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

John,

You're correct about the history of the rubrics and deacons. I was posting in the context of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh in which Ung is from. We hadn't had "permanent" deacons until five years ago.

Fr Deacon Paul

Dear Katie

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is there such a thing as Absolute Beauty?
I would guess you would agree that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth (namely God). If so, then what would you think of this statement: "Truth is beautiful in itself"? That's from the CCC, #2500. If Truth is absolute, and Truth is beautiful, then can't Beauty be absolute too? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then nothing and No One is beautiful, not even God. But if there is Absolute Beauty, then something can be beautiful no matter what someone thinks of it. God exists, no matter how many people don't believe in Him. so too with Beauty, of which God is the Author.
Therefore, true beauty cannot be in the eye of the beholder.
I agree that a congregation singing well is beautiful. But can one sincere congregation sound more musically beautiful than another? Of course, musically they can.
As far as listening goes, if one can have a beautiful experience, even an experience of Christ, at home, listening to a beautiful recording, then one can also have an experience of Christ, a worshipful experience, listening to a good choir at church. As far as having to follow someone else's interpretation of how the liturgy should be sung, we can't avoid that. Every cantor does it a little differently, and if we don't follow the cantor, or rather if the cantor doesn't follow the book, the experience of prayer does become more difficult.

Tim

Dear Admin

I don't understand completely your opinion that the RDL is a failure. I am not familiar with the 1964 Liturgy, but there must be some reason why we are not using that one. Undoubtedly, the translation may have something to do with that? In the context of Ensuring Beautiful Liturgies, I'm sure it is possible to do the RDL beautifully. People always resist change. How long was the 1964 liturgy in force before it was finally accepted by the faithful? these things take time. I can guess that the 1964 Liturgy was also beautifully done, from time to time.

Tim

Dear Lady Byzantine,

It would be very helpful if you could be very specific about how the RDL is destroying the Ruthenian Church. I could point to many things that may finally bring the demise of our church, but the RDL would not be one of them.

Our volunteer cantors do give so much of themselves, but we don't ask people who know nothing about architecture to design our churches, or nothing about plumbing to plumb our churches, or nothing about electrinics to wire our churches. This is not to take anything away from our cantors who know what they are doing, and the good hearted ones who may just have no help or guidance. Why can we not fortify the good efforts of our volunteer cantors with trained musicians who can bring a beauty to our chant that many parishes lack?

It is simply not true that our cantors were not consulted about the RDL. Drafts were sent to many. There were many revisions of the chants based on the input of others.

To imply that Prof Thompson was not a successful cantor is to admit that you do not know him. That statement is simply untrue and should be retracted.

We need to admit that we have had centuries of an ununified chant tradition.
Our chant tradition has so many different "dialects", if you will. The 1906 Prostopinije was an attempt to get the Old Country on the same page musically. Because of the Bolshevik Revolution, it never really had a chance. The RDL is another opportunity to unify our modern chant tradition. If it fails, it will be more because Ruthenians sometimes are similar to the many blind men who all discovered the elephant and didn't know it than because of musical or spiritual defects.

Any faithful, orthodox liturgy of any age can be beautiful if it is prayerfully and tastefully served. The RDL will have its day, just like every other liturgy in the past which has been promulgated. The question is, will we recognize Christ in this liturgy when He comes to us, as He always does in the Eucharist, or will we hold onto the past as if the Church had no business entering the 21st century without our approval?

Tim

Is it more traditional for the Great Entrance to process around the entire church, and not just the tetrapod? If our churches were to do that, wouldn't there be time to sing the Cherubic hymn three times?
Just asking.
Tim

Dear Nino

Thank you for your comments. But I confess, I'm a bit confused. You say you agree that paying a cantor would be good if one can be found. Later you say you would prefer a congregation that sings badly with a scratchy tone to that of a proud foreigner. Well, if you prefer a bad sounding congregation, there is no need to pay someone. That can be accomplished quite readily for free. It's already happening in many of our parishes. The only thing "off" about the MCI recordings is that many Byzantine parishes are not accustomed to good singing, by that I mean healthy, well trained, singers who use good technique. I agree, I don't want to hear someone who is in love with there own voice, but to prefer a bad sounding congregation/cantor to a good one who can learn the beauty of the Eastern Church, that I don't understand.

