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

Apologies to the rest of you, and glory to God in all things!

Dear Java Joe,

I don't find it repulsive - just time-consuming, especially since I had to guess at exactly what you are calling "awful". Not only have I made no claims that the IEMC is infallible, but I have publicly asked for comments I could forward to its members.

I specifically said I did not consider the older settings "bad", but merely that they "dumbed down" the Slavonic for no good reason, were not internally consistent, and (in practice) sometimes paid little attention to English phrasing and accents. Furthermore, there are a number of different settings around for every part of the Liturgy - not to mention work undone on Vespers and Matins - and the Music Commission had to select which settings to use.

My problem is not with people questioning any text or musical setting; my problem (to the extent I have one at all) is with people who make strong statements then refuse to discuss their objections, but merely repeat them and call names. That is neither helpful nor dignified, and may in fact be a cause for scandal.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

Your last paragraph is a good example of the arrogance of the Revisionists.

The Revisionists don�t have to justify their work to the church.

But the church has to justify any complaints to the small group of Revisionists. If they don�t they are labeled as the evil ones.

Instead of justifying the changes you want you simply accuse those who ask for the justifications of causing scandal.

I submit, sir, that it you Revisionists that are causing the scandal you are accusing me of.

Java Joe

Quote by Fr. David Petras as published in ONE Magazine, dated September 2005, Issues, Underlying the Quest for Unity, Light of the East: One Decade Later

Dear Jeff,

Since you are the representative on this Forum for the Byzantine Catholic Archdiocese of Pittsburgh, can you attest to the fact that this translation has been put in the hands of the Carpatho-Russian Diocese and the Orthodox Church of America? If Fr. David, quoted above, states that we must restore and cooperate with them, can you confirm that this has been done? Additionally, have both Churches endorsed this new translation?

Cathy

Sorry, Cathy, I'm no sort of representative at all. Anything I post here it either passed on from the Cantor's School, my volunteer work on the cantor's list and website, and my own experiences and observations. My dealings with Vladyka Nicholas have always involved chant rather than other concerns.

Yours,
Jeff

Dear Java Joe,

Jeff has answered your question. You might not like it, but he's given an answer. Now, its time for you to ante up. What are your problems, specifically, with the music, other than "it's different"?

I really would like to know. Consider me a tabula rasa, waiting to be convinced. Thus far my objections to the new liturgy have been based solely on the textual changes and deletions, as I've enumerated in other parts of this forum. Please, give some specific examples as to why the new music is bad. Otherwise, I may have to conclude that the _only_ reason you think it is bad is because it is new.

Pseudo-Athanasius,

Jeff has not given an answer.

It�s really time for you to ante up.

What are your problems, specifically, with the existing music, other than that the Revisionists don�t like it?

I�m waiting to be convinced that there is some compelling reason to make a change.

No one has offered a single reason to change anything.

Please, give some specific examples as to why the existing music is bad.

Why do you start with the existing is bad and the revised good?

Why not ask what is wrong with the old and why do we need the revised?

Java Joe

Jeff said: "I specifically said I did not consider the older settings "bad", but merely that they "dumbed down" the Slavonic for no good reason, were not internally consistent, and (in practice) sometimes paid little attention to English phrasing and accents. Furthermore, there are a number of different settings around for every part of the Liturgy - not to mention work undone on Vespers and Matins - and the Music Commission had to select which settings to use."

That's an answer. Please don't continue to say that he hasn't answered.

I will say as a cantor that much of the old music doesn't exist. If you wanted to do Vespers or Matins, there just wasn't any music available. Now we've got Vespers and Matins books with music, which I count as a great benefit. So, the new is better than the old, simply because stuff which exists is better than stuff which doesn't. I also think that the publication of pripivy verses is a great help to our cantors, who before would just chant in whatever way they wanted, unrelated to the tone of the day, in between the stichera at the lamp-lighting psalms.

I don't have my cantor book with me, but I can tell you the third setting of the trisaghion is arranged wrong, with incorrect rhythms, so much so that our pastor forbade us to sing it. When he looked at the music, we found that whoever compiled the book had put it in wrong.

