www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Quick reference, how revised is my liturgy?

I am attending a Ruthenian parish in the Phoenix Eparchy, and have - through this forum - become aware of the existence/history of the RDL.

I asked my priest about it, and maybe I didn't explain what I was asking correctly, but he didn't seem to even know what I was referring to, when I asked him his thoughts/if we were using it.

So I am wondering if there is a way for me to be able to "audit" our liturgy to see how revised it is. The problem is that, while I am generally familiar with the Divine Liturgy, I am having a hard time understanding exactly what many of the revisions are.

He prays in a low voice while the choir sings during the Anaphora, and we sing all of the "Grant it" petitions, as far as I can tell.

But the liturgy book we use is the 2006 version. It seems that we have adopted the "gender inclusive" language, although I only listened for it in the "for us and our salvation" part of the Creed, so perhaps it is just the Creed that is being read that way, I'll have to listen.

As far as the music goes, I have no basis of comparison because I did not attend before there would have been any changes, and my only other experience with the DL is a Greek Orthodox church.

If anybody could help me look for some key moments (or musical cues), I would really appreciate it. The Ruthenian DL is new to me, and I want to be able to have an informed opinion about these things.

Hopefully this isn't a redundant question, I've read most of the other threads and while many are detailed and have helped, they are a bit complex for a newbie like myself. Thanks again!

The basic comparison is between the 1964/65 liturgicon and the 2007 RDL liturgicon. The initial post in the thread Study Text of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has a link for downloading a pdf that has a side-by-side comparison of these two versions (first two columns).

Facsimile versions of the two liturgicons are available:

The 2007 RDL [patronagechurch.com]

The 1964/65 Liturgicon [patronagechurch.com]


The 1964/65 version is a complete and good (though needing some amending) translation of the "gold-standard," the text in the Ruthenian Recension. The Recension Liturgicon of the Chrysostom Liturgy, excerpted from the Služebnik [patronagechurch.com], is available as a 8.7MB pdf here [patronagechurch.com].

The 2007 RDL is an abridged version of the Recension.

I'd love to be able to see the PDF from the other thread, but I'm unable to download it. That's a great solution, though, once I can get my hands on it! It said I didn't have access, for whatever reason. I will have to follow it in church being as discreet as possible....

As for the music, it seems much more difficult to find pre- and post-revision versions online to hear.

jjp,

That may be a factor of your 'newness' - altho I wasn't aware that 'moderated' status prevented downloading. You should be able to access it w/in a few days.

Many years,

Neil

The 2006 (green)pew book is the "RDL." Look at page 3 for the promulgation of January 6, 2007.

Makes me want to be a fireman--the Farenheit 451 type.

Yep, that is the one. It'll be nice once I can download the side-by-side comparison... I will have to find an inconspicuous way to bring it with me....

EDIT: Yep, looks like I am not moderated and am able to download it now. This is fantastic... thanks!

The side-by-side comparison is amazing. Fantastic work.

I'm getting a much better idea of what's happening, now.

Does anybody know where comparisons can be found of the musical changes?

I don't know of any formal comparisons. The Revised music is just awful. The book is called the "TEAL TERROR" nationwide. The bishops hired a Roman Catholic musician to write the revised music.

Okay, The Metropolitan Cantor Institute of the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh has recordings online.

http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/RecordedMusic.html

Are these examples of the revised music?

I think I hold copyright on that name.



Actually, J. Michael Thompson was a former ACROD priest, but most of his professional work was done as director of the Schola Cantorum of St. Peter in the Loop (which, for some reason, they changed to St. Peter the Apostle) in Chicago. As might be expected, most of their work was done with Latin liturgical music, most of their singers were Latin Catholics, and this affects how they sing Prostopinje. My own opinion, from their recordings and hearing them sing the responses at a Divine Liturgy is too prettified, too dry, no soul. My private name for them is "The Ruthenian Madrigal Society".


Thompson did not write the lyrics, he merely set them to music. His two errors, from my perspective were (a) relying entirely on Boskaj, which was never universal in the Carpathians, and which is not really used there today; and (b) trying to create a 1-to-1 correlation between the words and the notes in the English and the Slavonic versions of the chants, without taking into consideration the normal cadences of English speech. This results in odd word breaks and stresses which make the music ugly and difficult to sing. I can also mention that some of his arrangements are just peculiar--I have no idea where he got them.

So, as much as I loathe the music in the RDL, and much as I really do not like Mr. Thompson (I found him arrogant, aloof and positively rude when I tried to ask him a question at a meeting just after I had joined the Church--a not uncommon occurrance, I later discovered), we should try to stick with what we know to be true and not exaggerate.

Yes - though note that they are intended as [i]instructional[i] recordings, and so do not include the harmonizations and "rough edges" one would find in actual parish singing - and of course, liturgical services recorded "out of season" or without a congregation never sound quite like they would "live."

In Christ,
Jeff

Stuart,

You should probably be aware, then, that Bokshai and Malinic was certainly NOT the sole source for Professor Thompson's settings, OR for the final work of the Music Commission. As the preface to the new service book states, the musical settings draw from the 1906 Prostopinije, but also from a wide variety of other oral and written sources.

These sources not only provided additional melodies (some of which may be the ones you refer to as being "just peculiar:); they also showed how the common prostopinije melodies were adapted to variant texts in those days when the full range of plainchant was in use in parishes on a regular basis.

I don't think you recognize the extent to which the prostopinije melodies CAN be adapted to a given text, with proper word accents and phrasing. Pace your statements in this forum, the new musical settings were never done by simply putting English syllables under Slavonic notes; the same methods of adaptation and centonization used in the past were applied to English, emphasizing the phrasing and the meaning of the text, while preserving the musical line and idiom.

You might want to take a look at the paper that Professor Thompson presented at the 2006 Uzhorod conference on prostopinije, which (among other things) provides some details about the musical settings in the 2006 service book:

The Use of the Boksaj Prostopinije n the United States [metropolitancantorinstitute.org]

As I have said earlier in private communications: I would be happy to discuss particular examples, and why they were set one way or another.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

You know Thompson's prostopinje paper doesn't really support what you said?

How maddening to not be able to hear the original anywhere. I'm convinced it's gotta be online... I'll keep looking.