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

Tim,

Glorify Him! Thank you for your kind greeting and, yes, my Christmas celebration has indeed been wonderful.

I agree with much of your summary. Elsewhere I have identified the RDL as the latest symptom in a much larger problem that faces the Ruthenian Church (others have also done the same). I should have made that clear in my above post and thank you for pointing it out.

I agree that we have failed to share the Good News. There is no need for any of our parishes to close if only we would evangelize our neighbors, especially those who are unchurched. We need to follow the example of the Slavs. They took the Faith from the Greeks and immediately started adopting the Greek Chant they received and turned it into something wonderfully new that fit their own culture. Like them we can adopt chant to best serve the English text. Like them we can allow new chant that fits the American culture to develop.

Church Slavonic? Yes, it should be kept. When I was a cantor very often I made sure to sing something in Slavonic. The people loved it. In America it will not be our primary language of worship but it is certainly appropriate to keep that link to where we come from much like the Latin Church has been renewing the use of some Latin in the Mass. About once or twice month I attend the Vigil at the ROCOR Cathedral in Washington, DC (about a 50 minute drive each way). On Saturdays they celebrate two Vigils, one in English and one in Slavonic. For the Feasts they celebrate a single Vigil that uses both languages. After 20+ years of attending I can say that while I prefer English (and it should be our main language) I would have absolutely no problem worshipping in an all-Slavonic parish.

I agree that people don’t like to change. Why should they? There is nothing about the RDL that is better then our Ruthenian liturgical tradition, celebrated whole and complete. My mother and most of the older members of her parish (and of most of our parishes in the East) want what they knew when then were young – a very full Divine Liturgy and the other services. The depravation they have endured these past 40 (and even 50) years was not something they wanted. My mother is in her eighth decade of life. She wants the “Slavonic High Mass but in English”. What is so wrong with that? The question is asked but never answered. I have personally witnessed a parish go from a very abbreviated Divine Liturgy that attracted less then 30 people to a very full Divine Liturgy (everything, omitting nothing in our “Red Book”) attracting over 150 each Sunday in less then 2 years. The restoration of the Divine Liturgy was gradual over that period. Each time a litany or other part of the Divine Liturgy was added back more people came. The very day the catechumens’ litany was added back someone approached and wanted to become Byzantine Catholic! This continued denial of our liturgical tradition to our people is a very just testimony against the RDL.

I also agree with Tim that the displeasure against the RDL is greater in the East then it is in the West. And I agree that the age of the parishioners is greater in the East then it is in the West. The older people have a collective experience of a much fuller Divine Liturgy and even remember Vespers and Matins (not constantly joined with the Divine Liturgy). In the parish I referenced (and I know of other examples) when Vespers was added back the older parishioners marveled. Younger people have (for the most part) not experienced this. They don’t know our liturgical tradition well enough to understand just how far a departure the RDL is from it.

If you had seen some of our older people crying because of how much the changes have hurt them you might disagree. From a pastoral point of view the RDL has indeed been a disaster. There was absolutely no reason to hurt our older people. I had a cantor from the Mid West tell me that when he reviewed the new texts and music with the people a number of older parishioners broke down and cried because their Church had been taken away from them. I have heard plenty of similar stories from both priests and cantors. One lady from the parish local to me told me pointedly: “I am 72 and they are telling me that the way I worshipped God all my life was wrong. They are the ones that are wrong.”

What is done can be undone. Rome is correcting many of the problems with poor translations and music used in the Latin Church over the past 40 years, and has even guaranteed each individual priest the right to celebrate the Mass from the John XXIII Missal. I have every reason that the appeals before Rome for our priests to be able to celebrate the full and normative Ruthenian Liturgy will be successful, and I do not expect it to take 40 years!

There is no need to learn something new. The Divine Liturgy we share with other Byzantine Catholics and all of Orthodoxy is not broken and does not need a revision. When it does it should be done together with the Orthodox. The men who created the RDL are all good men who love the Lord but their premise (that the Liturgy needed revision to its rubrics and texts) was wrong. An updated edition of the 1964 Liturgicon that corrected the errors would have been well received and a multi-year effort of example, education and encouragement could have lifted the “as celebrated” Liturgy to a very full and correct form. Even now, a printing of a new set of books to correct the errors would not be a big effort.

