www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Send Your Letters Again

So there are no clips of Archbishop Cyril's homily?

U-C

Archbishop Cyril spoke at the meeting of the priests on Tuesday, before the Archbishop passed away. None of that was recorded. He was not at the funeral nor gave any homily.

Jack

OK. Any recording of his comments mentioned above at the gathering of priests held on the Thursday June 10, 2010 at the Munhall Cathedral?

U-C

I wasn't at the funeral, and I'm no trained musician or liturgist, but from what I heard on the videos (Thank you, Mike L.), the Liturgy was very beautiful. It sounds like there were moments when the singing wasn't pitch-perfect, but at those moments it sounded like everyone in the cathedral, regardless of his or her vocal talent, was participating deeply in the Liturgy. Perhaps it was off-key at times, but it was the voice of the people.

It wasn't the voice of the people, it was the voice of very few people who dismantled an otherwise perfect liturgy. If the people at the Cathedral would have had permission to sing the old liturgy, you wouldn't be able to hear the choir the singing would have been that loud.

I still refuse to sing "that" music, and continue to pray the liturgy as I once knew it, with all the poetic words that made our liturgy beautiful. It sounds too manufactured now.

This is our last chance folks -- write your letters and be heard! Everyone deserves the chance to experience the full liturgy, minus the wordsmithing.

Jack, can you confirm what JD says?

The Funeral Service for a Bishop are few and far between in the Ruthenian Church. It is not eay to remember every detail of the Rubrics. Be patient with Bishop William and the Deacons. Prayer for the soul of Metropolitan Basil was the focus of the services, not the clockwork precision.

Liturgy is a very emotional subject for the faithful. Change takes time and is organic: somethings work and others don't. Also, remember that the Ruthenian Liturgy is Pre-Niconian and as such does NOT follow all the present day Orthodox practices: e.g, the placing of the Antiminsion under the Altar cloths is not a Romanization, but a Pre-Niconian practice. All things are in God's time and under His direction.

an unworthy sinner,
Heiromonk Luke

I was baptized into the Ruthenian Church only in 1996, and in the ensuing fourteen years no fewer than four bishops have fallen asleep, including two metropolitans. It seems common enough that the protodeacon should have been able to stay on top of the rubrics. The Ordo Celebrationis does include the unfolding of the Antimension; an eileton is sometimes, but not always, placed over it.

After watching the youtube videos of +Metropolitan Basil's funeral, I can now understand why so many are troubled by the revised Liturgy. Frankly, I couldn't believe my ears. The beauty of the "old" Liturgy has been destroyed. What in the world possessed the revisionists?

Hubris.

Over the years, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, we have constantly been reminded that the Faithful have the right to speak their minds on matters pertaining to the Church. I would encourage those who are concerned about the plight of our (Pittsburgh Metropolia) Liturgy to communicate their opinions to their Pastors, their Hierarchs, and to the Congregation for Eastern Churches. I am told by a credible source that Archbishop Cyril Vasil, Secretary of the Congregation For Eastern Churches, still receives e-mails at his old address at the Orientalum. For those who might find it easier and more convenient to communicate electronically, that e-mail address is vasil@pio.urbe.it

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

After watching some of the videos, I was appalled at the sound of the music. Yes I have a Masters in Music Performance, but my wife who for the most part knows nothing about music, and it totally musically illiterate, made me turn it off because it sounded so bad.

How does this happen?

The principal issue whenever a large group of Ruthenians gather is tempo. Traditionally, the older parishes of Pennsylvania and Ohio have tended to drag out the chants in a very slow, deliberate manner. Newer parishes in other parts of the country sing faster and more upbeat. Put them in the same room, and you will find the two groups doggedly marching to the beat of their own drummer--unless the cantor has the voice and the will power to bring them along at his chosen pace. This is especially true in large churches, where the propagation lag results in people hearing the cantor at slightly different times.

However, the new music remains a problem because it is more elaborate than what people had been using, its phrasing is awkward in many places, and the words have been changed from those the people knew by heart (often just for the sake of change--what I call "happy-to-glad" revisions). Since, as I noted, most people don't read music, they will get lost, try to sing what they know, using the words that they know, and voila! Cacophony. Most people don't like cacophony, so when they get lost, they sit on their hands and shut their mouths. Unfortunately, there are always some people--usually those who can't sing, but don't know it--who make up for the sudden silence by redoubling their (off-key) efforts.