If I had my book, I could come up with more examples.

Will you still claim no-one has answered, and mutter darkly about "revisionists," or will you back up your claims? I remain eager to hear what you have to say.

Dear Java Joe,

I have been unable to comprehend whether your expertise is in the English language, Music or Liturgical History. It seems to me you have not taken the time to compare any of the revised settings to Bokshaj�s Plainchant or previous settings in use throughout the world way prior to the last 40 years of the current renditions.

Your apparent disgust with IELC / IEMC / MCI / Prof. Thompson must be seated in something much deeper than we are aware of here on the forum. Or are you as unpleased with +Archbishop Judson, Archbishop Basil and the rest of the Council of Hierarchs who put together and have continuously backed these commissions and organizations to finally bring about a standard English translation and a musical notation that can be placed in the hands of ever person who wishes to partake of the joy of the Divine Liturgy in the United States.

I would ask you as a fellow cradle Byzantine Catholic to take a deep breath and reconsider any continuing verbal attacks on those individuals who are putting in the time and effort to improve the lack of a current standard for our Liturgy. (Yes, this means I am in favor of one standard translation and a single reference book of music to follow.)

Pseudo-Athanasius,

I am talking specifically about the fixed texts for the Divine Liturgy.

Jeff claims that they are �dumbed down� but offers no proof. To me they are very faithful when I compare them to Boksaj. We do not need to be literally note for note.

If you want to take about Vespers and Matins there are plenty of settings around. If you want to talk about them separately we can.

Java Joe

Zeeker,

I am very disgusted with this entire revision.

Metropolitan Judson did not ask the liturgical commission for a new liturgy.

He asked for corrections to the mistakes in the current translation.

Metropolitan Judson did not ask for a new style of music.

All he wanted was the possibility for uniform singing.

It is the Revisionists who need to take a deep breath and see the harm they are doing to our church.

Java Joe

Jim, I don't see that any of what you have written has addressed the merits of my reply. The reply seems rather the "venting", and not simply asking one question, which is what I did and will continue to do.

If your response is implying that being catechized and having the need for any revision to the Ordo and Liturgikon explained to clergy is "what is done in a perfect world" that is clearly contrary to the catechetical and patristic tradition.

As far as "what is being done before our very eyes" I don't think any of us know what that entails or really means at this point.
Fr. Deacon RLB

Jeff, for what it is worth, as a former (or is it once a diak, always a diak?) cantor you have my sympathies with the task.

Having been someone who has waded through the 30 year old old 3-ring binders over the years, the loose sheets, all of different settings, this requires a Solomon's wisdom to resolve.

I wish something like the approach to the Anthology for Worship in the UGCC would be taken - take Vernoski, yourself and a few other very knowledgable and experienced (emphasis here - someone who has actually done the older music in a parish for more than five years and knows something about the history here) and get everyone together and go through settings AND alternatives. Not just written comments here and there, but active dialogue and collaboration. The Anthology turned out to be a wonderful piece of work, in my opinion, with the active collaboration of the five cantors involved.
FDD

Does anyone here have an update on the status of the proposed liturgy? All the discussion here seems to get us nowhere collectively, although there may be some folks who are benefitting from it. Any substantive news?

Might I step in here?

Some on both sides of this issue are lacking charity in their posts. Please remember to compose your posts with charity.

There are several conversations that posters might wish to divide into new threads.

I like Diak�s idea of an �Anthology for Worship� and have been working on something of the sort for a few years. Once I reissue the updates to the several Vespers books I have done and redo the Matins book to be more complete I hope to complete such a task. I invite anyone who is interested to please contact me.

Admin / John

John, some good points. While certainly you are on the right track, such an anthology by nature MUST be a collaborative effort not only for wider participation in the compiling process, but greater cooperation and wider support of the final product.

It was precisely the "meeting of the minds" of the cantors which produced an agreed upon setting for the music included in the UGCC Anthology. Such a joint opus is exactly what is needed here as well.
FDD