www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy In favor of chant

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the new RDL music a collaboration of long-time Byzantine Catholic cantors? Did veteran cantors (the late Professor Kavka, Cantor Basil Brody, Cantor Andrew Husinec, Cantor/Professor Jerry Jumba, etc.) participate in this process? I don't recall seeing their names on the committee."

Mr. Ung-Certez:

The Episcopal liason for the IEMC is the Most Reverend Andrew Pataki, who, in fact, taught chant at our Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Professor and Sir Knight Daniel Kavka, KSG, was on the IEMC until the time of his death (by which time all substantial decisions were made on the chant revisions).

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

That's a shame, one lone senior Cantor serving on the Music Commission. Far from a collaborative effort.

Ungcsertezs

Dear Professor,

Was the Church in a precipitous and perhaps fatal decline in 1970?

Was the seminary mostly empty?

Was the average age of parishoners and priests alike nearly 70?

Were there healthy parishes being closed and the properties sold, during those changes?

Were there major changes made to the liturgical texts and rubrics at the time?

How many parishes had no cantors at all?

Did we hire out in order to find the musicians and clergy to do the transcriptions and adaptations? Or did we employ those men who were already well steeped in parish life, who understood both people and priests and could persuade without unseemly agitation?

It seems to me that these things are important considerations in making major changes without consulting outside of committee.

M.

Slava Na Viki!

Professor Thompson,

your post is 'interesting' on many levels.

I can only base the incomplete (to be nice) retelling of the 1970s on the fact that you were not with our church at the time. I don't bring up the membership point to be disparaging, but rather that the 'history' of this time period which was relayed to you isn't exactly what happened and I don't hold you at fault for that.

In 1970, while many of our churches had begun to use English in the previous years (depending on what parish and area), but Slavonic was still in heavy practice. (In fact even our UGCC brethern were still using Slavonic in many places). To paint the picture that when a commision put together music for English liturgies that there was this uprising and protesting is specious. I 've asked many (meaning 15-20) cantors this exact question of what happened when an 'official' (although not promulated like now) English chant, music, etc. was put together. They said most didn't really noticed or care because most of the faithful still prayed in Slavonic, and the ones that wanted English did not protest, they were actually happy that an English endevour was put together. (Note: When you go to Liturgy this Sunday or Saturday evening , ask the old timers about the similarities between 1970 and 2007. After they look at you with a 'what in the world are you talking about' further probe this issue and draw your own conclusions). Where problems did arise was with people who felt that Slavonic was being threatened and those who didn't see a need for anything but Slavonic and they refused to do English. The issue with the cantors was more of a Slavonic vs. English rather than pre-1970 English vs. post 1970 English. Many of our churches also had choirs then (beautiful ones) so the faithful didn't see their 'chant' changing like today where there are not many choirs and a cantor leads the singing. The 'high mass' and 'low mass' practice was unfortunately around at the time as well. The 'high mass' was disporportionately in Slavonic and the 'low mass' (and sometimes this was on a Saturday) was English and often was recited. I personally witnessed this from sea to shining sea in this country both in my youth and adulthood. From 1955 (when Bishop Elko received permission) until the later when English started and then was overwhelmingly prevalent compared to Slavonic, was not a situation of jamming things down people throat musically speaking. Rubrics, chopping up of Liturgies, complete ignoring of Vespers and Matins, is a whole other story that is for another thread. The situation was not comparable to what is happening today on many levels. And the creation and usage of English was much more gradual (because of Slavonic being more prevalent in the 1950s, 1960s, and the real beginning of its decline in the late 1970s and early 1980s) than what is being done in 2007. Also, their agenda was not to secularize the liturgy with feminized translations. The 'agenda' that you speak of that they had was to get English into more use in our churches (unless you know something that I don't on their agenda).

When I hear incomplete and not what happened stories being retold from the past 40 years, I have to wonder if the 'restoration' of our chant is also an incomplete story being told. Professor, you have more musical talent in your little finger than I in my whole body, that is true. But your post on what happened in 1970 is incomplete to be polite about it. Slavonic, choirs, etc. have to be involved in this time period, and they are really not in much use in today's environment unfortunately.

Furthermore I would conclude for the time being with the fact that I've heard Prostipinje in the US, Canada, all over Eastern Europe (Uzhhorrod, little villages in Poland and Slovakia, etc.) and whether it was in English or Slavonic or Ukrainian, etc. it all felt proper and like our chant. This 'restored' chant doesn't have that feel. Before the cries of personal taste come into play let me just say that if personal taste were what I was after, (for example X-Mas carols) I would use the Ukrainian's carols over ours any day. I used to affectionately joke with a Ukrainian friend of mine that while their carols were better, we had the better liturgical chant. I can't say that anymore.

