www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy RDL based on Slavonic?

Did anyone notice that our esteemed US congress approved the TARP ($787 Billion) legislation without reading it? Yes, it is quite easy for a non finalised version to be approved without knowing what is being approved.
It happens all the time, in an effort to "save time". I see it in companies of all sizes. If engineering plans were properly reviewed and tested, there would be no need for rework. If cars were proven out before going to market, there would be far fewer recalls. Our modern society, in its quest to be faster, often takes shortcuts.
Perhaps, that is what happened with the RDL. Worry that full review would interminably delay any meaningful result. One only need look at the amount of discussion regarding translations and settings of the RDL to see that it may have been a well warranted fear, though full review would likely have resulted in more faithful liturgy.
If one looks to history there was a parallel over 100 years ago to the RDL, the 1906 "Prostopinije". It was done in a hurry due to a number of factors, mostly political; and is loaded with numerous (though minor) notation errors. It was meant to be a "standard" repotoire, essentially discouraging local variant.

A very old maxim of business, government, and, it would seem, Church:

"There is never enough time or money to do it right, but there is always enough time and money to do it over."

Considering that it became a 12 year process, surely there was time and opportunity for open review. Was it not waiting, ready for promulgation by +JUDSON at the time of his death? Surely there was time and opportunity for dissemination and review before 2007. Surely well before 2007 many significant items of concern had been brought to light.

For example, the "we want to be inclusive" debacle should have been a no-brainer. If what should have been obvious, like the emperor having no clothes, needed to be pointed out -- Pittsburgh, we have a problem -- it was. Once eyes are opened the charade should not be allowed to continue. In our liturgy, Philanthropos/Chelovikolubets just means "loves us all"? -- please, tell me it ain't so.

The RDL was manufactured in secret. Only selected supporters were allowed to see it before the promulgation. The clergy were not even allowed to see the final product until the books were printed. Even the music was secret. The clergy first saw it when they got the new green books. At the Pittsburgh cantor school the music was collected. Cantors there were told not to share it with their pastors. Secrecy. Secrecy. Secrecy. It is clear that those who invented the RDL did not want it known before the promulgation because the uprising might have prevented the promulgation.

They have no intention of doing it over. Petras has complained that he did not get all the changes he wanted!

It's so. Father Petras has said that "lover of mankind" is bad theology because it disrespects women. He has condemned Liturgiam Authenticam and the Liturgical Instruction on this forum. The RDL is not a mistake in their eyes. They believe Rome and the rest of the Church is wrong.

Of course, I'm pretty sure he never asked any actual women about it. He certainly didn't ask any of the ones in my family. My elder daughter--presumably the precise person the new liturgy was meant to attract (young, well educated, convert, interested in the Church) was out the door the first time our priest said, "Jesus is good and loves us all".

"That is so gay!", she said--and not meaning "happy", either.

So much for focus groups, I guess.

The Divine Liturgy, in the essential form in which it was it was finally promulgated, was used at the Cathedral in Pittsburgh and at the seminary for two years or more. Books with the people's texts and music were available at both locations the whole time.

As for the music - the entire Octoechos, and 90% of the music for the liturgical year, were publicly posted, and advertised here. Comments and suggestions were specifically requested, and (as can be shown from posts on this forum) changes were made to the final version based on those comments. In addition, several dozen changes were made based on comments from cantors who attended classes at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute - including constructive criticism from individuals quite opposed to some of the changes in text and music.

In Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff is both correct and incorrect. There were dozens of priests complaining about the fact that they had seen neither the new texts nor the new music prior to when they received the final books. If such books were available at the cathedral and seminary for clergy & cantors to take home and review it was a well kept secret. Pittsburgh is not the center of the world.

Jeff also told people on this forum that if they wished to participate they should have gone to the cantors school and that maybe Mr. Thompson would have allowed them to comment. We do know for a fact that music was collected at the cantors school and participants were told not to share it with their pastors and with others. There are participants who will testify to that.

Professor Kavka (Eternal Memory!) wrote out and submitted music to the bishops (using the revised texts but respecting the style that was memorized during the past 40 years). It was far superior to what was promulgated. Why the bishops rejected his work in favor of Mr. Thompson's (an obviously talented man but one who had no great experience as a cantor in the Ruthenian Church) I can't fathom.

