www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Antiphons and little litanies

Christ is ascended!!!! I am a former Protestant who was chrismated Ruthenian but when we bought our first house the closest Byzantine church was a Melkite and so that's where we have been for the past year, but I have followed with great interest the revised Divine Liturgy. The question I have(and maybe it has already been answered) is why the reduction of the antiphons to one verse and no little litanies between the antiphons? Also , the long litany before the Lord's Prayer has been restored in the new pew book but I believe it is optional so I wonder how many parishes actually chant it. Yours in Christ, Paul

I too, would like to know the answers to your inquiries.

It is a mistake, an error, a corruption of the text. It is an offense, and an affront to our beautiful Liturgy. It is so sad. There is no reason at all in this madness.

But, perhaps in the next revision of the Liturgy, they will put people on the committee who love our Byzantine tradition, instead of people who hate our Byzantine tradition.

So if there are no litanes, it is 3 stanzas for 1 antiphon?

Dear Paul,

Unfortunately, the second and third verses of the antiphons, and the Small Litanies between them, were omitted entirely from most of the first official English services books for congregational use in the 1960's. The 1970 Byzantine Liturgical Chant book prepared by the intereparchial music commission omitted these verses as well, and gave the same pattern as in the new service book: (verse of first antiphon, with response) Glory, Now and ever (verse of second antiphon, with response).

In 1970, when Bishop Emil promulgated the new Ordo (the only Byzantine Catholic bishop to have done so), he directed that it was "sufficient" to take only one verse at each of the antiphons, and that the Small Litanies between them, along with the prayers of the second and third antiphon, could be omitted. This practice, which had evidently become customary in many places, was carried on in the widely-used Levkulic Divine Liturgies book (1978), which marks the second and third antiphon verses and optional, and omits the Small Litanies (actually, it omits the litany before the third antiphon AND the third antiphon itself).

The new service books have restored the third antiphon, and the propers from the Metropolitan Cantor Institute include the full antiphons for feasts. I have been told that the bishops were trying to avoid adding too much new material in the new books, and that they wanted to have a "middle standard" that would end up with many parishes having to add SOME parts of the services that had been omitted for years (such as the Third Antiphon / Beatitudes, the verses at the Alleluia, and the Litany before the Our Father), but that they did not want lots of "optional, may be omitted" sections in the service book.

For myself, when I was cantoring all through the 1990's I was routinely told (generally by senior cantors or fellow parishioners)to quit adding the second and third verses at the antiphons, because "we don't do it that way here." That certainly was not caused by the new books released at the start of this year; more likely it was the other way around.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

The bishops were trying to avoid adding too much new material in the new books? Eight versions of the the Our Father, multiple versions of the creed, etc., etc., and yet adding at least two verses of antiphons (which were in the old books by the way, it's jus that they weren't prominently displayed) and the little litanies was too much. Give me a break! Is it wrong for people to assume that what was really happening was an agenda of watering down and chopping up the liturgy?

As for the parishoners or cantors telling you to stop reciting the second and third verses of the antiphons, that's why we need leaders with the fortitude to defend tradition and mandate that our churches defend tradition as well and have at least three verse antiphons and the little litanies. Then, when these short cut types tell you to only do one verse of the antiphons, you could tell them to call the chancery. Unfortunately the current situation has our chanceries in agreement with the abbreviators and with the RDL have put it in writing.

Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

Pardon, they were NOT in the 1965 Divine Liturgies booklet, which was used at several of the parishes I attended when I started helping with singing; and they were NOT in the 1970 Byzantine Liturgical Chant book.

(They were also NOT in the 1988 Carpatho-Russian Orthodox service book! The first and second Sunday and weekday antiphons had one verse each, and the little litanies at the antiphons were omitted.)

We have been needing books with music for parish singing for YEARS, and most parishes really DO have a repertoire of multiple settings of each hymn. The new book is about as well organized for that as one would ask. Or are you proposing that the bishops should have picked one setting of each hymn and rejected all the others? Including different musical settings does not normally change either the length or complexity of the Liturgy - you seem to be conflating the two in your first paragraph above.

