|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
You know Thompson's prostopinje paper doesn't really support what you said? Stuart: Referring specifically to the new people's book for the Divine Liturgies, it says: The IEMC has completed the work of transcribing the prostopinije for the Divine Liturgies of our holy fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. This transcription used the melodies provided in Bokshaj as the basis of their work, while consulting the oral tradition as it has evolved in the United States in our church.
...
This book is a combination of Bokshaj with the oral tradition present in our church in the USA. For example, the melodies given for the responses of the Litany of Peace are not those given in Bokshaj, since the Bokshaj melodies have gone out of use in the United States. The melody for the third setting of the “Hymn of the Incarnation” is partially from Bokshaj, and partially a transcription of how that melody has been redacted in our American parishes. In other places, especially in regard to the shape of the melodies, the book produced by the IEMC follows Bokshaj in a more faithful manner. This is most evident in the Resurrection and Prokeimena tones (though in the Prokeimena/Alleluia melodies, there is still a reduction of the use of melisma vis-à-vis the Bokshaj corpus). Certain things have been completely restored (e.g., the znammenyj melodies for the Irmosi which take the place of “Dostojno jest’” at festive liturgies, and the provision of the text “We Praise You/Tebe pojem” with melodies from each of the settings of the Cherubikon provided in the collection). Some things have been suggested as pastoral modifications (the provision of a “simple form” of each festive Irmos in Irmos Tone 6, for example). It only cites a few specific examples. But it certainly does expand on the statement in the foreword of the people's book indicating that Bokshai was not the only basis for the settings (contrary to your statement above that Professor Thompson relied "entirely" on Bokshai), and shows not only that he was familiar with other sources, but that they significantly influenced the final musical settings. If you want me to talk about methods for adapting (rather than simply shortening) prostopinije melodies, that is another topic, and one outside the scope of this thread. Not that I wouldn't be happy to discuss it, but that is NOT why I pointed you to this article. I pointed to it because you claimed repeatedly that all the musical settings relied on a single written source. In Christ, Jeff Mierzejewski
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 41
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 41 |
Thompson insisted on 'returning' to Boksaj because he was not familiar with the oral tradition of how chant was sung in our parishes. He changed as much as he could so that the final product was his. There was nothing wrong with most of the music we were using. Even now most parishes at least in New Jersey sing the new words to mostly the old melodies. The Teal Terror is slowly being replaced with pamphlets that have only the words (Bishop Skurla knows and says nothing and probably will never say anything unless Bishop Pataki forces him to). Let's hope the next archbishop is not a Revisionist and lets the Ruthenian people have their own liturgy and music again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135 |
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! If the priest is praying the anaphora quietly he is not following the Father Petras mandate. Good for him. The rubrics of the Revised Divine Liturgy that differ from those of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy are increasingly being ignored. Please don't use the 2006 green book as an example of Byzantine Liturgy. It's not. If you want to count the petitions, the Litany between "It is truly proper" and the "Our Father" should have 5 "Lord, have mercies" and 6 "Grant it, O Lords". The Litany before the Creed has the same numbers but almost no one in the west takes it.
|
|
|
|
|
