www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Disambiguation - Music

Not trying to be facetious, but there usually needs to be a strong enough opposition to create a schism. Looking around at our parishes down here, it is hard enough to pay the electric bills, due to the aging of the parish members, and the attendance of those who are or are not members. I don't think schism is very likely.

In my cantor training at my parish, our cantor uses the Bokshaj "Prostopinije" quite a lot, and as a result, my Slavonic is quickly improving.

That being said, I've noticed, and discussed with my cantor, about how closer the melodies in the New book are to Bokshaj than in our other 1960-70s books.

Listen to Jeff -- it's true. The Music Commission has done the Metropolia a service by re-introducing a more faithful Prostopinije. If cantors don't like it, it's because it's different and unfamiliar. If they regularly use the old "Prostopinije" book, then they should have noticed that the music isn't so different afterall.

Sure, there's bits where I would like to sing a tone a bit differently, but I've taken the time, as is my job as a cantor, to look into it and think about it, and pray about it, and I've come to see that many of the changes are for the better.

I'll say it again, I like the new books. I'll say it again, those who say they're leaving, including cantors, over the new translation or new musical settings, are probably folks who have been looking for a reason already.

And I'll say it again--those of us who are legitimately upset by some of the liberties that have been taken with the Liturgy, are told not let the door hit us in the rear end on the way out. This condescending attitude is unfortunate.

I do think it's an over generalization that people are looking for a reason to leave their church. There are many, many reasons why people are against this translation -- inclusive language included. For many that have come to our Byzantine Church from the Latin Church, it is remisicent of Vatican II -- the very reason they are with us to begin with.

Recluse,

I hear you. I too was upset and disturbed by what I initially heard. For me, however, I've come to a different understanding now.

What I don't understand is why we all think our opinions matter. I don't like that my church has pews, and we don't do Vespers or Matins, but it's not causing me to leave. I go to a different church or hang out with the local OCF for vespers, but I return to my parish for Liturgy and Communion. I am not called to question the Church, I am called to obey. Am I not?

If anything will prompt me to leave Catholic communion, it will be the lack of true monasticism and the lack of communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. It will be the lack of a strong married clergy. It will be the obedience to a Rome who doesn't understand us, and our forced belief in un-Eastern Theology, including the role of the bishops in the Church with regards to Rome. It will NOT be a few words and melodies that may grate against my ear.

The Church is not a democracy, and sure our cries may fall on deaf ears. We do have recourse, however. Encourage vocations, and the like, and we can transform our Church the proper way.

Stephanie,

I don't disagree with you. However, I'm from the Latin Church and joined the Byzantine Church because of a call to the East, one I've felt for more than a decade prior to coming over to the Eastern Church. I didn't leave Rome because of anything Rome did -- I'm not fleeing Rome, like so many of my brothers and sisters.

I embrace all that the Eastern Church has to offer, and often lament that our Byzantine Catholic Church doesn't seem Eastern enough!

Those Latins who are in "exile" as it were, too often give us true-hearted Latin converts a bad name.

The comparison between Vatican II and the Revised Liturgy might be a little of stretch. The end results of Vatican II (although not what was specifically prescribed) was a wholesale language, structural, and interpretive change of the Mass. The Revised Liturgy keeps the composition, re-introduces some the original Orthodox terminology (from our Othodox roots), and the musical character remians consistent.

In addition, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed occurred after the Council of Nicea, and was not a result of a Universal Church Council. Its removal from the Creed is therefore proper and to be expected in the Revised Liturgy. We have not included it in our parish for quite a few years as a result.

"I embrace all that the Eastern Church has to offer, and often lament that our Byzantine Catholic Church doesn't seem Eastern enough!"

You see, my parish celebrates the Red Book and has for almost four years straight. I wish you could all experience it! I don't understand why my parish now has to have less, so others can have more. Why can't we all celebrate the Red Book, and all have the full recension?

To alexcooke, what orthodox terminology do you speak of? Certainly not the use of the word orthodox? I attended the Canon of St. Andrew at an OCA parish, and they managed to use the word catholic without any discomfort.

The term for someone who changes particular churches that are in communion I don't think would be convert.

Same here Stephanie. We have been reduced!

I am glad that the opinion of St Athanasius eventually prevailed else we would be Arian today!
Blood has been shed and martyrs have been created over "a few words".

Stephanie, I was simply referring to the implementation of "Theotokos" in exchange of the term "Mother of God" in the Revised Liturgy.

Any advancement towards returning to the roots of our Faith, rather than watering down even further for the purpose of modernizing is progress, at least in my book.

Change isn't always something to be feared, especially if its intent (and its pratice) is for correction and edification. Historically, most of the Church Councils were convened to correct errors or mistaken beliefs and practicess which had already become inherent and widespread in the popular liturgies.
I find it refreshing that we are able to make our own corrections and help make our Liturgy more perfect without the necessity of another Church Council.

Dear AlexCooke:

Please reread my post again, I will quote it here:

For me, and a hundred or so other parishioners at my church this is not advancement -- this translation waters down our Red Book Liturgy. And in case you haven't looked closely, your Revised Liturgy has horizontal inclusive language -- a modernization in progress. It appears, that which bothers you, is now part of your Liturgy.



This is an absolutely correct statement. And it's good to see that the Hierarchs are finally addressing the issue of standing. Because as you point out, it is only proper to correct mistakes which have become inherent in our Liturgies. Specifically, Canon 20 of the First Council of Nicea states, "On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing." So, I guess, you're right, not all is lost.



In my heart, there is nothing perfect about horizontal inclusive language. Experience the Red Book, that's the closest thing the Byzantine Church has to perfection to date.

Amen, Amen, and Amen!

Okay, well at least we can come to some agreement. I must confess my ignorance regarding this that you mentioned:

"In my heart, there is nothing perfect about horizontal inclusive language. Experience the Red Book, that's the closest thing the Byzantine Church has to perfection to date. "

To what "inclusive" language in the Revision do you refer? Spent a little time scanning it, and didn't see anything that struck me as inaccurate.

I may be coming in a little late on the curve of the discussion... If you can enlighten me regarding this, I would be much obliged.