www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Kliros Ensuring Beautiful Liturgies

Ung,

In your original comment to which I responded, I understood that you stated that the Cherubic Hymn was mandated to be sung three times. You stated this in the context of a difference between the 1965 DL and the 2007 DL. I can't find anything to support this in the references that you posted.

Nor was it sung three times during the Pascal DL of St George in Aliquippa which is referenced on this Home Page. They sang the first part in the traditional Slavonic (with some words sung once, some repeated twice, and some thrice (but only sung once). The second part of the Hymn was sung in English only once.

Again, I ask, to you have anything to support the singing of the Cherubic Hymn three times?

I would guess that in at least 90% of the parishes there is NO difference in the prayer/rubrics content as celebrated between the pre-RDL and post-RDL. In the remaining 10% the difference is the two short litanies after the silent priest's 1st and 2nd Prayer of the Faithful.

S'nami Boh!
Fr Deacon Paul

Where has anyone stated that "the Cherubic Hymn was mandated to be sung three times"? What are the mentioned references? It has been explained in a previous post (repeated in part below) that there is no rubric specifying the number of times the Cherubic Hymn is sung by the People. It's sung to cover the ritual action; I've heard it sung, on occasion, even more than three times.


Those short litanies and the rubrics in the Ordo and Recension liturgicon have a considerable impact on what goes on, the flow of the liturgy, its rhythm. Perhaps a separate thread is in order to actually compare, in detail, what is in the Recension and what is in the RDL -- and I mean, objectively compare the documents in what they ACTUALLY SAY. The RDL has done nothing here but introduce further confusion and idiosyncratic liturgy. Consider for instance:


So, is there one or are there two Prayers of the Faithful in the RDL? I see two in the liturgicon, the second one repeated, occurring both before the First Prayer following the Litany for the Catechumens, and then again following the First Prayer of the Faithful.

While not claiming it to be mandated U-C insists it was always sung three times pre-RDL.

I was in error, thinking they had reduced it to one prayer in all instances. According to the 07 Liturgicon when the Litany and Prayer of the Catechumens is taken only the second Prayer of the Faithful is taken. In this instance the prayers are taken aloud. If the Litany and Prayer of the Catechumens is not taken, both Prayers of the Faithful are recited quietly. I will note that in some Greek Orthodox editions the Prayer of the Faithful is reduced to the second prayer only.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In all honesty, I always remember the Cherubic Hymn being sung three times with several reps of the refrain before the implementation of the RDL, at least in the parishes I attend that are part of the Archeparchy.

Ung

Hi Ung!

When I cantored in the BCC. It had been very common for the Cherubic Hymn to be sung 3x...Cantoring in my Orthodox parish we only sing it one time with "Let us now lay aside..." being repeated once or twice...the difference is the setting and how slowly, or quickly it is sung...my Orthodox parish tends to sing what has been called "funeral durge mode"...Although I have quickened the pace up in most other places I have let the people continue with the Cherubic Hymn in "slow mode" since it works well...

It's all a matter of how quickly one sings (or doesn't sing).

Job

Job,

I would like to poll the Orthodox Churches that use the "Ruthenian Recension" and determine a concensus for the Cherubic Hymn rubric.

Ung

On the Cherubic Hymn – Consider that - when sung in Slavonic - the common Ruthenian plain chant settings one repeated the melody three times to sing the words of the hymn once. This was also true with many of the choral settings. It was not at all unusual to repeat the last part (or even part of the last part) to fill time if the priest was not ready for the Great Entrance (though doing this in English today sounds really silly).

When the Cherubic Hymn was set in English in the 1960s the arrangers wisely fit the entire text to the melody without repeating the melody. This allows the ear to grasp the texts quickly (in a shorter amount of time). Also, repeating words numerous times is not something one generally finds in American music (refrains – yes; multiple repeats of the main text – no).

When the Cherubic Hymn was sung in English the tendency was to sing it three times (filling roughly the same amount of time as singing it in Slavonic did).

There is no hard and fast tradition of singing it three times. Really, when sung in Slavonic one sang the text through once (even though it took three times through the melody to get through the words), and sometimes the last part was repeated to fill time. There are numerous problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy that need correcting but the number of times one sings the Cherubic Hymn is not one of them.

In my Melkite parish the people usually sing the melody for the Cherubic Hymn twice, and at the end of the second time add “that we may welcome the King” and then the deacon starts the commemorations. It is very effective.

------

This provides more support to show that the RDL is a failure.