The point I was trying to emphasize was that the bishops seemed to be avoiding "optional, you can take this part or omit it" sections - which on its face is not unreasonable, since the inclusion of printed music means that it's more difficult to skip over optional material. I would certainly like to see fuller services, but acting as if someone woke up and decided to leave out antiphon verses and litanies, as if we hadn't been doing that for fifty years, is also disingenuous. And I still haven't heard of a single case since the promulgation of a parish being told NOT to take more verses or additional litanies.

The bishops could have:

1. Maintained the "minimal" standard - even less than what the new books have.

2. Raised the minimum standard, but kept optional material in place, which (a) would have made the books more complicated, and (b)would likely have seen most parishes taking the minimum anyway, meaning use of the books as complicated as could be.

3. Raised the minimum standard, and omitted optional material, requiring most parishes to celebrate a longer liturgy while keeping the books as simple as possible, but making life more complicated for parishes that customarily take more.

4. Published the existing Slavonic editions as standard, likely resulting in an abrupt 25-50% increase in service length for almost all parishes.

I would have preferred 2, I'm glad they didn't take 1, I can understand 3, and somehow see MUCH more effect here expended on kvetching and complaining than on going out and convincing parishes to take even longer services (option 4). It's been 40 years, and even then the bishops have had to push parishes into taking longer services. If people here and elsewhere could show that 1/3 of our parishes WANTED 90 minute Liturgies, I have little doubt the new books would look quite a bit different. Whom are we to blame? Obviously, there is fault on all sides.

From the point of view of a parish, a fifty year tradition is hard to dismiss. I've spent years convincing other cantors that it was GOOD to take the third antiphon, that it was liturgiucally meaningful, and so on. Where are the articles over the last five years or so on this forum enthusiastically and positively pushing for the goodness and value of taking longer services?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

I think some of what I'm going to ask has been discussed already, but let me ask again for clarification.

From the "pew/pepole's" book:



If I take the bishop's words at face value, how is it possible to legitimately add more verses?

The liturgicon has:



A fortiori, how can additional litanies be legitimately taken?

Let me add also that the question of the number of verses does not pertain to the liturgicon (Sluzhebnik), which only indicates (I refer here to the actual recension, typical edition) that antiphons are sung. As to what they are, one must refer to the Apostol which, if I recall (it is presently not with me), does give three verses, but this may be indicating only what is nominal.

Dn. Anthony

Maybe agenda is too strong especially in light of some of Jeff's comments. Compromise might be a better word. That doesn't make it right, but it may describe the phenomena a little better. But the question arises, as is pointed out above, should compromise be mandated? Why demand uniformity on a compromise?

Jeff--the 1978 pew books that we used until February had the 2nd and third verses for the First and Second Antiphons in them, albeit in smaller print. The Third Antiphon was not printed, but a note which reads: If it is custom in a parish to use the THIRD ANTIPHON it is sung now. Were parishes, until February really using the 1965 or 1970 editions? If so, that's amazing.

I am in complete agreement that we needed musically notated books. Especially for the Tropars/Kondak/Prokimenon. Though again, I'm sure that there are parish variations for these everywhere. What we have now is better than what we had before.

John K

Maybe so church is a few minutes shorter?

Jeff:

Thank you for the clear expanation of the chronology of how the omission of the Little Litanies and parts of the Second and Thrird Antiphons came about. I am quite new to Byzantine worship and it was most enlightening to me.
I wonder what is the current practice of the Eparchy of Mucachevo concerning the Antiphons and Little Litanies? I searched online for a copy of their service book, but couldn't find it. Even though I don't read Slavonic, I though I might be able to muddle through.

Thank You,

John Dennie

They(three verse antiphons) were in the 1978 pew books as stated in a previous post here and I'd be more than happy to scan and post it. I'll be kind enough not to be too harsh and assume that you misunderstood what book I was referring to.

When referring to non-pew books(for the lack of a better term) it is even more inexcusable to me not to have at least 3 verses of antiphons because the people normally using these are more knowledgable and comfortable than most regarding the liturgy, so adding extra pages wouldn't be a big deal.