While the majority of these discussions have been about the revised texts and rubrics the music is equally problematic. I know that Jeff worked hard and that Mr. Thompson was paid well for his work but it is not very good. The application style is one where the text serves the music rather then having the music serve the text. I continue to urge the bishops to scrap the whole RDL and replace it with something better. The 1964 translation (with corrections) along with the older style music (perhaps as notated by Prof. Kavka) was far superior. The whole RDL has done nothing but great harm to the Church.

While the men who created the RDL were all well intentioned and certainly able they made a number of fundamental mistakes. They should have followed good principles of translation (translating literally but elegantly from the official Church Slavonic texts (the 1942)). They should have adhered to the directives of the Liturgical Instruction (instead they openly rejected it). It is true that Liturgiam Authenticam was issued at about the same time as when they claim they received approval (in 2001). But they had 6 years to review the text to ensure it complied with LA. Clearly they openly rejected Liturgiam Authenticam as well as any idea of liturgical unity with our brother Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox).

There are a small but growing number of parishes that are quietly restoring the proper shape of the Liturgy. The "Teal Terror" (as it is affectionately known) is being replaced by home made "text only" pew books. Cantors are singing music they know. The RDL is failing. We must continue to pray for our bishops - that they rescind the RDL and finally promulgate the Ruthenian Divine Litugy, translated completely and correctly with music that is both faithful to what was memorized all these years but with room for new music to develop.

John--while I am not a fan of the music in the new pewbook and found much of it unsingable compared to versions that were used before, I think that it is patently unfair of you to continue to diss Mr. Thompson. He did study plainchant for many years and recorded some even while he was choir master at a Latin church, before he became head of chant at the seminary, and he was a former priest of the Johnstown diocese. I think that it's disingenuous to say that he had no great experience.

While I am no longer a part of the Ruthenian church, as it sounds like you are too, I hardly think that after all the money and time spent on this new book, the bishops will hardly throw the church into another upheaval by ditching what was done and starting over again. Best case scenario would be to allow for local variations and leave it at that.

I am tired of hearing about how many parishes are dying because of the RDL, they were dying before and continue to die. Much more contributes to that than the RDL. While it's not good, it's a fact. Other than St. George, which seems to be your poster child, how many parishes were actually using a full uncut DL on a Sunday? Can you name more? And let's face facts, Fr. Elias had much to do with bringing more people to St. George, not just the fact that he celebrated a fuller DL.

JohnK, everything you said is the truth. The new music may not be the greatest, but the "old" music wasn't so great, either. The sentimental attachment to what the people "memorized" is no different than the current attachment in the Latin church to "On Eagles Wings" and "Gather Us In." Both are inferior and could be better. In the Ruthenian church, it seems some do not want a restoration of authentic music, but prefer to hold on to hacked-up, and dumbed-down music that the people have memorized. It is possible to teach the people something better. The level of scholarship certainly exists in the church to research and promote good, authentic music.

This is, sad to say, a dying church anyway. It has suffered from Latinizations, short cuts in liturgy and music, and a lack of effective leadership for far too many years. Restoring a liturgy that may be arguably better, but was itself a mangled product, isn't going to revive it. I don't look for the bishops to change it anytime soon. They have spent too much money on it, not to mention, losing face if they did rescind it. Our leadership may be inept and out-of-touch, but it is proud while being inept and out-of-touch.

John K, I routinely state that Mr. Thompson is a very talented individual, and I am well aware he was a priest of the Johnstown Diocese until he was laicized. I disagree with the style he has used to set the chant. That is not "dissing" him personally but commenting on his work. He (or any of us) could have chosen a number of 'styles' in which to set chant. As someone who has been a fairly acceptable cantor for over 30 years I believe I am qualified to speak, and have a right to speak. The idea that anyone who disagrees automatically is dissing another person is ridiculous. I have offered specific analysis and gone to great length to keep it technical. Mr. Thompson, it should be noted, most certainly used his position at the seminary to negatively critique the work of others (including my own meager offerings over the years). Fair is fair.