All the best
Tim

To everyone taking part in this discussion:

I suppose there are questions of Beauty to be discussed in whether or not the Cherubic Hymn is sung three times or not, but I think this conversation has gone off in another direction from the one I originally intended. We now seem to be discussing the licitness or validity of various rubrical practices.

Could we come back to the basic questions; 1)are our liturgies beautiful and, 2)if not, how can we help to ensure that they are beautiful?

Many thanks
Tim

Tim is right to encourage posters to return to the original topic.

Please let me add my thoughts.

Are our liturgies beautiful?

The most beautiful liturgy is one that is Spirit-filled and this usually occurs when it is celebrated correctly and well, in which the translations are both correct, elegant and flow, and in which the music is both easy to sing and well sung. The Revised Divine Liturgy makes this difficult (and maybe impossible) in a number of ways.

But before I begin I would like to state that I appreciate that those involved in revising both the Divine Liturgy and the music were all good men who love Jesus Christ, meant well, and certainly worked hard. If they had as their goal to restore to the normative standard (rather then revise) and to respect what was memorized in both texts and music I imagine I’d be their biggest supporters. But, alas, that did not happen.

Firstly, there is an incredibly beautiful flow to the Divine Liturgy when celebrated completely and correctly - a flow sculpted by the Holy Spirit over the centuries. The priest, deacon and people all pray in turn and the balance is wonderful. The litanies both contribute shape to the Liturgy (tying everything together) but also allow everyone (even the first time visitor) to participate for the response “Lord, have mercy” is both a simple and powerful prayer. Removing and prohibiting these prayers not only destroys the proper flow (which has been missing in all these years of abbreviated Liturgies) but also removes solid prayer from the people’s lips. But I really shouldn’t be getting into a detailed account here. I’ll summarize by restating that the flow of the Revised Divine Liturgy is extremely awkward. It pushes forth a clerical view of the Divine Liturgy (that the priest’s prayers have value only when heard by the people) and without the litanies to frame and tie everything together comes across as a bunch of disjointed hymns and prayers that simply do not have a good flow.

Secondly, the texts now have two styles. The 1964 texts and the 1979 troparia were mostly of the same style. They fit well together and flowed, even if they were not perfect in translation. The 2007 RDL makes numerous changes to the text and the change in the style of wording and the flow of the text is obvious to the point of awkward. Corrections to the earlier texts could have been made without making these changes stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. New editions of the books can be prepared easily and I hope they are prepared and promulgated soon. The lack of flow of the new texts helps prevent the liturgies from being beautiful.

Thirdly, the new music is problematic. In the Divine Liturgy the text is paramount. Liturgical music is simply a way for the text to dance in the key of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately the new musical settings have it backwards. The text dances to the music (the music leads the dance and the text serves the music) and because of this there is no life to the new musical settings. The principle used was to be so literal to the chant (using the 1906 Prostopinine as the standard) that proper accentuation became unimportant and the resultant settings are not just awkward but almost unintelligible to an ear that is unfamiliar with the texts who does not have the book in front of him. The 1965 settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy were not perfect (and I do not speak here of the 1970 settings in "Byzantine Liturgical Chant" for the changeable texts). But on the whole the slight simplification allowed for better accentuation, and made possible more robust singing (which contributes to a more beautiful Liturgy).

How can we help to ensure that our liturgies are beautiful?

The easiest way is to return to what is known and memorized. That many parishes had not so great singing is not a fault of the 1965 (and later) music settings since we know that they worked extremely well in many parishes (listen to the Divine Liturgy linked on the home page for one example). The problem is in the lazy attitude our Church has towards Liturgy (when you abbreviate it so severely for so long you teach both the clergy and laity that liturgical prayer is unimportant and after they subconsciously accept that idea they naturally do not want to put in the effort to make something beautiful that the Church itself says is unimportant).

Textual corrections could be done in a way as to respect what the faithful have memorized. For example, one replaces a two-syllable word with another two-syllable word to keep the flow. Changing “one in substance” to “one in essence” is simple as both the words “substance” and “essence” have the accent on the first syllable so even the musical setting is undisturbed. [I will note that while I personally like this change and it is more accurate it is actually unnecessary, especially since the Latins will be using the translation “consubstantial”).] Restoring the normative Ruthenian recension as the standard (which provides an excellent liturgical flow), keeping the texts of one uniform style throughout, and respecting what is memorized will all help contribute to beautiful liturgies.