These books are incomplete as well, much like ours. I don't understand how someone elses incompleteness justifies ours?



Absolutely not. In fact what I am saying that if we can include countless variations of hymns, why can't we put in at least two additional verses of antiphons and the little litanies?

We were, and still are, incorrectly abbreviating our liturgy. Whether it is for 50 minutes (the length of most of our liturgies these days) or 50 years is immaterial. It has never been ours or any Slav based church to have only one verse antiphons. Somehow our UGCC brethern are able to accomplish this.


You seem to be very proud of this and it is puzzling. Are churches, where most people have been incorrectly subjected to one verse antiphons for years, all of sudden supposed to realize that at least three verse antiphons are supposed to be used and start doing them when the new books they were just told to use don't have them? And furthermore, how are the people going to follow them when they are not in the new books. This is just like the Slavonic argument. Yeah, we'll go ahead and sing in Slavonic a few hymns today, everyone turn to page, well nevermind it's not in the books. How is one not supposed to assume that Slavonic is being suppressed and driven into its final extinction with the RDL.


Does this apply to the wording of the Creed and the music used for the last 50 years or only to liberal innovations?

How is one not to assume that the real fear by the powers to be is that if the 'optional' (which of course is not really optional) parts were put into the new books that the people would catch on to how much the liturgy is being chopped up and how much they are being precluded from practicing. An educated laity is dangerous isn't it?


Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

I was responding to your statement that the verses "were in the old books." From 1965 to 1977, they were NOT in the generally used editions for the people (at least in Pittsburgh / Parma; I don't know what was used in Passaic during those years.) And quite a number of parishes continued to use the older books for some time after 1978, since the Levkulic book had no music.

I mentioned the ACROD books simply to point out that for MANY years, it was customary in quite a few places to sing only one verse; while this was regrettable, it makes it hard to claim that the bishops are now suddenly "cutting up" the liturgy if (a) the new people's books follow a widespread custom, and (b) the longer form is allowed. That is why I pointed out that, contrary to a lot of innuendo here, no parish has apparently been forbidden to take the additional verses.

Countless variations of melodies (and I disagree that they are "countless"; they are perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 the repertoire that might have been justified, but they ARE the core settings) do not increase the complexity of the service; otherwise the fact that feast days have propers would serve to provide more "countless variations." Parishes use a variety of music, often for the same hymn, but seldom simply drop a part of the service or add a new one. That's the sort of complexity I was addressing, and which the bishops seemed to be avoiding: more litanies (and antiphons) are now required than once were, a FEW are optional or used only under particular circumstances, but there are fewer options than would needed to simultaneously accommodate the full (or reasonably full; troparia at the Beatitudes, anyone?) service, and the service "as commonly celebrated."

I already said I would have preferred the full antiphons, but I explained the reasoning that was presented to us in Pittsburgh as to why optional material was not more widely included.

I have not been to a Sunday Divine Liturgy under 65-70 minutes in length, Pittsburgh or Passaic, since Metropolitan Judson directed that additional litanies were to be taken in the late 1990's. And those Slav churches certainly HAVE been singing one-verse antiphons for more than 40 years; I don't understand how you can say that they haven't been. (The Ukrainian churches I've visited over the years seemed to omit the second antiphon entirely, for some reason.)

In any case, the original poster asked for an account of what has happened. The prevailing practice in the parishes I have attended over the years has been to use one-verse antiphons, and the bishops have stayed with the common practice on THIS point, while changing others (restoring some previously optional litanies, the third antiphon and Beatitudes, etc.) I would love to see more people, on this forum and elsewhere, trying to stir up the faithful to request fuller services -- no matter WHICH books are used -- rather than (falsely) claiming that the bishops were suddenly ordering shorter services. It's been an issue for decades, and this should be acknowledged if you expect the bishops to act.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

That's strange. We used all the Antiphons and all the small synaptes of the Enarxis today (Pentecost0 at the Pontifical Liturgy here in Dublin. No one complained.

Fr Serge