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

By way of comparison, approximately 1 hour prior to the starting time for the Sunday Orthros, we normally begin the Kairon, followed immediately upon re-entering the sanctuary by the Proskomedia up to the point of censing. This allows ample time for all commemorations of both the living and the dead for that day, regardless of how many commemorations there may be.

It usually also provides ample time for the priest and deacon to discuss any special changes or additions to the normal Sunday Divine Liturgy, followed by a short period of quiet contemplation as well before the commencement of Orthros.

In this way, we proceed directly to the Preparation and Opening Dialogue of the Divine Liturgy following the Great Dismissal of Orthros, and later complete the Proskomedia at the prothesis during the Divine Liturgy immediately before the Great Entrance. Even when the Proskomedia is split in this manner, the initial section normally requires more than 10 minutes to perform.

May the same Spirit serve with us all the days of our life.

+Cosmos

Going to be quite honest here and probably get beat up for it, but I have nothing to lose.

Precuts--the biggest time saver. In almost 13 years at my GC church, I only saw a real loaf cut once. I would venture to guess, that even after the implementation of the RDL, precuts are still the norm in most Ruthenian GC parishes.

Commemorations--non-existant, at least in my parish. We were never asked to give names of people to be commemorated at the proskomedia. I'm sure that the person/persons that the Liturgy was being offered for was given a particle and maybe anyone special that the priest might have thought of but there was no opportunity to give names as I've seen in Orthodox parishes.

Latinizations both, and slow to leave the Pittsburgh church. And yes, Father, 10 minutes was the norm in my former parish as well.

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

This thread is moving far off topic. It began as a discussion about singing and chanting and has moved to all the arguments about the RDL and abbreviations to practice that always make people get their backs up.

This topic needs to restrict itself to the original or it will be time to close it.

Remember that we are entering the last portion of Great Lent. The Forgiveness Sunday humility has seemed to have worn off so many posters in this and other threads. Let's step back and take a look at what and how we respond to each other--above all charity.

In Christ,

BOB
Moderator

Thanks, Bob, for the reminder. Having just returned from the Service of the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete, I apologise for my part in getting the thread off track and for any lack of charity I displayed.

Fr David Straut

Father David:

Father bless!!

You weren't in mind when I worte that post. It was one of the brethren who was not being so kind to you. Be assured of my prayers for you during this Holy Season.

Asking for you blessing and continued holy prayers,
BOB

Father David,

Yes, I am unusual, in that I take serious interest in liturgical matters. I do often show up an hour before liturgy begins. I do watch (or at least listen to) the Proskomide, since I find it to be both beautiful and spiritually enriching. And I do know about pontifical liturgies--as the sacristan at Oriental Lumen, I am the one who prepares the temple, sets up the sanctuary, and is present when the priests arrive. I know that the Preparation is split, and I have watched it from beginning to end. I'll stand by my 20 minute estimate.

John K,

With regard to precut particles, I agree entirely that the practice should be abolished. From a practical standpoint, it just can't be done in some parishes because the Holy Place just isn't properly arranged; i.e., in many parishes the Proskemide table is about the size of a television dinner tray, which makes it a challenge just to put the chalice, diskos, lance and veils on it. Actually having workspace to cut the prosphora is impossible. Then there is this peculiarity of Ruthenian parishes: when told to approach with fear of God, they all approach. That's a lot of particles to cut, and some priests can be forgiven for cutting up most of the particles beforehand (usually in the sacristy), and only cutting the Lamb and the major commemorations during the Proskemide itself.

On commemorations, these in fact used to be done in my parish, up to the point that the RDL was implemented, at which point, for some reason, it stopped. Full commemorations are still done at the Melkite parish I attend.

Now, with regard to the topic at hand, ensuring beautiful liturgy, main prerequisite is liturgy must engage the people, ensuring their full and active participation. For that to occur, the people must perceive and accept the Liturgy as something in which they have a stake, something which belongs to them, is part of their heritage, which they know and love.

In turn, that requires stability; change, when it occurs, must occur gradually and only with extensive preparations, so that the people have already bought into the change. Radical change is psychologically disruptive, alienates the people, and, at a practical level, disrupts the flow of the Liturgy because the people do not know what is coming next.

Liturgy essentially consists of three elements: text, rubrics (i.e., instructions for movement and actions); and music. One should not attempt extensive changes to more than one of these at any given time. Of the three, rubrics are probably the easiest to change and cause the least disruption. At the same time, changes to the rubrics can greatly enrich the Liturgy and bring it closer to the authentic Tradition. If you are going to reform the Liturgy, start with the rubrics, making only such changes to the text or the music as are needed to support the rubrics.