Not really. Most of the clergy did not see the new texts until they received a draft copy after the work was done. Father Petras made clear on this forum that it was not allowed by the bishops. A similar thing happened with the music. While a few supporters of the new style of setting music were selected to provide input, the majority of experienced cantors were not invited (I know many experienced cantors who did not see the new music until they received a copy of the new Green Pew Book). Professor Kavka from Philadelphia (Eternal Memory!) prepared and submitted settings that respected what was memorized (for the fixed text of the Divine Liturgy). They were rejected by the bishops in favor of Mr. Thompson’s settings and Professor Kavka’s influence was thereafter limited. A leading member of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute posted on this very forum after the books were printed that cantors who wanted to provide input should have taken the MCI classes to see the new music and might be allowed to comment. We know from personal testimony of participants that they were told not to share the music in their parishes, and that at times the music was actually collected at the end of classes. I don’t consider this to be a competent review. In my own small music contributions to our parishes over the past 20+ years I routinely sought review and input of my work. I had hundreds of people provide input over that time. Each received a written response and many of the suggestions were excellent and incorporated.

I have routinely stated that those men who created the RDL love the Lord and love Liturgy. I do not believe they love our Liturgy. Perhaps they do not have enough personal experience with it (celebrated fully and correctly) to really know it? This is certainly possible after so many years of our bishops almost railing against our liturgical tradition, and at times actually prohibiting a full celebration of the Divine Liturgy. [And is the very reason that in the Liturgical Instruction Rome directed that we restore and live the tradition before revising it.] Maybe they revise it because their experience of liturgy has not been good and they equate the abbreviated Liturgy with the full and correct Liturgy? It is as if those who are responsible for keeping the family estate are claiming to clean and polish it but are really demolishing the estate to build something entirely new, keeping only the lamp here that they like and the fireplace there, replacing the elegance with utilitarianism.

Yes, it would be silly of you to stop loving your wife because of a bad hairdo, because she suddenly started speaking in another language, or because she started wearing very strange clothing. But it would be very reasonable of you to ask her not to leave her hair in a purple and orange spike, to speak in grammatically correct English (free from politically correct accents), and to dress more appropriately. And it would be further reasonable for you to keep educating her and encouraging her through the years until her behavior returned to normal. I think true love would demand that.

I stated in my earlier post that it as Church we need “to fall in love with Christ, to worship Him in Liturgy, and to communicate with Him through Liturgy”. Seeking and working for the full and official Liturgy of our Church (accurately translated) that we share with other Byzantine Catholics and all of Orthodoxy is not an excuse to avoid loving God and one another. The Divine Liturgy we share with other Byzantines has been sculpted across the centuries by the Holy Spirit. The more we reject it the more our Church looses its very soul, its theology and spirituality. It seems our Church so fears its own Tradition that it is determined to expel, forbid, and exclude any spark that might erupt, lest the flame of real spiritual renewal begin to take hold.

Tim, I thank you again for the greetings and I wish you and yours a blessed New Year.

--

I have a new year’s challenge to all Forum Readers!

Keep the Twelve Great Feasts according to the Julian Calendar at your local ROCOR parish together with once a month Saturday Vigil. At the end of the year you will see our liturgical tradition in a whole new light and you will have an understanding of why the RDL is wrong.

John

Could it be a typo? He used the word three (3) times and it was spelled correctly two (2) out of those three (3) times.

I though he might be using the Rev. John Slivka spelling for Slavonic.

Ung

Let me apologize for momentarily straying from the topic, but Old Slavonic is not the vernacular of the people of the early immigrant church -- it was Rusyn and Ukrainian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rusyn was only used for para-liturgical hymns.

This makes me appreciate the Spirit-inspired wisdom and foresight of our Church leaders when they made the radical departure to an English translation, which took over 20 years for it to finally become dominant. May our Lord grant them the Eternal reward for their submissiveness.

Fr. Deacon Paul

I was referring specifically to the spellings of "Slovanic" vs. "Slavonic". Rev. Slivka used the "Slovanic" spelling and often defended it by saying "we speak words ("Slovo") not glory ("Slava").

Shchastlyvoje Novoje Ruk!

Ung

Sorry Ung, I intended to reply to Tim.

May you have a peaceful and blessed New Year.

To John, my first question is: how do you get people remarks to show up in those nice little boxes? I've love to learn how to do that.

My second question is: can you refer me to the English translation of the past which you believe best reflects the essence of our liturgy? Is there a way for me to obtain it?

How did people respond to the change from Church Slavonic to English? Was that also perceived as a pastoral nightmare? Or maybe that was even before the concert of being "pastoral" was ecclesiastically correct? (EC instead of PC). Not that I'm in foavr of forcing things on people, but a lot of ridiculous things are done in the RC in the name of being "pastoral".

