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

Jim wrote: Jim, time and time again on this forum it has been discussed that the parish priests know nothing about this new Divine Liturgy. Again, it has been recast in secret. What good will it do to go to our parish priest who knows excatly what we know, nothing! There's the problem. The priests in Passiac didn't see the Liturgy until Fr. Serge published his book. How can one answer questions when they don't have the answers????

JMHO, Cathy

Jeff,

You keep missing the point.

The English settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy (antiphons, Holy God, etc.) have been in common use in almost 100% our parishes for 40 years.

The IELMC / MCI / Thompson book linked above makes a lot changes to the music where there are no changes to the text. Every single change makes the setting more difficult to sing. Justify each of these changes.

It�s up to you to prove that they are better. It�s not up to me to prove that they are worse.

Does everyone see how the Revisionists place their work at the level of Gospel and complain that they do not have to justify it?

Java Joe

I have to disagree slightly, Jim. Joe is welcome to start with the booklet linked at the top of this thread, since the music there probably matches within 5-10% the corresponding music in the proposed People's Book. (He just can't presume other music won't be present as well.) Or since he's willing to ask the bishops to do away with all the music from the MCI, he can go through the 2,500 or so pages of music in the MCI website and bring up anything he likes, and I'll discuss it.

(Warning: it might be kinda boring *shrug* but then again it might not.)

All I ask is that he be specific, and focus on the music.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Nice tactic but it won�t work. The Revisionists keep saying we should give their work a chance. Why? We have music that works very well right now. Why change it?

Seek first to understand why this major revision is necessary. Do not accept that which remains unjustified. Change for change�s sake is not necessarily good.

*sigh* Joe, we do NOT have a common setting, let alone a common way of singing it - we have lots of parallel settings from the same Slavonic and folk Rusyn sources, and lots of extra music floating around. If your parish switched from Jerry Jumba's settings to John Vernoski's, would you expect John to justify every variation before you would agree to discuss it?

You said that the new music was "awful" or worse. If you just mean you don't like change, please say so! If you can't figure out how something is to be sung, ask! And if you REALLY have a musical objection to anything in the linked text, or on the MCI website, please give details - or write them down and send them to me.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

(double post)

Please read my posts instead of giving me the stock Revisionist MCI answers.

We do have common texts for the Antiphons, Only-Begotten Son, Holy God, Cherubic Hymn, Holy, Holy, Holy, We Praise You, It is truly proper, the Our Father, One is Holy, May our Lips be filled, Blessed is the Name of the Lord and a lot more.

These settings are used in 100% of our parishes.

The IELMC / MCI / Thompson club is trying to force changes to all of these.

Why?

Please answer.

Justify the changes.

Java Joe

I must state my disagreement with the above comment. Faith, reason, and obedience are all part of our religious identity. Obedience has its place, obviously, to ensure good order. But Church history has shown marvelously that dissent is not equivalent to disobedience - and it is precisely some of that dissent that has ensured orthodoxy.

We are dealing with the very core, the heart of hearts, of our lex orandi. As such, we are praying, singing, and celebrating an essential core of our faith with the Divine Liturgy.

Obedience does not trump faith and reason. I stand by my point that an essential question of "why" needs to answered with a compelling justification - starting with the clergy who are to implement such a thing, to allay the questions we have. If this is such a good thing to ditch the Ordo and construct a new Liturgikon, tell us why. It is quite simple and straightforward.

A very cursory review of the great patristic catechetical tradition of the Church with the likes of St. Cyril of Jerusalem will quickly illustrate that a stepwise mystagogical catechesis of what is to be celebrated in the lex orandi is actually the tradition of the Church, and not a forced usage with the absence of same - a "do what we tell you" approach as we seem to be seeing here.
FDD

How come those who Latinized our church, dumbed down the liturgy, and limited liturgy to just the "Mass said by Father ..." were not called "Revisionists" back then?

Easy one. They were called "Catholic" while those who saw their church lose its traditions were "too Orthodox." It was us-versus-them.

I remember my former pastor "saying Mass" facing the people in black vestments with lace alb. Altar boys had to hold the back of his phelonion up in the air like he was in a state of lift off. Hand bells were rung.

But he was never called a "Revisionist" like former bishops who prevented iconostases from being erected. He was a "real Catholic." We sang all the hymns a-capella written by Russian (Horrors upon horrors!!!) composers; never Plainchant.

Then we did May Crowning. Another non-Revisionist thing like the Fatima and Blue Army crowd who asked us to convert the Russians to the true faith.

There is nothing like being a "Christian of the True Faith" making sure we knelt like true Catholics for the Consecration during a silent Anaphora. Thank God for the handbells to tell us when to bow for the moment of Transubstantiation.

How non-revisionist it was to run into church every day for Communion rite (without any service) before attending parochial school classes. "Masses" were plentiful during weekdays of Lent, especially in the evening. The choral arrangements were no different than on Sundays.

The babas knelt during the Cherubic Hymn in protest because there was no Presanctified Liturgy. The old men from Eastern Europe bitched how "they" ruined our church and traditions with all their Elko and W. PA. customs/hangups. But don't worry, they were written off as a bunch of non-progressives who harbor Orthodox tendencies. We were on the edge of True Catholicism and the oldies were troublemakers to be ignored. It was all a game.