New musical settings should allow the text to lead rather then follow. Have you ever heard an opera in the original Italian and found it wonderful, but later heard it in English and found it rather flat? That is because when it was arranged in English the goal was to preserve the original music. That does not work in Liturgy. In Slavonic there was unique relationship between the text and the chant. It became imperfect as Slavonic became less understood (but because it was less understood it was not so obvious). But when that imbalance is brought into English it sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. What needs to happen is to provide fresh musical settings that 1) respect what was memorized, 2) use what was known in Slavonic as a model (which was often quite different than Bokšaj), and 3) allow the text to dance with the music being a supporting partner rather than the lead to which the text must follow.

Now there are usually many posts asking if I mean simplification of chant to serve the English text. Yes, I do, but only to the extent that is absolutely necessary (and noting that some chant just doesn't work in English, that chant from other traditions that does work should be used, and that there should be room for new chant to develop). Professor Kavaka of Philadelphia (Eternal Memory!) used to say that the “curly q’s didn’t work in English”. His recommended settings for the revised texts respected what was known and memorized (the 1965) and were eminently singable. I am sorry the bishops rejected his work. But what is an example of simplification? Think of the difference between Samohlasen 6 as given in Bokšaj (page 32 for “Pobidu imijaj Christe” or page 177 for “Dostonjo Jest” (Brown Sokol page 32 and Blue Sokol page 21, respectively)) and the way we actually sing these in most parishes. The way we sing “Dostojno Jest” in Slavonic or “It is truly proper” in English reflects a naturally developing simplification of a music that is perfectly acceptable. This slight simplification already found to be developing in the Slavonic chant is more attractive to American ears. And that is the goal. [If someone wants a written example of some examples please let me know and I can prepare them and post them.]

Again, I respect the good intentions and hard work of those who Revised the Liturgy and prepared the new music. But the liturgical rubrics and texts are incorrect and need to be corrected. And the music needs to be returned to what people have memorized and allow the text to be the lead partner in the dance it has with the music. All this can be accomplished relatively easy with the reprinting of corrected books. That a good amount of money was spent in preparing the RDL books should not be an obstacle.

John

John

Firstly, I'm having a great deal of trouble getting onto this website. Often my safari gets checked off. I don't have that trouble with other web sites. Suggestions?

Secondly, your response is wonderfully comprehensive, but for now I only have time to say that I think our liturgy lacks beauty in the way it is sung because so many of our cantors, loyal though they are, cannot read. If everyone's reading skills would improve, I think even the new chant settings would sound much better. Of course they need to be sung enough times until we all get used to the new accents (which are think are better than the 1970 book) and rhythms, which must change because we are using English, and 1970 version didn't seem to take this into account. If never seen the 1964/65 book. How could I obtain that?

I would much appreciate you posting any examples you wish. that would be great!

As a Church, it seems we have to decide whether our chant is going to continue to be an oral/aural tradition, in which case printed notation is only necessary for the purpose of preserving the idea of the chant, or if we are going to make the transition to a written tradition, in which case our cantors MUST learn how to read. Our chant is too simple to be sung so inaccurately. It seems the approval of the RDL means we need to move to a written tradition.

What do you think?

I'll write more later when I have more time.
Tim

If I'm not mistaken the proper way to sing the Cherubic Hymn is to sing the first part continuously until the deacon door is open and the priest and procession comes out. This continual singing allows for the priest to recite the prayers that lead up to the Great Entrance. Then once the clergy are done with the public prayer (maybe the Lord God remember you and all Orthodox Christians in His Kingdom now and ever and unto ages of ages) the second part of the Hymn is sung.

Tim raises a number of good questions. I will prepare responses and post them (maybe in new threads). But I can respond to the following two points quickly.

There is some a known issue with the server and the whole byzcath site will be moving to a new server sometime in December (hopefully December on the Gregorian calendar!). Until then please try to be patient.

I am referring here to the “gray” and “green” books. They did not contain much in the line of changeable texts (I’d have to check but I think the “green” book contained only troparia for Special Intention, the deceased and for Pascha). The 1970 book contained more but it was not complete, either. Most cantors used the settings for the “fixed” texts of the Divine Liturgy but the settings for the “changeable” texts (troparia, etc.) were never really embraced by the Church and most parishes never used them. As of about 2005 I’d say less than 10% used the 1970 settings (so to compare the 2007 settings to those settings which few parishes actually used is not all that useful).