The RDL would never have happened had a new translation not been done. It's my understanding that this new translation was a long time coming. By that I mean that the Bishops appearently saw a need for this decades ago, and it was finally finished in the 1990's. I will agree that it is fair to question the wisdom of preparing a new translation for years without letting the church as a whole know what's up. Had our Bishops gotten feed back from the people about the translation, things would never have gotten this far. However, I think we owe it to our bishops of the last 30-40 years to listen to their reasons for believe that we needed a new translation. If we like the vernacular, then we have to accept that every so many generations, a new translation is going to become necessary. and the people who love the outgoing translation will always be up in arms.

As a member of the IEMC, all I can say is that the musical settings in the RDL and available on the MCI website were not the work of one person. If want to blame the whole commission, go ahead, but it is simply wrong to blame any one person for the settings. Personally, s a musician, I believe the RDL and the present settings found on the MCI website are far more singable and teachable than anything I have seen from this church printed in English. If we gave it 20-30 years, and started hiring cantors who can read so that congregations hear the chants sung consistently, we would all grow quite comfortable with our chants---until the next translation comes out, that is. And then the process starts ALL OVER AGAIN. That is one advantage to ALSO offering the DL in Church Slavonic, as I don't think that text will be changing anytime soon.

Is it just the litanies being taken out that bothers people? I would really love to see a translation of the FULL liturgy of which you speak, John. I think I could learn a lot from that.

Things like the litany of the Catechumens is IN the RDL. It's just a matter of using it. I'm beginning to wonder if the people who rail against the RDL know all that is in it.

I think when it comes to beuatiful liturgies, we are talking about two large and distincly different issues: 1)how well the chants are sung 2)how faithful we can be to the "complete liturgy". #2 also begs the question: who decides what the complete liturgy is at any point in history? Do we simply find the longest one we have ever had, and say "that's the one"? As john said, the Holy Spirit sculpts the liturgy through time. If the Holy Spirit wants the liturgy to be shorter during a certain century, and then longer in the next, who are we to argue? God knows what is good for us. But do we know what God knows?
We can certainly question our pastors and bishops. They have ultimate authority, but we can ask why things are happening. The question is when do we stop and ask ourselves: is this something I need to try to change, or is it bigger than i am, and I should just trust in God, let go, and get on with my life in Christ and his Church? Sometimes the answer will be "we need to speak up". Other times, we will need to accept that what we want may not be what God wants. This is a difficult process of discernment. But if we don't acknowledge that such a process exists, we risk falling into the attitude that WE are always right, and THEY are always wrong.

It has been suggested to me that I take this conversation to the MCI forum, which I will do. thank you, John and everyone for helping me to clarify some of the issues at work in the question: what makes our liturgies beautiful. God Bless you all. I'm sure we will speak again at another time.

You can find it in the FAQs but in general you do [ quote=username ] text [ /quote ] (except remove the spaces).

There is no perfect translation.

From the technical perspective the best translation is the one that is going to be as literally accurate as is possible while also being as elegant as is possible (bringing forth qualities like the nuance and ambiguity of the original text and consistency of style). It should also be a complete translation (and anyone who has examined the texts of the Revised Divine Liturgy can see that whole parts of the Liturgy were removed and rubrics changed).

From the pastoral perspective in many ways the best translation is the one that is memorized, but of course that assumes it is also a correct translation. Our 1964 translation was quite good but not perfect. It was logical to fix the errors and prepare a new edition (which was the original brief given by Metropolitan Judson). And when fixing errors one respects what is memorized, which is why there was no update to the Lord’s Prayer. Such respect for the faithful should have been extended to the rest of the texts that were commonly used. An example that works well (even though it was really unnecessary) is the change from “one in substance” to “one in essence”. A two syllable word was replaced with another two syllable word. “Many happy years” to “many blessed years” is another example that of an update that works well. Other changes like “Mother of God” to “Theotokos” were unnecessary and should not have been made. The gender neutral texts are all theologically problematic and definitely should not have been made (and violate Liturgiam Authenticam). Our Church is made of mainly older people. Most of them have been very hurt by all this. The salvation of souls and the good welfare of the Church should have been paramount and we can see that it was not.

But there is another aspect here. The Liturgical Instruction directs that all Byzantine Catholics should prepare a common translation for common texts. Preferably it should be done with the Orthodox. While that is obviously not going to happen overnight the pastoral approach is to correct what is wrong and then when a common translation is available to take a generation or more to introduce it. As it stands the RDL will someday be replaced by such a common translation unless the Pittsburgh Metropolia somehow manages to formally sever its ties from the Ruthenian recension.

