www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy New Edition of the Divine Liturgy

Indeed, much as the Lekvulic 1978 "pew book" did, allowing for some adjustments (like adding the third antiphon, and restoring the Beatitudes). Yet tjm1999's point is valid: wasn't the complaint made that the bishops no longer allowed the use of Slavonic, and that the new service book should have parallel English and Slavonic? Or does any proposed Slavonic text need to have MORE than the books that the bishops or the seminary press published in the past? (At the Slavonic Liturgy at Uniontown, only one verse at each antiphon was sung, and I heard no one trying to chime in with the "missing" verses; was that a "bad" liturgy?)

The official books give the ENTIRE text of the Typical Psalms, with the second being sung as follows: Glory... Psalm 145... Now and ever... O Only-begotten. Are you suggesting this be restored, and how hard would you work to convince old-school cantors to take them that way if we published them in that form?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. I hate to break it to you, but some of the texts we sing in Slavonic don't match the official books either.

In some ways, the official books are a good standard to work for, and in other ways they are a shibboleth - used as a theoretical standard and a test of "eastern-ness", but not always taken seriously. Even our administrator objected to using more of the psalms in the Presanctified Liturgy that people were "used to" and had memorized - while the official books simply say to recite a kathisma of the psalter.

And I point this out as someone who has spend years praising them and explaining them to people, and dozens of hours adjusting the Uniontown service books to match the official order of service, when we prepared the MCI Vespers and Matins books.

Jeff,

At Uniontown Liturgy, the Cantor was told exactly what to sing, and could not wavier from the given instructions.

The 1942 Slavonic book doesn't need to be re-translated, why even waste money to print it? Parishes that use Slavonic don't need a re-translated Slavonic RDL book. It seems redundant to me.

U-C

What re-translation are you talking about, Ung?

There certainly are SOME parishes than can and will use a Slavonic text for the Divine Liturgy. Or is Slavonic only for those who memorized it in childhood?

Jeff

Jeff,

Wasn't this Philadelphia Slavonic RDL booklet for private use only? It doesn't have a "Nihil Obstat" from the Metropolitan Archbishop, while the Levkulic book was approved by the ruling hierarch (Archbishop Kocisko) when it was printed in 1978.

U-C

All I can tell you, Ung, is that it uses approved Slavonic texts, approved rubrics, and may God bless and prosper all those who worked on it, and those priests and layfolk who use it! Since a complete parallel English/Slavonic hymnal and Divine Liturgy text is still in preparation, the MCI gratefully accepted and made use of the booklet that one of our major parishes prepared. I have already received inquires from a number of other parishes about it, including one pastor interested in preparing a priest's text in the same format.

What do you WANT out of this? Do you want God to be praised, worshipped and thanked, in Slavonic as well as in English, or are you just looking to score points? I would hope it is the former and not the latter! Do you have any problems with the Slavonic text, or just want a reason to reject it?

Jeff

P.S. One thing the Levkulic book DIDN'T have was the deacon's parts spelled out, in English or Slavonic. I was very happy to see them in the new Slavonic Liturgy booklet, and even happier that we have deacons who will take them! That is one major change our churches have seen in the past 30 years - the restoration of the diaconate in parishes.

What a waste of time and resources to create something only because it mimics the English RDL. Let me know when this Philadelphia booklet receives approval from the Metropolitan Archbishop.

U-C

Hmm. This presents a possible amusement - print the RDL parallel with the official Greek text and the official Ruthenian Church-Slavonic text. Wouldn't that be fun?

Come to think of it, though, that would present a printing problem - it's best to have four rather than three (if there are three, the middle one gets partly blocked by the page break). So make the fourth the red book.

Fr. Serge

Steve Petach is correct. Father David Petras has written that it was translated from Greek. He and the bishops seem to have a vast dislike for the Ruthenian recension.

Honest to gosh guys, I wasn't trying to start something. I was just reading the thread on St. Nicholas and read this part:

"People's Booklet for the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic

A text of the people's parts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Slavonic, with English rubrics, is now available which follows the order of the first part of The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. This booklet (28 pages, 14 sheets on legal size paper) was prepared by Cantor Joe Ferenchick of Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it intended for use in those parishes celebrating the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic, either in whole or in part. Many thanks for this valuable contribution!

Article added 09-23-2007"

And I thought about the hurt feelings (including mine) when we thought there was to be no Slavonic anywhere in the Liturgy. That misconception was cleared up by Father Petras and others and the fact that Slavonic was used in Liturgies attended by the ArchEparch himself. So putting two plus two together, I wondered when we could reasonably expect to see these books in our pews. Which would make me a very, very happy man. Especially if it happened in time for Christmas. I realize that might be rushing it a bit, since I am sure there is a cost per book involved and not every church has money just lying around waiting to be spent on extra pew books.

But I don't want to start another round of discussions that wind up with a thread being closed off by the Administrator because of content.

If anyone has concrete information, it would be nice to know. Otherwise, I'm a patient man.

If you read the quotation I copied and pasted above, it says "This booklet" and that is a link to this pdf: http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/servicebooks/DivineLiturgySlavonic.pdf

So we can read and even print and take with us if we want. it's only 14 pages long.

I don' want to start dem Hatfields and McCoys ag'n, but I jus' like muh Church Slavonic!

Tim

The Council of Hierarchs have not approved any books with Slavonic in them. Until they give public and written instruction allowing Slavonic the RDL books are the "only text to be used in the churches and other places of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., anything else to the contrary whatsoever, even worth of most special mention, notwithstanding."

You can argue all you want about how the bishops did not mean to exclude Slavonic. The fact is that the bishops have chosen not to issue official, written guidance about the use of Slavonic. Mr. Thompson can write on this forum that he said that Archbishop allows it. His word is worthless. Bishop Andrew has been contacting priests who have prepared text only booklets and demanding their removal from the pews. It did not matter that these text only booklets were English and Slavonic. It did not matter that these booklets followed the Petras/Schott Liturgy. They are forbidden and it is an act of disobedience to use them.

Steve,

You are correct the 07 Liturgicon was translated from the Greek Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), compared with the Church Slavonic Sluzebnik (Rome, 1942) and the English Liturgicon (Pittsburgh, 1965). In any case there is no need to retranslate a Slavonic text from the 07 Liturgicon as the Slavonic already exists.

Fr. Deacon Lance

JD,

Professor Thompson has stated many times each bishop and or pastor has the final say. If Bishop Andrew chose to forbid Slavonic that was his perogative, even if it was not a good decision. In Pittsburgh Slavonic is used freely with the knowledge and approval of the Metropolitan. Now that Bishop Andrew is retired it is a moot point. Ask Bishop William's permission.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Since when did Professor Thompson's statements carry authority in the BCA? I said it before and I'll say it again, the BCA hierarchs have issued statements that preclude Slavonic, period. I hope that Professor Thompson is correct and this could all be cleared up by the Bishops retracting their poorly written letter.

Monomakh

The Slavonic text isn't so much a retranslation (except for the few word changes since the Slavonic already existed for 99% of it) but formatting it to match the changes of the RDL.

JMTCs (just my two cents)

If the Bishop forbids something, the priest's choice is rather moot!