Changing the music should be the next step, but not by replacing the existing music wholesale, for it is the music that the people internalize the most, and through the music they assimilate the text and experience the Liturgy. Rather, begin by adding new tones to the existing repertoire a few at a time, until the people know them well, then add some more. When composing new arrangements, care should be taken to ensure the music is both within the capabilities of the untrained voice, and not entirely discordant to the congregational ear; what works well and sounds good in Greece or the Carpathians may not work well in English or sound beautiful to the Western ear. A final note with regard to music: one should not displace the popular hymnody because it is not "canonical", because such hymns are much beloved by the people and form part of their spiritual patrimony. A perfect example would be the replacement of Eucharistic hymns with the Psalm verses in the RDL. I can think of few changes that are more resented than this--the people feel they have been robbed of something uniquely theirs, and in its place they got an insipid translation set to music bringing to mind nothing so much as "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star".

Finally, text. A liturgical translator, particularly one who is revising an existing text for congregational use, above all needs to be sensitive to the need for stability in worship. As such, he should only make substantive changes necessary to correct either errors in the previous translation or to bring the text into line with corrected usage (rubrics); he should avoid change for the sake of change, especially of the "happy to glad" variety that disrupt the flow of worship without changing the meaning of the text.

The translator must be governed at all times by humility, looking at what others have done already, and ruthlessly suppressing the impulse to show the world how clever he is (because, in truth, he probably isn't as clever as he thinks). And finally, the translator must recognize the need for beauty in liturgy, the absolute necessity for the poetic and the noetic, and thus avoid, to the greatest extent possible, flat, colloquial, uninspired prose that could just as easily be found in a daily newspaper, or--at the other end of the scale--the jargon-laden polysyllabic rubbish typical of a third-rate academic paper. If the translator is not a poet, he has no business doing liturgical translation.

Finally, if one wants to ensure beautiful liturgy, one should not, under any circumstances, surrender responsibility for the development of liturgy to coteries of self-appointed experts. If Liturgy is the work of the people, it is also, ultimately, the property of the people. As Cardinal Newman wrote, "The laity are those without whom the Church would look silly", and when you shut the laity out of the process of reforming the Liturgy, you get silly liturgy. Liturgy by its nature constantly changes and evolves organically, because it is a living thing celebrated by living people. Any time you try to force the people into a straightjacket so that liturgy is the same in all places at all times, you just kill it and put it in amber. It becomes a museum piece.

One of the glories of the Byzantine rite is its almost infinite variety--not only are their variations in usage among particular Churches, but among dioceses within those Churches, and among parishes within those dioceses. Thus is real inculturation accomplished, and the people given the proprietary interest in it that ensures it is celebrated with beauty, with reverence, and with piety.

The Byzantine rite has always understood this, and it is noteworthy that the two instances in which wholesale change was imposed led to major ecclesiastical catastrophes. Within the Byzantine rite, conformity with Tradition has been ensured by providing everybody with the fullness of the liturgical tradition, in all its monastic glory, from which it steps back to accommodate parochial use. The liturgiarchs of the Church, as well as the force of Tradition, set minima for liturgical celebration: here is the full liturgy-you must do at least this. It does not abridge the liturgical texts and set maxima for the liturgy--this much you may do and no more.

Follow some of these rules, and you will get beautiful liturgy. It will not be perfect liturgy, because that does not exist outside of the heavenly liturgy of which our liturgy is but an image. But imperfect liturgy, sung enthusiastically by people who know and love it is infinitely superior to liturgy sung perfectly and celebrated in perfect accordance with the rubrics by people to whom it is just an abstraction. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to go listen to the Schola Cantorum singing the music for the RDL at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute web site, and compare that to any singing parish on any given Sunday using the old red books.

I agree in general except about the need to pay a cantor from outside the church. I think for the most part the better singers in a church tend to be in the choir and are capable of leading the people in the music fairly well. The main thing is to get started correctly, on the right pitch, at the right tempo. Most of the people sing from memory anyway, with the exceptions being new members or visitors. This is why I think getting started right on each hymn or response is the main thing. I don't think a professional cantor, /especially/ who is not a church member or even a Catholic or Orthodox is a good idea. It would seem strange to me to be following and being taught by a person who doesn't share my faith. In areas besides the 'Holy Land' of the Byzantine Catholic Church (Pennsylvania, Ohio, the Northeast in general) there aren't many BCC people and so a professional would quite likely end up being not Catholic or Orthodox (as it seems to be in some RC churches around here as well when they hire a pro). Maybe I'm off on this opinion, and it may just be due to my experiences in my church. I think the main issues are that the music settings are not the easiest to sing (try singing the word 'now' with five syllables), the monophonic nature (not harmonized, not 'poly'phonic) of the music, singing only the melody, does not lend itself very well to giving the words the deep spiritual feeling compared to, say, typical Russian Orthodox chant or choral settings. Often when the melody only is sung, the feeling of the music is ambiguous - you can't sense whether it is in a 'major' or 'minor' mode or 'key' - the tones aren't technically major or minor but they have a certain feel to them that is one of the other but this isn't obvious sometimes just from the melody.