Patient pastoral work in some parishes � including at least one parish with which Father Peter is quite familiar � has shown that it is entirely possible to make Vespers, or even the Vigil Service, significant and attractive to good numbers of the faithful without sugar-coating it by tacking on the Eucharist so as to �excuse� the faithful from coming to Church on Sunday.
Bless Fr Serge,
At some point, perhaps in a different thread, could you talk about this? I'm very interested how you get people to come to Vespers/Orthros.
Journal: �Pastoral Music� April/May. 2007 National Association of Pastoral Musicians � [book review]
Books (page 43)
The Divine Liturgies
The Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great: Responses and Hymns Set to Carpathian Plainchant. 467+ pages, hardcover. ISBN 0-9774069-3-8. Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church, 2006. Available from Byzantine Seminary Press. $15.00.
The Byzantine Catholic Church of the USA ("Pittsburgh Metropolia") has taken an epochal step toward the renewal and adaptation of its liturgical tradition in America. In January 2007, its Council of Hierarchs (the near-equivalent of a synod) published The Divine Liturgies. This pew book is accompanied by a seven-CD instructional recording by the renowned Schola Cantorum of St. Peter the Apostle, directed by its founder, J. Michael Thompson, who is also director of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute of Saints Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary in Pittsburgh. Years in the making, this book is epochal because its translation of the Chrysostom and Basil formularies and propers corrects many of the mistakes (both semantic and stylistic) found in the Byzantine Catholic Church's first pew book (1978). Equally-if not more important � it "rationalizes" the musical setting. As pioneers in the use of English in Catholic liturgy, the Byzantine Catholics were limited by the scholarly resources available in the 1960s and '70s when they produced their first official texts. To the great credit of the Council of Hierarchs, they were willing to revisit their Church's work in spite of the fact that a generation of faithful has already memorized the (flawed) text. The hierarchs also realized that the previous setting of Carpathian plainchant ("prostopinije") sometimes displayed a collision of musical and textual accentuation. In other words, the cadences of the English translation frequently conflicted with the cadences of the plainchant. This is a common occurrence when those who know a chant in one language (e.g., Slavonic) are suddenly required to transpose that chant's melody and rhythm to a text for which that melody and rhythm were never intended. Musically, the equivalent is "broken English." To the extent possible, the new pew book corrects this flaw. There remain instances when this has not proved possible be-cause of the nature of the chant and the requirements of accuracy and consistency in translation. However, the pew book provides so many options for the ordinary of the Divine Liturgy that one need not use the more cumbersome settings. A final reason why the new book is epochal is that its production was thoroughly collaborative and official. In other words, this was the effort of a Church guided by its chief shepherds. Anyone familiar with Eastern Christianity realizes how significant this is. Thousands of resources for Eastern Christian worship exist in English, but only a handful express the consensus of a Church's leadership, thus facilitating liturgical unity. Of course, as might be expected, the jettisoning of the previous translation and pew book has spawned a "cyber revolution," but as anyone with experience in "liturgical transition" knows, twelve to eighteen months usually suffices for congregations to adapt to the textual and musical changes, and once they have done so they find it hard to believe that they ever used the previous version. The fact that the Council of Hierarchs stands unanimously behind this change guarantees that the transition will be crowned with success (cyber revolutions notwithstanding). Turning to the actual contents of the pew book, one finds that in addition to music for the congregation for the Chrysostom and Basil formularies, the book also includes several prayers of preparation for Holy Communion as well as the vesperal ordinary for Saturday vigil liturgies. This is followed by all of the propers generally needed for parish worship as well as the short memorial service (panachida) and general moleben ("rogation" service) frequently appended to Eucharistic liturgies. The pew book concludes with eight hymns for use before and after the liturgy or du ring Communion and a helpful glossary of liturgical terms. The absence of the presidential prayers from the pew book is presumably intended to compel the congregation to immerse itself in the liturgy rather than in the book. This is certainly a bold corrective to the Western tendency to make every single word of the service available in