In parishes where the change from Church Slavonic to English was forced the response was very negative. In parishes where the change was not forced and occurred over a decade or two the response was positive. I know parishes where the people were ridiculed and treated as uneducated for wanting Slavonic. And I know parishes where the shift was gradual and the people either asked for or welcomed English.

Being pastoral is not an excuse to do what is wrong. Being pastoral means raising up the people without harming them or creating dissension. We’ve all seen examples of bad parish mergers that lost half the congregation. And of more positive reactions to a people who come to know that they have dwindled until they are too small to remain open and accept the merger or closing without the grief of having it mandated upon them.

I agree that in the Roman Catholic Church many things were done in the name of being “pastoral”. The Revised Divine Liturgy is claimed to be pastoral. Good pastors do not hurt the people entrusted to their care. Those in authority (bishops and the members of the liturgical commission) have been asked repeatedly just why our full and complete Divine Liturgy (which we share with all Byzantines both Catholic and Orthodox) was deemed so unpastoral that it could not be allowed and no answer has been forthcoming.

Actually your understanding is not accurate. There was certainly a need to reprint the books to replenish the supply and it was known that there were errors in the 1964 translation. The original brief from Metropolitan Judson was to prepare a new edition fixing the errors. There are several accounts of how that exploded into a revision of the Divine Liturgy. We do know that the Liturgical Instruction (1996) specifically instructs the Eastern Catholic Churches to renew and live our liturgical tradition before updating. Why the bishops chose to violate the Liturgical Instruction, discard the idea of liturgical unity with other Byzantines, and go their own way in reforming the Divine Liturgy appears to be rooted in politics more then anything else.

Which is why much of the work was done in secret. Given the Liturgical Instruction was promulgated at the very start of the effort it would have been logical to work together with other Byzantine Churches. We know that the Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown expressed interest. But this was not done.

Note that there is a difference between a updated translation (fixing errors in the old translation) and revising the Divine Liturgy. The Revised Divine Liturgy is not just a ‘new translation’ (that is propaganda). It is a revision of our liturgical inheritance. The standard text (the 1942) was not used as the base text. Changes were not made in consultation with all Byzantines but rather based upon the collective personal theories of liturgical reform of the liturgical commission. If you read the letters from the bishops in response to some of those who have complained they do not speak of the need to reform the Liturgy. They speak rather of the hard work of the commissions as the reason for the implementation of the RDL. What we have is something that got out of hand and should never have been implemented.

Other then issuing calls to obedience, the bishops have not themselves explained the need to reform the Divine Liturgy, and why the pastoral needs of our Church are so different from our fellow Byzantines in the next parish (Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox, Carpatho-Russian Orthodox, OCA, etc.) that we can’t keep unity in Liturgy (in content and rubrics if not yet in a common translation).

I stand by my earlier post. You might also see my comments on the Christmas Troparion. There is so much there to speak about, and we have not even touched upon the different styles contained in the RDL.

Surely you have a prayer book that contains the full text?

Most of us were provided with a prayer book when we were young (I have several)?

Or a copy of Byzantine Daily Worship or an Orthodox book?

If not, you can find the full 1964 translation on the website [patronagechurch.com] of Patronage parish in Baltimore. Or visit your local ROCOR parish to experience the full Divine Liturgy. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy is something gently sculpted by the Holy Spirit over time. Its shape and flow is incredibly beautiful. When you hack portions out and change rubrics you render it to be something quite different, something not in the spirit of the original. But we have been doing that for so long in our Church people seem to have forgotten the experience of the full and complete Divine Liturgy.

The Litany of the Catechumens has been severely abbreviated in the RDL. If you include the deacon’s introduction seven petitions have been reduced to four (the reduction coming from four petitions being combined). And the dismissal of the catechumens (which is even done in my local Roman Catholic parish) has been removed.

There are actually more than those two issues. The structure of the Divine Liturgy determines the flow. In the traditional Liturgies the litanies keep ‘re-priming the singing pump’. You can see a definite build of the singing from the first “Amen” to the “Lord’s Prayer”. Every time there is a long prayer out loud by the priest the level of singing falls a bit. In the traditional Liturgy the priest, deacon and people each have their own contributions. In the Revised Divine Liturgy the deacon’s and people’s parts are shortened so that they may listen to the priest pray rather then pray themselves. And so the whole flow of the Divine Liturgy is different.