More later. And thanks for the post.

Yes, and at our parish, the first part of the Hymn continues until the procession comes forth from the altar area. the public prayers take place as the procession goes all the way to the back of the church and processes up the middle isle. It's my understanding that the Great Entrance is "Great", in part, because, unlike the Little Entrance, the Great procession goes all the way around half the church.

Tim

Yes, improving our cantors’ reading skills is important but there are more primary issues here that need to be addressed first. Our chant tradition was handed on through the ages from old cantors to young cantors in an ongoing service of love that made our Liturgy something to experience. What was taught best was LOVE for these Divine Services, and no amount of sight reading and book learning can replace this love. They learned at the feet of the cantors before them, and that is the way of the Spirit. Sadly, in recent generations something happened. Our Liturgy was no longer loved. It was abbreviated and changed. People were told we had a treasure of great value, a priceless pearl. But over time measures were taken to change this pearl into something else. And that lack of love for the Liturgy exhibited by our bishops and other leaders affected everything, even the ability of cantors to pass on the love of Liturgy from one generation to the next. This lack of love for the Liturgy remains as the cause of the current free-fall in the Church. Do we see an attempt to reestablish wonderful Liturgy by praying the traditional Liturgy (what we know works) and allowing it to form us? No. We see that the Church has abandoned discernment, abandoned tradition and this handing on of love, and replaced it with paid professionals who – though talented – are not from our Church, were not formed by the fullness of our Liturgy, did not have the love of Liturgy handed down to them from those who had received it from earlier generations of cantors, and who even now have no great experience as cantors in this Church. Is it a wonder the music doesn't feel right to those who know and 'feel' such things? Is it a wonder that the vast majority of our people and clergy can discern something wrong?

But it not just the music that is problematic. The lack of love for Liturgy is systemic. With the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy liturgical continuity has been surrendered, the Spirit has been ignored, discernment abandoned for current worldly trends (that already sound dated to our ears). Liturgy has ceased to be about worship and worship alone. And so long as other agendas are attached to worship God will be secondary and love will not be present.

So it is not just a matter of teaching cantors to read music. It is a matter of teaching cantors to love the Liturgy. It is a matter of teaching our priests to once again love Liturgy. It is a matter of teaching our people to once again love Liturgy – that is to fall in love with Christ, to worship Him in Liturgy, and to communicate with Him through Liturgy.

I originally had written a rather longish piece about how the lack of enthusiasm that flows from a lack of love for Liturgy (either lost or never caught) affects the quality of the Liturgy. In reviewing what I wrote originally I think now that I will save it for another time so that it does not detract from the main point here. I will summarize it by noting that we have cantors who are volunteers, who are of differing abilities, and who were mostly formed by growing up with the musical tradition, listening to other cantors, and plunking out melodies on a keyboard until they learned them. These cantors did not ask for new and different texts. They did not ask for new and radically different music. They were not consulted about any of it. They were handed new books, told that everything they learned all these years was wrong and called to be obedient. Questions offered by these volunteers were not met with patient explanation but with accusations of disobedience. Even a cantor with good ability and good dedication will not do a good job chanting the Liturgy if he does not have enthusiasm – that sense of being at home in the Father’s house and really enjoying the hard work of the Liturgy (and the problem is even worse among our clergy). So until steps are made to fix the systemic problems in the Church – of which the RDL is the first and foremost symptom – enthusiasm will be in very short supply.

What are the current buzz phrases among our clergy, cantors and laity to describe the current status of the Church? Two of the most common are “there is no enthusiasm (energy) to do anything in the Church since the RDL” and “there is a spiritual lethargy in the Church since the RDL”.

This Church can be turned around. It can grow again. It is time to move forward, for the Spirit is calling. Our tradition waits, ready to form us if only we pray it and celebrate it.

In response to the Administrator:

First of all: Christ is Born! And I hope you are having a wonderful celebration!

If the primary issue is a lack of love for the liturgy, i would like to submit that this love began to ebb long before the RDL was even a twinkle in the minds of our bishops. Back in the 1920's when our liturgy, even in the Old Slavonic, was being hacked to death by Bishops and priests who thought it was necessary to make the liturgy shorter "like the Mass" so that ruthenians coming over from the old country would choose their own church over Rome, even then there was a lack of love that led to a far greater damage. Over 90% of Eastern Ruthenian Catholics went over to the Roman Church (not that that is a sign of damage) or to the Orthodox Church (and under the circumstances, who could blame them) or even to Protestantism. What we have now is what's left of the 10% from the 1920's and before, and whatever people we have been able to attract since Vatican II (not that everything with Vatican II was a mistake, but it didn't turn out the way it was thought it would).