How much is property in Uzhhorod? I'm sure there are some on this board that wish I went there.

Monomakh

Leaving aside other people�s problems, I must make a decision. Is this chant worth learning? Is there a culture worth preserving?

I answer yes. This is worth it. The lady I spoke with convinced me. Prof. Thompson convinced me.

As to whether or not it �flows�, we have yet to learn it. Perhaps in a year it will �feel proper�. If you were to hear me practicing the chant you would REALLY be sad. With God�s grace I�ll learn it.

The central issue here is trust. Do I trust that the Metropolia has done its best to restore the Prostipinje? Yes. I trust them.

I trust them enough to spend time to learn it. I have the ability to learn it and not to use this gift is wrong. Other people cannot read music. They learn mimetically and will depend upon me in the pews. Perhaps if there was a sample liturgy using A and/or B on the cantor website we might get a better sense of coherence.

I will check out the broadcast via the web on Sunday evening. As for the Greek Orthodox monastery I�ve gone to their website and heard their chants which are quite good.

There is one comment on a previous forum I wish to address. Someone said that the music was dour. We should recall that Orthodox chant has this unique quality to it. It reflects the Passion of our Savior and is balanced by the Resurrection.

[Fr. Serge, I couldn�t agree with you more on the �My Bonnie� melody. For months I�ve been trying to place it. It needs to be removed.]

In all seriousness, what culture are you referring to? Carpatho-Rusyn or American or something else?

If it's Carpatho-Rusyn, how in the world is that happening in the BCA? Right or wrong isn't even the issue, but make no mistake about it, the Carpatho-Rusyn culture has been and is being swept away in the BCA. Where is the Slavonic in the books now? Where are the Slavonic Liturgies, in 1% or 2% of our churches? Once in a while we serve some ethnic food, but that can't be what your referring to is it? I see the Carpatho-Rusyn society doing stuff, but I see a drive by the BCA to be an American church (we could debate the right or wrong of this all day long, the point is that this is what is happening).



Listen to the radio broadcast this Sunday night and well... let's leave it at that.


I agree that trust is an issue. When I see people try to tell us that they have 'restored' the Liturgy (when in fact it is a revision) I begin to question my trust of them. When I see people excuse the lack of Vespers and/or Matins in 90%+ of our parishes I begin to question my trust. When I've seen and continue to see Proskomedia abbreviated and skipped and tupperware bowls, etc., I question my trust. When I see Saturday evening liturgies celebrated when a Vespers service should and could be taking place (i.e. St. John's in Munhall, PA) I question my trust. When I see money spent on revising rather than evangelizing (especially when evangelizing really really really needs to be taking place) I question my trust. When I see traditional rubrics discarded like yesterdays newspaper, I have to question my trust. And, I'm sorry, but when I people try to say what happened in 1970 is similar to today, I question my trust.


What Orthodox chant and hymns are you referring to? (Just curious).


Monomakh

Yes. And when the conscience has been pierced, and the trust has been lost, a sense of betrayal sets in---and people begin looking elsewhere.

I shall not, sirs, allow a litany of complaints to ignite in my soul a conflagration of suspicion and distrust in the Cantor Institute. I trust them and the words they have spoken. I am quite fond of the B series in the liturgy.

John Paul II notes that in the story of Adam and Eve the sad result of Eve's sin was a suspicion of God and his authority to govern them. It is, he said, what we see so often in the Church today.

I will not carry on a debate. I've only voiced my whole-hearted confidence in the work of the Cantor Institute.

I also trust their choice in using the Grail Psalms. Many scholars consider the Grail Psalms to be excellent, if not the best, translations. I don't know Hebrew so I cannot really judge them.

With prayers for all of you,
Rufinus

Rufinus,

How long have you been a member of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church(if you don't mind me asking)?

Ungcsertezs

Rufinus,

I don't want to debate your opinion. I am glad that you expressed it. The cantors need feedback in order to build on what we have, and positive feedback is very important to express to them.

Why do you feel that others' feedback and academic discussion is a temptation for you to sin? Surely you don't believe disagreeing with the academic decisions of a cantor's institute is comparable to disobeying God's one and only commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of life?

In any case, I am happy to welcome you to ByzCath and to discuss this and future topics with you.

Rufinus,

The Grail translation of the Psalms is by no means the most accurate. It has endured because it was designed to be singable.
It is also not based on the Septuagint which is the official basic text for the Catholic Orthodox Church. Besides as mentioned in the foreward of the new "pew" book the 1963 Grail translation was used as a guide, but the revisors deemed it necessary to alter even that text on various occasions.

