase into 4 principal parts, which no longer balances the Trinity in the preceeding phrase.

Summary: it may be that you're listening to words and I'm listening to phrases. But the techniques I and others used in setting prostopinije DO preserve English accents - following the existing rules and examples from the prostopije chant to resolve problems, rather than simply dropping a note here or there.

We're only discussed one. As I stated, more than half the time a chant melody MUST be adjusted to make the accents fit - and the Music Commission did this while keeping the melodic line fo the chant, as have I (though anyone can make mistakes). What are these settings of which you speak?

So far you have cited precisely one example, and declined to provide others.

In which places does the proposed music CLEARLY treat the text improperly?

I'm sorry if I have caused you any hardship, as I have counted you as a friend and continue to do so. But I would like to see you back up your statements.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff writes that:

Let's not be absurd; there are certainly English melodies: Greensleeves and Barbara Allen come to mind at once. If you'ld like examples of English chant melodies, try Merbecke's setting of the Communion service, or what is commonly called "Anglican chant", or Presbyterian settings for the Psalms.

As to Slavic melodies, I could name scores, but I don't have all night. Rimsky-Korsakov worked some into his justly famous Russian Easter, as well as his magnificent choral Vigil.

Almost every culture I can think of has produced music which is formative and typical of that culture - this is hardly news.

I am not saying that it is forever impossible to transpose music from one language to another; it's been done frequently - sometimes with brilliant success. It doesn't always work, just as attempts to anglicize magnificent Chinese poetry are nearly unbearable.

Fr. Serge

Jeff,

Thanks for your post. You continue to answer questions that I am not asking and speak to other issues.

Here�s what I�m looking for in a response:

�I acknowledge that our Church sung and embraced certain settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy (Antiphons, Only-Begotten Son, Holy God, Cherubic Hymn, and etc.) for the past 40 years. Even though they have been the standard for two generations now I believe that the people should be forced to change something they have accepted and memorized because� (and then give your justification).�

It sounds like your justification for forcing people to change hymns they know and love is simply because you seek a very literal application of Boksaj (and the other Slavonic melodies) to these texts. [The Church has every right to alter, simplify or even abandon Boksaj if it better serves the task that Divine Worship has in proclaiming the Gospel. I am not advocating such but I recognize the right of the Church to do this.]

Your answer to this question (as I have phrased it above) is very important. I am trying to understand the premise of this new approach to setting chant. At the moment I believe it to be flawed.

I am thinking now that you simply want a very literal adherence to Boksaj (and the other Slavonic sources) and that to get that you are willing to see the people forced to change the fixed hymns of the Divine Liturgy that they have embraced for two generations.

John

Bold added by moi in the following quotes:

and

Okay, well, over in the Roman Church we've had the "Novus Ordo" for about 40 years as well. Two generations have grown accustomed to hearing Father begin every Mass with a hearty, "Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this celebration of the Eucharist! Did you know 'Eucharist' means 'giving thanks'?" 40 looonnng years ... two looonnnngg generations ... but we can't change it, right? After all, most people are used to it, and don't even realize there's any other way to begin a Mass. Why shake them up now, after all this time?

According to Jeff's response in another thread, the basic principles we have been seeking to discuss were outlined in the MCI Sunday Vespers Book. I had a few moments to spare this morning and, being completely frustrated with the circular conversation that seems to be continuing in this new thread, I decided to take a quick look.

Lest I again be subjected to a lack of integrity and Christian charity via another unfounded allegation (for which, I am disappointed to report, I have still received no apology), I have quoted that section in its entirety so that it cannot be said that the information was misrepresented:

While this publication was not published by the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission (IEMC), it was published by the Metropolitan Cantor's Institute (MCI) "following faithfully the principles adopted by the IEMC."

Based on that assertion, I am going to assume that the principles outlined in the Forward of this MCI text are a reflection of the principles used by the IEMC in their work.

Now (or �Now-ow-ow-ow," if you prefer) that I've read this statement, the premise given that Bok�aj's work constitutes some prescription for "canonical melody" for the Divine Services is one that I do not agree with.

Just because Bok�aj was the first printed collection of Ruthenian/Carpathian Plain Chant does not give it a status in music equal to that of Dolnytsky or Mikita with regard to the Divine Services. In other words, Bok�aj is not the Typikon for Carpathian Plain Chant.

Does that mean that we cannot chose to preserve some of the melodies in Bok�aj for use when singing in English? Of course not; some of these melodies are rich and beautiful, and it makes sense to keep them as parts of the lives of the Faithful where the Church Slavonic melody (or variation thereof) can serve the English text well.

There is no good reason, however, to "force" a literal adherence to Bok�aj in English where it does not make sense: where the melody does not serve the text well -or- where there are already common melodies in place (albeit that they may be simplifications of Bok�aj or other Church Slavonic sources) that have already been "codified" by common usage in our Metropolia.

John,

I'm afraid your drafted response doesn't work for me , because your own publications show that there has not been a consistent standard for chant practice over the last 40 years - unless you restrict the chant to the Ordinary of the Divine Liturgy. In order to actually sing Matins and Vespers, we need both better and more consistent chant resources in English. (Even the Vespers books I traded for that copy of Ratisn omit music for 80% of the text, requiring that the cantor AND the people (who are supposed to sing the stichera) know the samohlosen tones by heart. The melodies we're been using in English aren't consistent enough for that.)

As far as the ordinary parts of the Divine Liturgy, which you recommended we focus on, I think that (probably out of ignorance) you don't realize exactly what the changes are. I will write them up in another thread titled '"New" liturgical music for the Divine Liturgy," and we can discuss them there.