Those who asked about our Plainchant were dubbed troublemakers. We were too busy introducing Latin hymnals to bother with traditionalist wannabees. We were going to beat the Latins in their own game. Why study and apply old outdated chant melodies? We were used to the Plainchant for Dummies version. We even rid ourselves of those god-awful "Tone 1, 2, 3, ..." notation. When we had a-capella version of the Alleluia - which was considered much prettier - why confuse everyone with "Tone 1, 2, 3, ...?"

NONE DARE CALL ANYTHING WE DID BACK THEN A "REVISION."

Joe

I must state my disagreement with the above comment. Faith, reason, and obedience are all part of our religious identity. Obedience has its place, obviously, to ensure good order. But Church history has shown marvelously that dissent is not equivalent to disobedience - and it is precisely some of that dissent that has ensured orthodoxy.

Diak, I am NOT stating what could be done in a perfect world. I am stating what IS being done before our very eyes. No amount of venting, etc. is changing how the process is unfolding as far as I can see. If the book is introduced, it will be up to parish priests to implement its use and to explain its contents to those who ask about that. For my part I "believe" that priests WILL be given the tools to do this, but I am not involved in the process of developing the new book so personally I cannot say for sure. Hope springs eternal, however, and is supported by the fact that the book has not been released yet. I believe that it has not been released already for administrative reasons regarding effectively rolling it out, not because people are demanding advance copies with line by line explanations.

Java Joe,

"These settings are used in 100% of our parishes."

False. I have served in several parishes in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh (and Parma and Passaic) and not once have I heard everything sung exactly the same. Were the differences always drastic? No. Were some complelety different than what I was used to? Yes.

Are the new IEMC settings more faithful to the Slavonic Prostopinje originals? Yes. Is that necessarily a good thing? I suppose if you like the dumbed down settings we have it is not. If you like the way the Slavonic sounds and what to hear something more faithful to it then yes it is. And obviously the bishops are of the latter group.

The real bottom line here is the pastors and cantors? Will they imnplement the new music? My gut says that in Pittsburgh many won't for lack of a cantor that can adapt or change coupled with the fact pastors will worry about upsetting people with new music.

Fr. Deacon Lance

False. Of course not everyone sings everything identically. That will always be the case.

100% of our parishes use the common notation published in the 1960s for the Antiphons, Only-Begotten Son, Holy God, Cherubic Hymn, Holy, Holy, Holy, We Praise You, It is truly proper, the Our Father, One is Holy, May our Lips be filled, Blessed is the Name of the Lord and a lot more.

Are you suggesting that mandating different and awful settings is going to magically make the singing in our parishes identical?

I hope not.

The fact is that the Revisionists have caused a multitude of problems in our church. Many more will be caused if the bishops mandate this revision.

Dear Java Joe,

OK, you win. You have made me laugh. You said the music was awful, but refused to give details. Then you expressed doubt bordering on mockery at the idea that I was REALLY willing to discuss musical settings. And now you've posted a claim that....well, I'm speechless.

At least you finally mentioned some specific hymns you're looking at, even if all you can come up with is name-calling and an (apparent) complete lack of understanding of where our music is really at in the Metropolia.

Since you seem unwilling to address specifics yourself, I will post some musical examples this evening and I would like to hear your reactions.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. Joe T. - I don't always agree with you, and I know your tone alienates people sometimes - but in this case you are so right....

Dear Jeff,

Did Michael Hilko's book of music for Vespers and Orthros use prostopinije? Yes, to a degree, but he also used other sources for his music - Hilko was too good a musicologist to be culture-bound and his aim was to produce a book with music easily sight-read and within average range. It's quite good. Full title is A Complete Musical Version in English of the Slavonic Plain Chant For the Services of Great Vespers and Matins of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. The title page modifies that to "Containing all the Sticheras, Dogmatics, Troparia, Theotokia, Sedalens, Canons and Gospel Sticheras (Eothina) of the 8 Tones of the Resurrection Services used at all Saturday Evening Vespers and Sunday Matins." - Alas, that is not and could not have been quite true; for one thing both Palm Sunday and Pentecost Sunday don't fit the mold, and for another thing certain feast days either override the Sunday or affect the Sunday.

The book was published by the American Orthodox Publication Associates, Chicago and New York, 1959 - that publishing house is probably long dormant by now. The book would be well worth reprinting. I see that the copy I took the publication data from is marked with what appears to be a price of $12.00, so that's probably what I paid for it - it would cost a lot more today. There are a total of 296 pages (Hilko paginated Vespers and Orthros separately, which is a bit confusing but could easily be corrected in a reprint).

An incomplete Menaion is no loss - get a complete one! In general the Menaion is seldom if ever printed with musical notation (although extracts from it sometimes are for the use of chanters), but often the Menaion is printed with the pieces which should be chanted pointed for that purpose.

Fr. Serge

Jeff,

Why do you find it so repulsive to have to justify the revisions to our music?

Where does the notion that the IELMC / MCI / Thompson is infallible and above explaining themselves come from?

Look at this from the point of Byzantine Catholics.

You say that all the music before IELMC / MCI / Thompson is so awful it needs to be changed, but refuse to give details why.

Then you express doubt bordering on mockery at the idea that the IELMC / MCI / Thompson work should ever be questioned.

No wonder the church is in an uproar over this.

I look forward to your finally justifying your position.

Please explain clearly why the current settings don�t work.

Keep in mind that I have a host of recordings of liturgies where they work just fine.

Apparently you and the IELMC / MCI / Thompson group have a complete lack of understanding where our music is at and how to get our parishes singing again.

Java Joe