The very odd thing here is why everyone assumes a critique is personal. In my own efforts I've always welcomed critique and over the years received much comment (as does anyone who steps up and does something). A good deal of it was legitimate and I profited from it. Some was not legitimate and I ignored it. So I'm not sure why it is such a sin to say what I said. I would say the same thing about any individual who was given almost total control over our patrimony. No one - Mr. Thompson or any other talented individual - had the wherewithal that someone like Professor Kavka did. And yet Professor Kavka's work (and 'style') was rejected in favor of Mr. Thompson's.

You might be correct. I know some parishes have replaced the RDL green book with private pew books. Perhaps that will continue. Unfortunately, the standard in music for the fixed parts of the DL the Church once had is gone for at least a generation.

Although, ditching the RDL books and replacing them with corrected versions of the '1964' books (and a corrected Pew Book) is a very easy thing to do and would be well received.

A small number of parishes were using the full, uncut Liturgy. Without exception they were vibrant and growing. Here in Virginia before the first round of liturgical mandates by Bishop Pataki about 1995 the Liturgy was not full, but far fuller then in most parishes. And the place was packed. With the first round of mandates the numbers dropped, and they dropped significantly after the RDL hit (and since the first round of liturgical changes is down by well over half). Same good priest all along.

Yes, there is a tendency among some to credit the pastor and not the Liturgy for the success in Aliquippa. That seems purposeful. But if one speaks to the pastor involved he says he credits the Liturgy, and how he needs the Liturgy to live. As an occasional visitor there I saw the parish blossom as each part of the Liturgy was added back. I really do not understand why people are so anti-Liturgy. One can easily see over the past generations that as the Liturgy was shortened the people left. [The message one teaches when one fiddles with the Liturgy is that the Liturgy (and standards) are unimportant. And if they are unimportant, why bother to go?]

And yes, the Church was very much dying in most places. I believe that is because we have de-emphasized liturgical prayer. Everything flows from the Liturgy. Parishes with good Liturgy were full and vibrant all along.

You make a good point. Why replace what is old and well known with something that is no better (and, one can argue, much worse)?

I will disagree with your comparison to the Latin Church. I’ve heard such comments from Roman Catholics on occasion, so I find it odd coming from a Byzantine like yourself. Songs like “On Eagles Wings” are occasional songs. The chant settings for the fixed parts of the Divine Liturgy are used at every Liturgy. Singing something almost daily for 40+ years ingrains it into a person. That is why one makes changes gently and carefully, and only when absolutely required.

The Ruthenian Church – or any Church – does not exist to protect or promote liturgical chant. It exists to proclaim the Gospel. The 1906 Bokšaj was never the canonical standard that some claim it is. It was a snapshot of the chant at a particular parish at a particular time. Europe has continued to allow the chant to develop. If one listens to recordings from there one can find some liturgical music that is identical to Bokšaj, a lot that is noticeably different, and some very different. One can find Russian and Ukrainian melodies used. It’s not about preserving chant to the point of stifling Liturgy and creativity with music.

I’ve said before that one thing I would like to do is to convert some inner city Black Gospel singers. Teach them about our chant and to understand it. Then turn them loose to create a new chant that would speak to the Black community. I’d do the same for the Hispanic community (and others). And let that new chant be used in our parishes alongside what I grew up singing.

Is some simplification of our chant necessary? Yes. But that simplification is within the tradition (one can see examples of skipped notes right in Bokšaj; and see my analysis). Professor Kavka (a successful cantor / choir director for over 50 years) used to say that the “curley q’s just didn’t work in English. He was correct. When setting chant one must respect the ear of the receiving language. American ears expect something close to a one note per syllable ratio.

I disagree that the bishops would loose face if they rescinded the RDL. In most parishes they’d be heros!

Since I am a music director in a Latin church, I would say that the "ordinary" as well as the propers, have musically fallen by the wayside for any practical purpose. The ordinary is fixed, as far as the text goes, but the music has been all over the place, with much of it horrid and inappropriate. I am fortunate to work for a pastor who wants sacred and reverent music restored, so with some very good assistants, I am making progress. I agree that change will fail if it is too abrupt, but constructive changes can be made. You and others like you, have the scholarship and the background as cantors to improve on what the Ruthenian church sings.

The difficulties with English are the same in both eastern and western churches. Gregorian chant doesn't always adapt well to English, either. However, it has always interested me that the Anglicans figured out a successful way to do English chant some centuries ago. It's very beautiful and effective. It can be done.