Rather than acknowledge having made a serious error of judgment, the authors of the revision tend to blame the people for not being able to implement the changes. "They should sing what is in the books" is merely an attempt to divert blame from where it belongs.

I have a question. I don't have a background in slavic-byzantine chant. As I said above I thought the music at the funeral (at least in how it sounded on the recording was very bad sounding), so I went over to the cantor's institute website and listened to some of the recordings there. That music didn't sound bad, though some of the voices didn't have the greatest technique (but that's not a problem with the music). Is the music on the website the new music? I assumed it would be. Also I wondered, if the Pittsburgh Metropolia is now stuck with the RDL, isn't there some way to effectively get the people up to speed?

Having been a musician in Latin Parishes, where the priests have worked to restore the level of sacred music, I must say getting the people on board can be a challenge. Have to teach them new music or in that case old music when they don't want to have to learn, can be a lot of fun or no fun at all. Many people in the latin parishes, seem not to care that their liturgies sound horrible or at least are too lazy to put in any energy to make them better. In the BC parishes, people seem to care the liturgy doesn't sound good, but are only willing to complain. Can't people put some of their energy into making the the RDLs as beautiful as they can be rather than just being like, "I don't know this, therefore I won't bother?" I understand that many people no longer read music and that can make it hard, but there are ways to teach the people if they are willing to learn.

Is there a way to elevate the level of music in our parishes? Is there a way to recapture the musical essence that many people feel was lost? Is there a way to help people take a more active part in making the music beautiful again now that it has changed? Is there a way to get more actual qualified musicians to lead the music and have enough presence to keep the people together, or to create a choir worthy of being followed by the people? What can we do with what we have now, while still working to see some sort of restoration?

Just some of my thoughts. I would love to hear what some people think.

What you have to understand is the problem is two-fold. First, the new translation is really quite bad--in some places more of a paraphrase than an accurate rendering of the Slavonic original. Much of the English is awkward and aesthetically unpleasing, aside from being inaccurate. Second, the new words have been set to music derived from a single early 20th-century compilation of the plainchant as sung in the cathedral of a particular diocese. This raises a host of difficulties.

First, in liturgical chant, the music is shaped by the language of the text. Thus, the Slavs had to substantially alter the melismatic Greek chants they received from Byzantium to deal with the multi-syllabic consonant clusters prevalent in Slavonic. When the music moves from Slavonic to English, one is confronted by the problem of the missing syllables.

Second, what is musically instinctive to a Slav is counterintuitive to someone raised in the tradition of Western music. Particular combinations of chords and grace notes that work in a Slavic culture are just weird in an English one. Or, as one of our great cantors of yesteryear like to say, "The curlicues don't work here".

Third, Prostopinje is an oral tradition. It is continually evolving because it is transmitted from one cantor to another and learned by ear. In turn, individual congregations learn from their cantors, and cantors alter the chants to fit the talents and preferences of their congregations, in an iterative loop. You cannot write down Prostopinje in any definitive form, because to do so kills the orality that makes it unique. Those who have heard choirs from Ukraine or Slovakia, either live or on CD, quickly realize that nobody--absolutely nobody--sings Prostopinje according to Boskaj, and certainly not the bastardized Boskaj of the RDL. In fact, what is being sung in Uzherod and Mukachevo is much closer to what was being sung in American parishes prior to the RDL than the music promulgated in the Teal Terror.

Finally, the integration of the new text into the new music was very badly done. A a rule of thumb, chant should match the cadences of normal speech. The assignment of words to notes in the Teal Terror is simply bizarre, not matching any cadences found in English, or even Pittsburgese. It is, to be blunt, unsingable garbage.

So, the final answer to your question is simple: even if the people wanted to make the RDL as beautiful as possible, they can't, because it is fatally flawed on several levels, to the point that it is just irredeemable. While pastors of Latin parishes struggle to raise the level of liturgical music in their parishes, the people of Ruthenian parishes struggle against their bishops--and often their pastors--to avoid the degradation of their living liturgical patrimony. We are losing what we had and replacing it with something much worse.