In the meantime, since you have said there are MANY bad accents in the linked text that started this, I would appreciate if you'd list them, so everyone can get a feel for what you're talking ab out.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Cantor JKF,

The basic principle I was referring to is in the second paragraph:
For my part, I stand by that, and am still waiting for you or anyone who likes to point out any serious problems with English accentuation in the music on the MCI website, or in the Divine Liturgy music linked a few days ago.

By canonical melody is meant, in this case, the melodies used by tradition, especially those in each of the eight tones. (Webster's Collegiate: "conforming to a general rule or acceptable producedure: ORTHODOX".) Gardner's Russian Church Singing uses the word in the specific sense of that church singing which sets each text to the proper tone.

(By the way, there IS a reason for mentioning Boksaj in the article you quote: it indicates, basically, that we will be using the Mukachevo variant of the chant, which almost all our parishes use today (according to a survey done several years ago), rather than the Presov melodies more commonly use by the Carpatho-Russians, and represented in Papp 1970.)

The 1906 Prostopinije codified melodies which had been in use for many years. This is authenticated by the fact that several further collections of chant in Europe and America, intended as reference works for already-trained cantors, make great use of it as a source-work, seldom changing a melody, but adding new ones. Furthermore, the 1906 book was prepared and promulgated under episcopal authority - the only such case of which I am aware.

The funny thing is that the mention of the 1906 Prostopinije in the text you quote (which I think you will have to admit must be read in conjuction with the direct statement from the Music Commission which I also quoted, in which Boksaj is not even mentioned) is IMMEDIATELY followed by a list of exceptions - the texts which were set to traditional melodies that do not appear in Bokshai.

"Canonical" in the conclusion does NOT mean "according to Boksaj", or there would not have been all of those exceptions. (And there are a few more at Matins, where Boksaj doesn't even HAVE melodies.) The Music Commission went over the chant melodies used in Slavonic (and English) from across the Archeparchy and chose melodies to use in its settings - making them consistent in many cases, but changing existing English settings as little as possible where consistency was not a primary issue. One can see this simply from looking at the music taught all last year at the Seminary - which I will talk about if we can get past your incorrect claim of "strict adherence to Boksaj."

The body of prostopinije, as you say you know, includes many works, some very dependent on Boksaj, some less so. But in all of these, the principal was firm: almost every melody has an exemplar, which should be followed, for consistency's sake. The exemplars and cognates showed how the music was to be applied to various kinds of texts. This family of chant has MORE than enough flexibility to set almost any text for a troparion, kontakion, prokeimenon, or sticheron, without distorting the melodic line, while still retaining correct accent, phrase and expression. Using the melodies this way makes them easier to learn and sing, and allows the mind to concentrate on the text rather than on which variant of tropar tone 1 the next phrase uses. THAT is how the music serves the text.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Once again you have talked around the issue.

Let me try one final time to get your reasoning for forcing change to the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy (Antiphons, Only-Begotten Son, Holy God, and etc.).

Can you start your next post with:

�I, Jeff, understand that the people have sung the fixed English settings for the Divine Liturgy for 40 years. I acknowledge that they are well accepted and enthusiastically sung in many places and could be sung well everywhere. I believe, however, that the people should be forced to abandon these common settings which have served us well for two generations because � (add then add your explanation).�

That�s the information I�m looking for. Your reluctance to provide it suggests that you know that the texts put a literal adherence to Boksaj (and other Slavonic sources) first and proper accentuation of the English text a distant second.

I can respect a decision not to answer the question. If that is your choice please just say so and we can end this discussion.

John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

John,

My reluctance comes from the fact that you're putting words in my mouth.

I serve in two parishes here. In both of them, the priest provides your music. Of five cantors, I am the ONLY one who uses it (and that just for the prokeimenon, which is what I usually sing.) We have the 1964 music in front of us but do NOT sing it anything like it is written; we follow "Scranton area custom", which differs from "Pittsburgh custom", and somewhat from "Passaic custom". I can adapt to any of them, and the people are usually not bad at following one or the other. But we do NOT have common melodies; yours differ from 1970 standard, which differ from Jerry Jumba's, etc. etc. In most parishes, people do NOT have music in front of them, and follow as best they can.

You have said we need a standard, that there are problems with the existing settings, and that the troparia and other hymns are not consistently set. These three facts drive most of my opinions. To begin my response as you propose would misrepresent both by beliefs, and reality.

As I said, I will answer in the other thread I mentioned.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

I am asking these questions for a particular purpose. I am hoping that eventually you (or anyone associated with these proposed changes) will answer them.

I have audio recordings dating from the mid-1970s to earlier this month in which parishes sing the settings for the fixed texts in English with obvious affection and great gusto. [You yourself even complimented the people of St. George Parish in Aliquippa for their singing of these settings.] These settings work. People can and do raise the roof when they sing them. Why would anyone take from the people something that they know and love? That would be the height of pastoral insensitivity.

Yes, there are places where the singing is not great, and where the common settings are sung a bit (or a lot) differently. That is not the fault of the standard (our settings for the fixed parts of the Liturgy in English). If the standard was at fault no one would raise the roof using it (and we can see very easily that parishes do raise the roof singing the common standard for the fixed texts). The answer to parishes with less than great singing is not to abandon the standard for another one but to train the priests, cantors and congregations what good Liturgy is and how to attain it.

John

PS: I have never changed a note of the settings for the fixed texts (from the BLC / 1970 book). If there are differences in notation for the fixed texts in my publications they are typos. What I have changed is the settings for the changeable texts where they didn�t work in the BLC. But even here I have not made changes to well know changeable texts (Prokimenon and Alleluia tone 4, for example). But this discussion is not about the changeable texts.

PPS: Please stop bringing speaking about the issues with the changable texts. We are discussing only the settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy. We can have that discussion separately.