www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Typika and Troparia of the Beatitudes

Dear all:

Are the typical psalms and the Beatitudes (and the latter's troparia) still sung or recited widely in the Divine Liturgy? Or are these fast vanishing from the actual liturgical praxis of the Byzantine churches?

The Revised Divine Liturgy limited the typical psalms to one verse of each. Our old liturgy book had a lot of verses and two settings. More verses are no longer permitted and the litanies between the antiphons are prohibited (they are not in the book). The Beatitudes are still permitted but the music we used for a long time is now banned.

In modern Melkite usage, we tend to chant only one of the three or the antiphons.
At major or important feasts and celebrations, we would chant all three.
The choice is ours, by virtue of our synod.

Stephanie,

The Levkulic books only contained a couple verses for the Typical Psalms and did not include the Beatitudes. If you want to take all the verses and the Little Antiphons I suggest you print and paste them and use them, parishes are doing this without incident. If you are not doing them anymore it is becaue your priest doesn't want to.

Fr. Deacon Lance

asianpilgrim,

Among the Orthodox they are used almost every Sunday although it is common practice to abbreviate the Psalms and very few take the Troparia with the Beatitudes. Among the Rusyns and Ukrainians the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes have become reserved for Great Lent.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Archbishop Raya in "Abundance of Love" (page 93):

I find it ironic that, even as we Latins are slowly restoring the Roman Rite, and even as the Propers are being chanted once more (as they should be) in more and more parishes, the Christian East is increasingly abbreviating its liturgies.

I've been reading about the Troparia of the Beatitudes and these are amazingly rich in theology. I think it's sad that they have almost completely disappeared from Orthodox liturgies. But then, modern life being what it is, compromises are inevitable...

From the front of the RDL Liturgicons and the green RDL Pew Book:
“[T]his is 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 worthy of most special mention, notwithstanding.”

It is a formal act of disobedience to paste anything into the green pew book that is not authorized by the Council of Hierarchs. In Passaic Bishop Andrew and now Bishop William even forbid the praying of what is left of the litany before the Our Father. Deacon Lance should not advocate disobedience to his archbishop. Parma Bishop John said his hands are tied and that Archbishop Basil is in charge of liturgy. If Archbishop Basil is allowing parishes to make changes to the liturgical books then Deacon Lance should produce the written authorization allowing parishes to make these changes.

At St. Georges the full forms are used in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

JD,

I am not advocating disobedience, simply using the tacit approval that I observe being granted and used elsewhere. A Parma parish stated their intention to use all verses of the antiphons and the little litanies, unless permission was denied. It was not, so they take them. They do use the new translation. Some parishes in the Archeparchy have not even bought the RDL books, so obviously they aren't using the RDL and obvioulsy the Metropolitan knows. I have seen the Metropolitan serve in parish where they still use the Levkulic books and the old music with no reprimand. Of course, I can produce nothing written so take it as you will.

I will say that the opposed to the RDL seem quite proficient at knowing the Liturgical instructions of the Latin Church and applying them to the Metropolia. I wonder why they fail to do so for Summorum Pontificorum or the follow up explanatory letter of the Holy Father, which makes it clear that it cannot be an act of disobedience to use a previously approved text or use despite the desire to introduce a new text or use.

Why is it those opposed to the RDL, jump up and down about it being the only text allowed as soon as someone doesn't use it? It is as if they want everyone to have to use it if they do.

Fr. Deacon Lance

How many parishes have not bought the RDL books? The foreward in the dreaded new green book says it's the only liturgy allowed in the Archeparchy, right? Shouldn't books be supplied to parishes that can't afford them? I thought the goal of the RDL was uniformity?

Lack of money to purchase the new books seems like a tacit approval from the higher ups for a parish to go on as before because they can't afford the books, or simply because they don't want to conform.