The problem was not and is not with the Byzantine Liturgy. It did not need to be reformed and the Revision has only succeeded in hurting the Church. Perhaps I sound like a broken record (if you are old enough to know what a record is) but the way forward here is to reprint the 1964 with corrections, respecting the texts and the music people know and have memorized (changing only what is necessary). If we work towards a complete and full celebration of the Divine Liturgy and other Divine Services the Lord can grow this Church.

True, but don’t forget the Greeks are slowing restoring the missing litanies to their common practice. The new Narthex Press Basil Liturgcion has added back the missing litanies (though for now in an appendix since they are not actually required). It is a good pastoral step for it reminds all who see it that the litanies belong there.

Admin.,

I was just pointing out that in the parishes I attend in the Archeparchy, the "Thrice Holy Hymn"/Cherubic Hymn was always sung three times, in English, and was only truncated after the RDL was imposed.

Ung

Ung,

The Trisagion ("Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us") should be sung three times (as was always customary). If you know of five parishes that do not sing it correctly then complain to the pastors, to the bishops and to Rome. Complaints here are pretty useless; only complaints to those in authority can bring about change.

The Cherubic Hymn must be sung at least once. It may be that one or more parishes now sing it only once. There is no directive in the RDL that limits it to being sung only once.

John

In re-reading this thread I spotted:

I will note that in both the Melkite and Russian Orthodox parishes I attend both have at least one deacon serving (when it is appropriate) and there has been no need to re-write the rubrics. Vespers, Matins and the Divine Liturgy are all served according to the normative rubrics of those recensions (which are not greatly different than those of the Ruthenian recension). Father Deacon Paul is incorrect when he states that changes to the rubrics were required to make up for the abberation of deaconal absence. What is needed is to follow the official rubrics carefully and correctly and to celebrate the full Liturgy.

I just, out of habit, question all changes since the imposition of the RDL.

Ung

As I have noted above and elsewhere, there are significant changes here in the RDL relative to the Recension. They may or may not influence the way the Cherubic Hymn is sung. A question to all: Was the full rite, C below (page 26ff [patronagechurch.com]) with shortest time to cover, routinely followed anywhere?

------------------

Here’s my take on the time requirements for the singing of the Cherubic Hymn to cover the ritual action; they go from longest to shortest in my reckoning.

A. No deacon and no diakonika (although the Ordo specifies that the priest takes these). The singing covers

1 the saying of the two prayers of the faithful and
2 the prayer of the Cherubicon by the priest who only then begins and
3 does the incensing (what is incensed can vary)
4 who then returns to the Holy Table to say with uplifted hands the Cherubic Hymn thrice,
5 then going to the proskomedia table etc. up to the entrance/commemoration.

B. Deacon but no diakonika. The singing covers

1. The deacon immediately does the incensing while the priest says the two prayers of the faithful
2. and the prayer of the Cherubicon
3. The priest and deacon do 4 and 5 as in A.

C. According to the Recension and as found in the 1965 liturgicon, page 26ff [patronagechurch.com] :

The saying of the two prayers of the faithful each with an ekphosesis and the diaconika and responses of the people fills this portion of the ritual. The singing of the Cherubic Hymn then does not cover this action as in 1 & 2 of A and B above.

The singing starts only after with the incensing by the deacon that is roughly simultaneous with the Prayer of the Cherubicon by the priest. The rest as in B 3.

John,

In my comments I was neither advocating nor opposing the RUBRICS, but addressing the Ung's comment about the Cherubic Hymm. In your post #305851 you basically said the same as I, but a bit less verbose.

It is often said that poster's questions are often ignored; I was trying to be responsive in a logical way. Please look closer at my post and tell me exactly what I said that was was "incorrect?"

S'nami Boh
Fr Deacon Paul

Father Deacon Paul,

You wrote: "The RDL assumes there is a deacon; the absence of a deacon requires a departure from the norm" and "I recognize that some people will continue to disagree with the changes, but some changes are required to make up for the aberration of diaconal absence with which the Byzantine Catholic Church has tolerated for so long."

The 1964 assumed a deacon, too, as does the 1941/42 normative edition. Your post carries a suggestion that the 2007 RDL corrects a departure from the norm that was in the 1964 and 1942 texts. This is not correct. The 2007 RDL can not claim any credit for restoring correct rubrics regarding deacons or anything else as the correct rubrics were already in the previous editions.

I have been used to Divine Liturgies with deacons for at least 20 years. When properly celebrated there is no significant difference in the amount of time needed to sing the Cherubic Hymn when a deacon is present or when the priest celebrates alone. The RDL contains a number of incorrect rubrics.

Sorry to be picky but accuracy is important.

John