I think we are putting far too much blame on the RDL. The problems you speak of were already with us: Liturgies only sung in one tone because pastors/cantors were too lazy to learn the whole tradition. Parishes only thinking about their own existance and not the greater good of the whole church (we certainly suffer from that today, with too many parishes desiring to die rather than merge with neighboring parishes). We are putting too much emphasis on 'feelings' and forgetting the directives given to us by Jesus himself, that is to spread the Gospel to all nations.

It should also be pointed out that paying professionals is not the problem. Cantors were paid in the old days, when love of the liturgy was, according to the Administator, is great supply. "the laborer deserves his wage", regardless of what day or age we are in.

Regarding the language of the liturgy, I know i don't need to remind readers of this thread that our beloved church Slovanic (which I love to use myself to the extent that I can) was at one time the vernacular of the people. They loved the liturgy, as the gift that it is, in part because it was in their own lagnuage and not in Latin (even I also love Latin). Today, I would like to see a situation like the Roman church has, liturgies in an ancient liturgical language (Old Slavonic) for those who feel it is easier to pray that way, and liturgies in the vernacular for others who love the liturgy in that way. Both kinds of liturgies can be done poorly with no love, or well with great love and attention. The idea that one language is always better than another is an arguement we should have come to a conclusion to by now. As fishers of men, we have bigger fish to fry.

Part of the lack of enthusiam is simply human nature: people don't like to change, and the older they are the more they don't like to change. If you start from the Eastern side of our country and move west, I am sure that our parishes get younger and younger as you go. The greatest displeasure I hear coming from our Church is coming mostly from the Eastern side of the country, the side of the country which wants to change the least. This is understandable, but hardly a just testamony against the RDL. Our church has gone through changes before, and we managed to weather them somehow. But every generation seems to forget how we did it. Every generation sends out the distress call. Every generation says "this is the end of the church!", and longs for the days of old. This isn't like the Anglican Church ordaining gays and lesbians. Nothing immoral has occurred here. There might have been a better way to do it, but what's done is done. Some parishes are using the RDL quite well. Others have not and will never give it a fair chance, primarily because they don't know how, and are too old to learn something new. As Rome has done, perhaps we should let these brothers and sisters live out their days with the Old liturgy, while at the same time promoting the new.
having said that, I also know that many young people are attracted to the old ways. I am too! (I love it ALL). So the Old liturgy and the new liturgy survive side by side until the Second Coming. As long as we can still come together as One People of God, it's all richness and beauty (if it's sung well).
Both are valid. Both worship God (if you want to see a liturgy that worships the people, I needn't remind you where you can find it).

This is getting tiresome, but until it is acknowledged, I suppose we'll just have to keep saying it: The RDL WAS reviewed by many people, cantors included. Should it have been reviewed by EVERY SINGLE BYZANTINE before being approved? Do we approach other decisions in the Church this way? Isn't that why we have a heirarchy in part, 1)because it is more effiecient and 2)they may have actually studied the liturgy more than the rest of us? I'm afraid the RDL is taking a beating not because it is BAD, but simply because "we don't like it. It doesn't FEEL right, therefore it is BAD." I thought we were worshipping God. Why do MY feelings matter if I'm worshipping God? How does HE feel about it?

i believe many priests and people love the Liturgy in it's various forms and developments through history.
My guess is many priests would take offense to the notion that many priests have "lost their love" for the liturgy. The RDL was a great labor of love. I think our problem is we don't understand each other in terms of WHAT we love and WHY we love it. It should be WHO we love. I love my wife regardless of how she is dressed. Wouldn't it be silly of me to stop loving my wife because she looks different, or speaks in a different language? If I did that, wouldn't I be betraying my true feelings, that I didn't really love the essence of who my wife is, but only the trappings of who I thought she was when I first met her?

So, i agree with you: it's not just a matter of teaching cantors to read (though we should definitely do that).
But it's not even just a matter of loving the liturgy. It's a matter of loving God and one another. Condemning the RDL is just an excuse to avoid doing those first two things.

Tim Woods

What language is "church Slovanic"?

Ung