In Dublin we chant the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes at the Divine Liturgy every Sunday apart from the Great Feasts of Our Saviour. At various times several Bishops have visited us, and have not so much as blinked at our usage of the Typical Psalms and Beatitudes.

Fr. Serge

I am surprised to find this is the intended policy of the Metropolia and it does not match my experience. I certainly would like to know more about this interpretation. Does this mean it is ok to use the 1965 liturgicon? the old chant? If words have meaning surely something else should have been written in the RDL promulgation.

Regarding the chant, for instance, consider this short-lived thread: link. On this issue, at the time, I received this PM from JMT (under the circumstances I presume I am not breaching protocol to post it):



And my reply:

In a normal situation I would agree with Father Deacon Lance. My point all along has been that the bishops do not have the authority to prohibit the celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the manner prescribed by Rome in the official, normative books. My expectation is that the result of the appeals to Rome (including the Holy Father directly) will be 1) a directive similar to Summorum Pontificum (excepting here we are speaking to the official and normative form of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and not an extraordinary form) and 2) a directive to the bishops to fix doctrinal problems with the new text.

It seems pretty clear that if there were blanket permission to return to the Byzantine Liturgy (the old books based upon the 1964 translation) most parishes would do so immediately. There are a large number of clergy who strongly dislike the Revised Liturgy and would return to the old books immediately.

But the bishops have issued a very strong call to obedience, and some bishops have been very forceful in directing the adoption of the Revised Liturgy and the prohibition of the Ruthenian Liturgy. For my own part I know that in 2007 I wrote a letter to the Metropolitan (and cc’d the other bishops). The letter was polite, pointed out problems with the RDL and requested that they revisit their decision. The response back (which came from Bishop Pataki speaking as the head of the liturgical commission and the local bishop) was plain: asking the bishops to reconsider a decision they have made “indicates disobedience to a proper authoritative issue regarding the [RDL].” Almost every paragraph in the return letter either accused me of being disobedient for asking them to reconsider their decision or was call to be obedient and accept the RDL. How ludicrous is it that the bishops would consider the mere writing a letter of a request to revisit a decision to be a formal act of disobedience? For the rest, my attached 15 page review of the Liturgical Instruction and other guiding documents was returned with a specific reference that “there is no need … to read your particular communication.” If laymen are treated this way imagine how the clergy are treated!

As to why people jump up and down if others violate the text I know priests who hate the RDL but take it exactly only because an obedience has been imposed upon them. More then one has told me that the celebration of the Divine Liturgy has become an act of suffering for them. Perhaps they are taking the idea of obedience too seriously? I don’t know. Perhaps they feel that if they have to suffer in obedience then everyone else should suffer, too? I don’t know.

I do know that one can easily construct a provable case that the Council of Hierarchs was being disobedient to Rome (perhaps unintentionally) with their promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy. Relying on an older approval letter (if indeed it approved the RDL in the exact form promulgated) when so much had happened in the following years (new directives like Liturgiam Authenticam, etc.) can be seen as an act of disobedience.

--

As to the topic at hand I do know one priest who says he asked if he could paste in the old setting for the typical psalms and Beatitudes. He says he was clearly told "No!", that if it were not in the new book it was not to be taken. Stephanie's post is correct. There were a small number of parishes using a liturgy book with music that contained longer versions of the typical psalms and a setting for the Beatitudes in what most people know as "Russian Tone 1".

I will agree that there is no consistency across the various eparchies regarding enforcement of the RDL. My hope remains that the bishops will acknowledge the problems of the RDL, rescind it, prepare a corrected version of the 1964 (correcting only what is actually wrong), and let the people sing the music and words they have memorized over the past 40 years. I ask our readers and posters to keep the bishops in their prayers.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!
Glory be Forever!

At my mission, we use the old books (1999, I believe) and we virtually always use the Beatitudes. We did not use the Beatitudes in the church in which I grew up, so they are new to me. But I like them very much and enjoy singing them when I can attend Divine Liturgy.

Tim