At the request of all the bishops of the Ruthenian recension (Carpatho-Rusin and Ukrainian) Rome prepared and promulgated official and normative texts of the Divine Liturgy in 1942 and directed us to use them. Of this standard Eugene Cardinal Tisseran said in 1941: “In the first place, the existence of a special Ruthenian Recension has been ascertained older than that which is commonly called the vulgate, because it has not been corrected as this on the Greek Editions printed at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Ruthenian Recension, then, inasmuch as it is concordant with older texts, deserves to be preferred.” Our 1964 translation was made from the 1942 standard (which the Ukrainian Catholics have recently reaffirmed). Ironically, even though the 1965 text was on every holy table at times the bishops forbid the full celebration of it. After the Liturgical Instruction of 1996 many thought our Church would pastorally return to the standard but with the Revised Divine Liturgy we see our own Liturgy forbidden again.

So, no it is not a matter of selecting the longest one. There is a definite standard, one which should be changed only by common agreement of all Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox.


Yes, this is something we need to work to change. I have every confidence that the petitions to Rome will result in the restoration of the right of the people to the full, normative Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. We see that Roman Catholics have the right to an older form of the Roman Mass (the John XXIII Missal). And we are only asking for the right of priests to celebrate and our people to have access to the normative Divine Liturgy for the Ruthenian Church.

The liturgical unity of Byzantine Christians is important, and the RDL destroys that unity.

Tim, thanks for your comments and best wishes to you for Theophany and the New Year.

My understanding is Johnstown was very interested but the "inclusive language" was simply too much...I also understand there have been discussions over the years with Johnstown (ACROD) over the use of "Theotokos" (which, by the way I personally prefer) or "birthgiver of God"..."birthgiver of God" won in ACROD...

---
Sounds like Plainchant to my untrained ear...

http://www.acrod.org/music/letourlipsbefilled.mp3

Very nice too. There is real "soul" in the Johnstown chant. Sounds like Johnstown is ensuring beautiful liturgies too.

For all the remarks the the RDL is the destruction of beautifiul liturgies, all I can say is that the beauty of how our liturgy "sounds" regardless of translation or music used is most extra-ordinarily dependent upon the cantor's ability, and in the larger sociological sense, society's general unwillingness to sing anything, much less complicated or even simplified plain chant.

These are my thoughts regardles of the minutae of translation and music settings in regards to ensuring beautiful liturgies.

The previous post MP3 http://www.acrod.org/music/letourlipsbefilled.mp3
at the beginning it sounds like only the cantor singing a rather choppy arrangement (word/music) of Da Ispolnjatsja in English. By the second half of the MP3 the congregation kicks in , complete with harmony.

Our parish has been using the RDL books now for a year and a half. Liturgy is still 1-1/2 hours long, so the RDL didn't shorten anything. Everyone has the music, which is actually quite easy for my non Greek Catholic raised wife to easily pick up on.

Prior to the RDL promulgation VS post RDL, the numbers of parishioners singing didn't change at all.

Through all this the Liturgies are still beautiful.
Beautiful Liturgy is so highly subjective as to guarantee no perfect definition of what is beautiful.

The RDL has many problems. We can not, however lay all our dislikes of what is happening in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church upon the RDL.

Our own church seems to be following the same current business model as eBay. Who needs sellers? Buyers are what we need! So what do they do? run off all the small auction sellers who made them what they are. Isn't working...oops. Why listen to the people of our church, the cantors, the founders, those who actually put thier hard work and soul into making a parish what it is? The 'people' do not understand what "beautiful liturgy" is, that is only for liturgists to know, seems to be the attitude.

i am but a humble cantor who is not as knowledgeable as many esteemed persons on this board and thus will keep my rant to what it is...

That is totally unbelievable! Does your priest give a half an hour sermon, or maybe you have the slowest singing in the Archeparchy, or both? My parents are in and out of their church in 45 minutes.

I was Byzantine Catholic for 39 years, and never EVER did I witness a 90 minute liturgy anywhere! It just didn't happen!

Believe it! My parish liturgy runs 75 mins. most Sundays with a 10 minute homily(90 mins. for liturgy of St. Basil). If this is difficult to believe, you have a open invitation to my parish here in Tucson, AZ, I am sure Steve feels the same way! Please, let's no longer assume all BCC liturgies are under a hour long, as if that is a universal rule.

It must be different out west, because in the rust belt of Ohio and Pennsylvania that is unheard of, at least in the many parishes I've attended.

Too many might convert.