The Grail Psalms have something of a tumultuous history.

http://www.adoremus.org/496-ShortBrev.html

exerpt of article from:

Adoremus Bulletin

Online Edition Vol. II, No. 1: April 1996

The Long View of Short Breviaries:
What Does It Mean if a Text is 'Not Approved for Liturgical Use'?

by Helen Hull Hitchcock and Susan Benofy

Problems with the Grail Psalter

A similar situation occurred in 1984 when the first proposed revision of the Grail Psalter failed to secure the bishops' approval. (A later Grail revision was also rejected by the bishops in 1993.)

Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, then BCL chairman and now president of the episcopal board of ICEL, issued a letter defending the 1984 Grail revision and the principles of inclusive language. His letter, dated March 1, 1985, also said that the BCL "looks forward to the publication of the revised psalter as a volume apart from any liturgical book or worship aid so that this version of the psalter may be tested and reviewed by biblical, liturgical, and musical experts."

Archbishop Pilarczyk's letter also urged the "authorization for liturgical use in the dioceses of the United States" of an inclusive language version of the psalter. Commenting on Archbishop Pilarczyk's letter, Monsignor McManus explains that the Grail Psalter is not approved for liturgical use and so cannot be used in the Liturgy of the Hours, and "is excluded from the Lectionary, from which the responsorial psalm is read or recited." However, he adds, "Fortunately for those desirous of using the revised Grail Psalter, it may be used in non-liturgical services like other 'unofficial' texts, which as devotional texts ordinarily have only local ecclesiastical approval. Indeed, it may be used in those parts of the liturgy for which prescribed or appointed official texts may be replaced almost at will, for example, by hymns or other songs with appropriate texts.

Monsignor McManus bases his opinion on a 1968 decision of the NCCB to allow "other collections of psalms and antiphons" for these parts of the Mass. At the time the conference was awaiting the music settings of the Simple Gradual. Monsignor McManus believed that a psalm in the rejected Grail translation could therefore be used as a sung responsorial psalm.

Monsignor McManus said,

"Thus, the revised version of the Grail Psalter is excluded from the psalmody of the liturgy of the hours, for which the unrevised Grail Psalter alone is prescribed. It is likewise excluded from the lectionary, from which the responsorial psalm is read or recited.

"On the other hand, the new version may well be used at the eucharistic celebration as a substitute for the appointed texts of the entrance and communion processions -- along with hymns and various responsorial songs, which are rather freely chosen. This choice was allowed by the NCCB as far back as November 1968: So far as 'other collections of psalms and antiphons in English' are concerned. It is permissible to include 'psalms arranged in responsorial form, metrical and similar versions of psalms, provided they are ... selected in harmony with the liturgical season, feast, or occasion.' In November 1969, the NCCB made a further concession to allow, in accordance with specific criteria of choice, 'other sacred songs not from the psalter.'"

Does this mean that Scripture texts that are judged by the vote of the bishops to be unworthy can still be used in the liturgy of the Church so long as it is sung and not read? Could this explain why there is a new enthusiasm among liturgists for singing virtually the entire Mass? If so, have the bishops allowed their authority to be suborned? Can the bishops ever effectively weed out any translations or revisions of Scripture or other liturgical texts which they are convinced are defective?

If Bishop Cummins's comment that any criticism of a text implicitly questions "the orthodoxy of the translators and those who approved the translations" represents the view of many bishops, it may help to explain the difficulty now surrounding bishops' consideration of the many proposed translation and revisions of Scriptural and liturgical texts. Most bishops surely do not want to be accused of impugning the integrity of their committees or a brother bishop.

If this situation persists, it may seriously impede the bishops' free and objective appraisal of the proposed texts and hamper the exercise of their responsibility to guide the Church's worship.

Dear Mary,

How is the history of this translation from 1984 onward, connected with the new Divine Liturgy books? Was there any such "tumultuous history" associated with the 1963 translation?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I wasn't making that comparison at all. I was just posting additional insights into the history of the Grail Psalter.

I suppose one could draw comparisons between them on the issue of inclusive language, but I had not intended that when I posted the link.

Speaking of jumping to conclusions....

Mary

Dear Mary,

I wasn't jumping to any particular conclusions (were you, in assuming I had? :); I was puzzled. Since you inserted a long article with the words "Not approved for liturgical use" into the thread, and since you evidently felt it was germane to the topic, I was trying to find out what connection you did see. (I suppose I would have been direct and said "And your point is?" or somesuch, but that would have been rude, at least by my lights, and I was trying to find out why you DID add it to the discussion.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff