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

Wondering - I like spirited debates. I especially enjoy the "anaphora" and the "Syriac Creed translation" threads. The language issues are extremely important and must be resolved.

Nevertheless, our priests and bishops suffer greatly these days. Pray for the priests and bishops! The people are obstinate. They attack these holy men of God. If people don't care enough to go to confession will they really put forth the effort to learn new chants? This hardness of heart and lack of humility compounds the problems.

There will be a closing of many churches and not because of the RDL. All of the priests I speak with (about a dozen) from around the country are reporting that this year the children they teach are frightening them in their callous indifference and disobedience. There is a big spiritual problem. We must pray for the priests.

Mary, thank you for the Grail psalter cite. I knew of this and the problem was carefully avoided in the RDL psalms. (You might like Robert Alter's introductory essay to his book, The Five Books of Moses. C.f., Mankowski, S.J.'s article on Bible translations in June 07 Adoremus.)

THE CREED,
Each day, I practice the chants with a book and the CDs. I'm now at the Creed.

The minor changes to the Nicene Creed (everything but essence) cause my mind to stop. There are three things going on. Firstly, I am learning the music; secondly, I am trying to master seemingly insignificant changes to the words; thirdly I am trying to figure out why the changes were made.

e.g, "the Holy Spirit" - "giver of life" to "creator of life".

Thus, one is learning a new prayer and new music. Other than that it does take some work to learn.

I shall pray for all of you at the Divine Liturgy.
Rufinus

???

It is not just a language issue that is in question in this new little Byzantine order, but an issue of underlying theology that is clearly visible, in one prime example, in the insertion of the titular form of Anaphora and the catechesis that is offered by way of explanation.

There certainly is an underlying hermenutic and it is not at all eastern, and it is marginally Catholic in its Christologic and Trinitarian emphases.



Your example from the Creed is yet another indicator. Not only does the new wording contradict the ancient understanding of the Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity as the eternal architect of Creation, but it also takes away from us that relationship of the Holy Spirit promised to us by Christ.

The revealed message for us from both Scripture and Tradition is that we are to receive the promises of the Kingdom, from the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. The Holy Spirit is the Glory of God in creation, and to conflate the markers of His person, as this liturgy does, is to change the entire emphasis and substance of Trinitarian revelation, in Scripture and Tradition.

This liturgy is on the cutting edge of modernist theology at worst, speculative theology at best, and in its emphases it pushes us closer to the edge of heterodoxy.

It distorts the revelation of Scripture concerning the Persons of the Trinity, in the example that you offer. It is not an eastern hermenutic. It is a gnostic hermenutic and emphasis. It lies just at the edge of Catholic Tradition.

The underlying theology of the new order is far more serious than any other aspect of the changes, but it explains the changes and the heavy-handed imposition of the changes, and the unseemly silence from our bishops.

Father Thomas Loya was absolutely correct to invoke the sensus fidelium in his discussion. This litugy should skreech across the well formed Catholic conscience, east and west. It should make one want to run away, even if one is not sure how or why that response.



I can agree with you whole heartedly here.

But I will tell you that this liturgy has nothing at its core, to coax back a wandering flock. There is no tempting spiritual food here. There is only contradiction and confusion, and the people have that already in abundance in the world outside.

Rather, this new Byzantine order will mightily test the fidelity of even the remaining remnant, and put the entire Church at spiritual and material risk.

Mary

Dear John,

Thank you for your post! Like Father Deacon Lance, I have been watching this forum since the new books were released in January, and until now have not seen a single specific example - through I have asked a total of eight regular posters who've mentioned "bad music" to send my some specific examples, and not one has till your post.

I had forgotten your example of the antiphons from last fall, though I certainly remember the "Holy God" (which I brought up, as you recall). But "hundreds of bad accents"?

In any case, thanks for providing some specific examples, now that the books have been out for six months. I can see a LOT better where you are coming from, and I will start a separate thread in this forum to look at the antiphon melodies.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. So far, the MCI has hundreds of pages of music still being worked on, for Vespers, Matins and other services. It would be a service if you actually COULD list your recommended changes to the new settings - if only so they could be considered when new work is done. It's a pity you couldn't do do the same during the two years when all this music was being taught on Saturdays in Pittsburgh, and cantors from all four eparchies attended - changes to the music were made at that time based on input from quite a few cantors, both those present and those who sent in recommendations based on the materials posted on the MCI website.

Jeff,

Can you provide a list of cantors who provided input to the new music? I’d like to contact them to see what experience they have had as cantors (how many years, how successful, how much chant they have set) and to find out if any of the suggestions they sent in were actually accepted by Mr. Thompson. Every cantor I have talked with talks about how Mr. Thompson ridiculed everyone who disagreed with him.

Are you saying that cantors such as our Administrator were specifically asked to provide input and chose not to? If not, how did he or any other cantor know they were invited to participate?

Monomakh

Monomakh,

Exactly, contrary to popular belief, this was not a collaborative effort.

Ungcsertezs

This was picked up from:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=241295#Post241295


I so often hear that we should pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life -- and we should -- that I'm thinking of writing a book: "Diaconate: The Forgotten Holy Order." First line: "Bishops and Presbyters -- never heard of one who wasn't a Deacon first." This is symptomatic of the poor sense and application of "Orders" � major and minor � in our Church.



If simply dropping an entire word from the translation, anthrōpous=Men, is minor consider then the minuscule change of dropping just part of a word: homoousion becomes ousioun. Jesus is the essence of the Father. Not unambiguously wrong, even sounds kind of poetic, and inclusive too (for Arians).

Dn. Anthony

I got lost there for moment. Seems we are back where we started.

Is there a connection between the Church's approach to the diaconate and the manner in which this current liturgy has been put together and promulgated? Is there a common underlying presumption or set of presumptions that can be seen to carry through?

I truly do not know so I am not suggesting anything at the moment. I even fear my question is too limiting. Perhaps you could understand that it is an open-ended...do you see a connection here? kind of inquiry.

M.

I don't think this is quite a serious problem for the east, depending on how one understands 'one in essence' and if one can accept that substance and essence can be seen to be equivalents.

In any case ens and essence are going to be topics of liturgical, spiritual and ecclesiastical discussion for a long long time.

M.

The merging is not my doing: this is quite a different topic. Also, a post has been lost/deleted.

Deacon Anthony,

There happens to be a redundancy of threads dealing with the creed and anthropos. The matter is to be addressed in existing threads as has been posted previously on other threads. This matter has been thoroughly discussed in other threads, and thus the topic can be added to them.

If you do not care for this I am sorry, but that is the policy of this section and has been for a couple months now.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Its ok Father. We just got a little confused in the 're-arranging' of things. Its not a problem. Thanks for keeping an eye on things.

Mary

Father Anthony,

I have no problem with this being here at all but I thought I was doing a service since this thread is entitled "In favor of chant." Also, while the point of departure is anthrōpous the topic is a shift to homoousion also, and I couldn't see how "Order" fit in with the other recent topics. Perhaps the missing reply was deleted by the author.


Dn. Anthony

Jeff,

Are you suggesting that because people have not identified the problems with the new music to YOU that such problems cannot possibly exist? I do know that one priest took a highlighter to the new pew book and identified well over a hundred poor accents (after just one sing through), and then presented it to his bishop. I know others who have expressed their concerns to their bishops. I think that is far more appropriate then posting them here on the Forum. (And yes, there are hundreds of bad accents).

I�m also confused that you seem to be indicating that there was a concerted effort by the Metropolitan Cantor Institute to secure input from cantors during the time the music was taught there. I was unaware of this. I had visited two of the first sessions of the Cantors� Institute (when the clergy were running it) and it seemed to me to be a resource for training new cantors. When did its focus change to include soliciting input from experienced cantors who would otherwise have no reason to attend? Who were these experienced cantors who attended? What was their level of experience? How much chant had they notated and where was it used? [I will join Monomakh in wanting to speak with them.]

I have had regular contact with numerous priests and cantors over the years. It is very strange that none mentioned it, or that they were involved with it. Can you tell me by what means the Liturgical Commission invited cantors to review the work and submit input? I recently spoke to several cantors who attended the classes offered by the MCI and learned a lot of inside knowledge about what was going on. Their complaints were twofold: 1) that anytime they mentioned that something they sang sounded awkward they were ridiculed (essentially being told that there were there to learn and not to teach) and 2) that the books were collected at the end of the classes because the seminary did not want �outside� clergy and cantors to see the books because they would want to get involved. I have also spoken to cantors in the Passaic Eparchy in the months since the promulgation that were totally unaware of a cantor school in Pittsburgh. And I�ve spoke to some of the leading cantors in our Church who did not see a note of the new music until they received a copy of the new book from their pastor in February. [My first look at it was when someone snuck out a copy and posted it on the internet last fall, spurring the conversations here.] To me this does not sound like it was a serious effort. If the Liturgical Music Commission was not inviting cantors to take the music home with them and review it at length to provide considered input then the effort was not real. Up until now I had concluded that since Bishop Pataki was head of the Music Commission that he simply forbid the commission members to share anything until it was finalized. Now that you are saying that there was a concerted effort, one approved by the bishops, and that cantors were invited I am very confused since no one seems to know about this but you!

As to conducting an analysis of the Antiphons here on the Forum, what purpose will it serve? If you can secure permission from the bishops to do a review, correct the mistakes and print corrected music then such an effort makes sense (but in that case every cantor in the country should be invited to participate). If you are just doing it to explain again how the Prostopinije deserves to be saved because it is beautiful and how the poor accentuations are necessary to make sure the chant is literally faithful to Boksaj then don�t bother. It seems to me that the time for soliciting input is long past.

Also, you have been asked numerous times about which parishes these new settings were introduced at and have been successful at. We know some of the music was tested these past years at the cathedral in Munhall and that the singing is nonexistent (with people leaving for other parishes). We also see that the singing at the Parma cathedral is nonexistent. A bunch of cantors singing it at the seminary is not a valid test. So can you tell me where it was tested and shown to be successful BEFORE it was promulgated?

John

This thread is titled "In favor of chant". That caught my eye from the beginning, since I know of almost no one who is actually opposed to liturgical chant (there are a few Low Mass die-hards out there, but they're unlikely to be involved in the discussion in the first place). There are certain people who have their preferences as to which specific tradition or traditions of liturgical chant gets their enthusiastic attention and which they prefer to avoid (myself, I like Znammeny chant and Byzantine chant as my two major preferences. I could think of one or two chant traditions which I don't care for, but I'm not about to name them!). But chant itself is an integral part of our liturgical tradition (which is NOT to deny that choirs, even singing in polyphony, are not also a genuine part of our liturgical tradition; we have no need to discard either one).

There is a specific problem with Bokshaj's Prostopinije. The book is thought to have been produced in Hungarian and only then in Slavonic. However that may be, the accents as indicated by Bokshaj's music do not reflect the authentic accents of Church-Slavonic; many of them seem to have been adopted from Hungarian - and at least one melody for the Cherubic Hymn is almost certainly either Magyar or Gypsy in origin.

As a result, trying to retain Bokshaj's accents for singing texts in English becomes an absurdity. If someone wants to retain Bokshaj's chant patterns and melodies, that can be done without too much of a challenge, but turning incorrect accents in one language into incorrect accents in another demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the scientific studies of chant.

Fr. Serge