www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Coming to a Location Near You?

Dear Andrew,

The attitude of Fr. Petras does not match my own experience. Bishop Vsevelod (I hope I spelled that correctly) has been a good friend to Eastern Catholics, and in fact has encouraged our existence, saying that we can serve as a bridge, not necessarily from Catholic to Orthodox, but from Orthodox to Catholic: in other words, our task is to bring Orthodox spirituality, liturgy, and ecclesiology to the West, which can't help but aid our mutual understanding. Consider the great influence of the Melkites at Vatican II!

All the more reason to abandon the current retranslation and make an offer to our Orthodox brethren to work together on a translation.

Yes, I am aware! The "you" was a collective you meaning the perpetrators of this plot.

Alexandr

Joe,

Please quote where I made that statement! I never spoke nor wrote that what we have been using since the 1960's is "unacceptable".On the other hand, you wrote of the revised Liturgy: " Awful does not describe how bad it is." I asked if you could elaborate on the aspect of "awful" as used in your post.

The Liturgy as shown at the beginning of this thread is very close to what is already in use in the Eparchy of Van Nuys. Close does not mean it is the same, the translations used in the Eparchy of Van Nuys are the current translations. The music shown had been used at the MCI cantor school and NO, it was not then, nor now the official revision. If I recall correctly, it wasn't meant to be used outside of the MCI classes.

The setting of the current MCI music isn't as chopped up as the 1964 setting, which by virtue of its mandated simplification by the Heirarchs, changed the character of our chant. I posted a while back on another thread, an article I found that shed some light on the philosophy behind the extreme simplification of the music: ["Keep the Music Simple!"]. My attention to the music changes of 1964 and now is not purely acedemic given my family connections to the Byzantine Catholic Church. (Go to the Byzantine Seminary library and look at the archive of "Eastern Catholic Life" newpaper).

For those who remember the Divine Liturgy as sung prior to the 1964-1970 English translation and music, the current music used by the MCI/IEMC follows much more along the lines of what had been traditionally sung in our parishes which was primarily from sources that referenced to Bokshai and other sources extant at the beginning of the 20th century. I have recordings of Divine Liturgies dating to the 1940's, and some music sheets dating to 1900's.

If you look at the translations for the troparia in the 1970 "Byzantine Liturgical Chant" book, you will notice that the translation had changed by the time the Levkulic pew book was published in 1978.

As to problems with the current settings:

While singable, they do lack the subtle character of the original melodies. There are musical notation typos which have become 'accepted' as normal when they do not show up in any other sources.

Up until recently there had not been any "current" music settings for Vespers or Matins, which I feel may have been what helped the demise of thier usage in so many parishes of the Metropolia. This was an area that the 1960's translation efforts had not been focused.

Steve

I recieved a PM from a gentleman who holds an opinion contrary to mine. Besides teaching me some new applications of the English language, it appears that his concern was, why am I, an Orthodox Christian, butting in and not minding my own business. Well my answer to that is this.

The First rule of epidemiology is to ISOLATE the infectious organism before in can errupt into a pandemic. In this case the infectious organism is modernism.
Some examples of serious outbreaks in the past:

In the 17th century, Patriarch Nikon instituted a series of Liturgical reforms to bring the Russian Service books more in line with the Greek usage. The changes were minor:

Spelling of Jesus: Iisus to Isus
Creed: Begotten but not made, And in the Holy Spirt, the True Lord, the Giver of Life to Begotten not made, And in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, Teh Giiver of Life
Sign of the Cross: Two fingers to three


Number of Hosts in the Liturgy: 7 to 5

Direction of Procession: Sunwise to counter-Sunwise

Alleluia: Alleluia, alleluia, glory to Thee, o God to three times alleluia

The immediate ramifications of these seemingly innocuous changes was the schism of 100's of thousands of Old Believers, resulting in Civil unrest, peasent uprisings, martyrdom, the loss of the Patriarchate, the subjucation of the Church to the State and a schism that has lasted to this day.


In the early part of the 20th Century, Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis)of Constantinople instituted a Calendar change which split the Orthodox world in 2, causing division and schism in not only Greece, but in Serbia and Roumania to this very day.

The Living Church, also called Renovationist Church or Renovationists was a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church in 1922- 1946. Originally begun as "grass-roots" movement among the Russian clergy for the reformation of the Church, it was quickly corrupted by the support of the Soviet secret services (VCheKa, then GPU, NKVD), who had hoped to split and weaken the Russian Church by instigating schismatic movements within it. The beginning of actual schism is usually considered to be in May, 1922 when a group of �Renovationist� clergy laid claims to higher ecclesiastical authority in the Russian Church. Among the measures, changing the traditional order of ecclesiastic life were:

Permission for monastics (including bishops) to marry, while retaining their episcopal and clerical ranks;
Permission for the Clergy to marry after their ordination, to remarry or to marry widows;
Permission for the married priests to be consecrated as bishops (Orthodox tradition is that only monastics may be Bishops). Constantinople at one time supported the Renovationists, resulting in the animosity between Moscow and Constantinople which remains to this day.

In the 1980's, the Orthodox Church in America adopted the Revised Julian Calendar, causing many Churches, especially in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York to leave the OCA and join the ROCOR. Numerous court cases and millions of dollars were spent, with the Church in MAyfield PA the most visible example.

In 2004, a group of laymen in the Greek Archdiocese sued the GOA in an American court to invalidate the 2003 Charter issued by Constantinople. In 1999, Archbishop Spyridon, the First Primate of the GOA was forced into retirement for "being too Greek!!!"

These are just some of the examples of the dangers of modernism. My concern is that the renovationists in the Orthodox Church will see these changes and attempt to follow suit. One only has to read the Orthodox Forums to see the agenda of these individuals.

Those who do not heed the warnings of history are doomed to repeat them.

Alexandr

Steve,

Sing through the revised settings. The emphasis has changed from the important words to the unimportant words. Boksaj has been treated as Gospel and the English accents are secondary. A lot of money has been spent on something that is awful. It is certainly worse than the official settings from 1964.

I�m glad to see that you admit that the posted link is Thompson�s work. Neither Thompson nor Mierzejewski would admit this and skirted the questions. They seem to want to pretend that this isn�t Thompson�s work.

I don�t think that the 1964 setting of the Divine Liturgy changed the character of prostopinije. I have the original settings used at the otpust in 1958. The 1964 settings cleaned up the 1958 settings and fixed the accents for English.

Your grandfather was a cantor. Or was it your uncle? He supported the settings that put English first. There is no rule that says we need to keep every note in Boksaj. In fact if you look at Boksaj you can see lots of places where the chant is simplified to fit shorter texts. The same principles were used in 1958 and 1964.

There are many settings of everything in the Levkulic Pew book. The Administrator�s settings are the most commonly used. There are at least a dozen different settings for much of the texts published by the Sisters of St. Basil. Why reinvent the wheel? Why change the entire approach to setting chant when the approach we have used since 1964 has worked very well? The style in the Holy Week book and the Levkulic Presanctified have been accepted in the parishes. My priest says it was the way it was sung this week at the clergy retreat. Why change it?

Java Joe

The more Orthodox peoople we have 'butting' in to our business the better off we will all be. Orthodoxy is our roots and traditions, not watered down chopped up liturgies.

What we really need are the revisionists to stop butting in and continuing down a path of flavor of the month revisions and enforcing latinizations that have been imposed on us.

I'd like to ask the person that wrote you the nasty PM if they kneel or not at his parish on Sundays.

I wonder if they do any prostrations especially during the Great Fast?

I'd like to ask him how the confessionals are at his church. :rolleyes:

The emperor's not wearing any clothes and nobody is supposed to say anything?

Slavipodvizhnik, butt in more, Orthodoxy is what we need.

Monomakh

Well since the powers that be have decided to remain silent since I asked Professor Thompson:

Is this or isn't this a portion of the music and text that will be published by the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia?

Has this text ever been used in the Seminary and/or the Metropolitan's Cantor Institute?

Is this a valid text that has or will be used or is this a bogus copy?

(and boy the silence is deafening),

maybe someone who went to the cantor school or meeting or whatever it was a few weeks ago can confirm if the text was used there then.

I don't know why simple questions can't be answered instead of keeping the truth behind the walls of the Politburo.

There are plenty of other questions, like why in the world at least three verses of Antiphons can't be published and aren't in the linked to Liturgy, etc.


Monomakh

The more Orthodox peoople we have 'butting' in to our business the better off we will all be. Orthodoxy is our roots and traditions, not watered down chopped up liturgies.

What we really need are the revisionists to stop butting in and continuing down a path of flavor of the month revisions and enforcing latinizations that have been imposed on us.

I'd like to ask the person that wrote you the nasty PM if they kneel or not at his parish on Sundays.

I wonder if they do any prostrations especially during the Great Fast?

I'd like to ask him how the confessionals are at his church. :rolleyes:

The emperor's not wearing any clothes and nobody is supposed to say anything?

Slavipodvizhnik, butt in more, Orthodoxy is what we need.

Monomakh [/QUOTE]


I think what really frightens me is the "secrecy" involved, almost as if there is an organized movement within the power structure to bend the Church to their own vision. But what these malcontents don't realize is that God will not be mocked. What reasons are given for the changes? Why will none of the revisionists answer this simple question? Why the subterfuge? Why the sneakiness involved? If you are unhappy with the faith that your granparents died for, leave! Go to the Episcopalians! You can worship politically correct there! One does not need to fix that which is not broken. What you Pravoslavnie Christiani who are fighting this need to do, is to identify those who would destroy you from within and get rid of them! Bishop, cleric, layman, whatever, it is a cancer that needs to be cut out. Your churches are being emptied out and sold from beneath you, your children are becoming Protestants, and the power structure is worried about changing the music and text? Get real! Actually, I really should just shut up. Let the changes go through. If they do, I can look forward to many new Orthodox fleeing from the BC Church. But we Orthodox are offering you are hand. Learn from the mistakes we made. Remain true to your traditions and faith. And don't let the vipers sweet talk you.

Alexandr

I'm sure if (hypothetically) everyone here on the Forum was applauding the revised texts and revised music, "the powers that be" would be stepping forward and taking the credit. Since there is much criticism of the revisions there is silence. The silence is only going to make this process more difficult.

U-C

Before revising a Rite that does not exclusively belong to the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics, why not correct some latinizations?

Such as fasting according to the Orthodox praxis? I know many fast accordingly but show me the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic regulations that require it.

If Eastern traditions are to be restored in "spirit" of Orientalum Lumen and in reaction to the call to return to the Eastern roots, why not actually restore some of these?

Get rid of Saturday night Liturgy and sing Vespers!!!!!!!

Instead one sui juris church takes it upon itself to create their own version of the liturgy that is not in line with the other sui juris churches and a liturgy that is not in line with their Orthodox brethren.

This not only will distance the Ruthenian metropolia from their Orthodox brethren it may also distance them from the other sui juris churches. Let us mention that a easily checked census fact will show that the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics do not even constitute the majority of Catholics using the Byzantine rite in the United States. The Ruthenian Metropolia, which only exists in the United States can not take it upon itself to alter the Liturgy that is used throughout the world by many different people.
While the revisions may be considered "corrections" or perhaps some ideal of a more pure translation, they indeed isolate the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic usage from the world community practicing the Byzantine Rite.

Exactly right, the only response we've gotten is an answer that raises more questions than it answers.

Saying:"This is not the Divine Liturgy as it will be published by the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia." is a crafty way of not saying what the linked liturgy is and thus avoids having to talk about the real issue at hand.

Father David has called us who believe and respect Tradition 'Liturgical Fundamentalists'. Well then 'Liturgical Fundamentalists' we are then. For if following the command of:

"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (II Thess. 2:15).

gets us labeled this way then so be it.

If believing that there is no harm and in fact correct to have at least three Antiphons gets us labeled this way then so be it.

Serious issues are at stake here.

Why are moving away further from our Ukrainian Greek Catholic brethern for example?

Why would a church in major decline decide to change the music and text when the time and money spent on this should be spent on evangelization?

Why are we ashamed of where we have historically come from?

I still can't figure out why we have to be in and out of church in under an hour as well?

No the linked liturgy isn't the exact liturgy that will be promulgated (it's obviously not a Sunday Liturgy as stated by someone else in this thread), but anyone who can think for themselves realizes that this is a portion of the coming debacle, a debacle that will further decline the church instead of grow it. I was unsure as to the veracity of the document at first, the silence has made it apparent that it is so.

Monomakh

The Divine Liturgy is worship ordained by God as passed down to us. To reject it for a form that you choose is being like Cain and bringing before God something He will reject. Is your wisdom greater than God's; is it up to you to choose how to worship the Creator? God told Cain:

"...Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you..."
(Genesis 4:6-7)

Alexandr

The question is:

If this is not the liturgy that is going to be released then why would my friend tell me the following?

Why was the liturgy sung by the cantor students and professionally recorded at the first session of the MCI this year, and why were the cantor students told this was going to be distributed to parishes to help teach this revision?

LOL!!!

Let me tell you a thing or two about being labeled a "Fundamentalist"! I wear it as a badge of honor. As some of you know, I am a member of the Russian Church Abroad. I have been called reactionary, schismatic, fundamentalist, closed minded, and a slew of things that I cannot even print here. But what I have noticed over the years, is that those very people who slung such such slurs at those of us who remained true to the faith are now clamoring to kiss up to us. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that our churches are growing BECAUSE we have mantained the faith of our fathers, not in spite of it, while those that opposed us have diminished.
Let Fr David have his opinion. We Orthodox had revisionists the likes of Fr. Eusebius Stephanou to deal with. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Alexandr

Professionally recorded?

Sung by cantor students?

Distributed to parishes to help teach this revision?

This is getting more twists and turns than a Clancy novel.

If this is true then this explains the silence.

btw, I love this from the linked site at the beginning of the thread.

"It strikes out from its very opening words..

"Reverend Father, give the blessing," says the deacon.

It should be:

"Master, give the blessing." Despota in Greek, Vladyko in Slavonic. In other words - the bishop.

This is a major point of liturgical theology. At the very outset of the Liturgy we are all reminded of the eucharistic unity of the Church around the bishop. We are reminded that the priest is there as the delegate of the bishop, to serve the Liturgy in his name and with his authority.

The "revised" Catholic Liturgy destroys this. Did the reformers even understand the theological significance of "Master, give the blessing"?"

Monomakh