print. Of course, this will require that clergy truly "inhabit the words," that is, prayerfully articulate every phrase, so that no one needs to see what the priest or deacon is reading. The inclusion of almost every text needed for the celebration of vespers and Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening is certainly a welcome addition and will serve as an example for other Catholics of the Byzantine tradition (e.g., Ukrainian Catholics). Tragically, when the latter introduced Sunday vigil "Masses" (in an understandable attempt to curb the exodus to Roman Rite parishes), they did so in a pseudomorphic fashion, entirely omit-ting the Sunday "first vespers." The new? Byzantine Catholic pew book codifies the creative solution devised by the Pittsburgh Metropolia several decades ago (that is, the practice of joining Saturday evening vespers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist) and should help revive familiarity with vespers. As regards the propers, the reconciliation of text and music is a major achievement (though, again, not without its difficulties), and the simultaneous publication of the seven CDs will greatly facilitate mastery of these chants. Every troparion, kontakion, prokeimenon, irmos, and communion verse in the entire book is sung on the CDs. Rarely has a prospective cantor been aided so comprehensively in his or her desire to learn a chant tradition. In the remaining section of the book, the only surprise is that the editors have not included more "devotional hymns," that is, the chorales that constitute part of the unique Ruthenian-Byzantine patrimony. Not being a member of any of the committees that worked on the pew book, and not being privy to their guiding principles, this reviewer can only guess that the publishers wanted to revive the use of scriptural communion verses and encourage the use of matins chants before the Divine Liturgy. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Pittsburgh Metropolia will publish an entirely separate hymnal with English renderings of the aforementioned chorales. This would be a welcome initiative, though at the present time no more than thirty or forty such chorales exist in serviceable translations. Before concluding, permit me a few remarks from the perspective of those for whom the Carpathian chant tradition is a second (or third) "musical language" or one rarely heard at all. There is no doubt that certain aspects of this tradition are an "acquired taste." And it is certainly lamentable that today it is increasingly difficult to find a congregation that sings with the dynamis heard in days past and so central to the chant's genius. This reviewer will never forget the impressions from his teen years when he saw "icons rattle" as the Holy Spirit turned the lungs of 400 or more Carpatho-Rusyns into billows for God's mighty word. Thus, "acquiring" this "taste" is not as easy as it once was. Nonetheless, codifying this chant is an appropriate expression of hope for its revival, especially as the Holy Spirit is no less alive today than two generations ago. This pew book should certainly help the Spirit's servants fill their lungs again with sacred breath. Another remark pertains to the absence of harmonization, both in the pew book and the CDs. This seems to mitigate the potential of these chants, especially as some congregations do add a second or third voice to the melody. The CDs, in particular, can sound tedious after a while. But two observations are in order. First, the pew book and CDs are a foundational resource: They are intended to codify the most basic component of the Carpathian chant tradition for easy mastery. Second, nothing precludes�in fact one expects� subsequent publications and recordings that will showcase the harmonic potential of these chants. J. Michael Thompson has already produced other recordings of harmonized Carpathian chants on The Liturgical Press label, and this reviewer looks forward to a seven-CD set of recordings of similarly arranged chants based on the new pew book. To achieve this, may he and all of those involved in producing these epochal resources enjoy mnohaya, mnohaya lita (ad multos, multos annos). Peter Galadza
St. Josaphat's cathedral doesn't take the whole liturgy but they certainly don't follow the RDL. Is it only the UGCC in Canada that mandated the RDL? Ugh.
Well, the DL at St. Josaphat would have been great if they didn't RECITE half of it like they do during the English-language DLs. That's why the English language DLs are usually ghost towns (or at least judging from the couple of times I attended there in the last few months). I'm sure their DLs are more traditional and more sung when they have their choir at the 11 AM DL, possibly, but I usually don't attend DLs that I'd have trouble picking up the language at. That's one reason why I still favor the Ruthenian Church is because they keep to tradition and sing most of the DL, and they use incense. Although I have heard a Ruthenian Church in St. Mary Magdalene in Fairview Park have a choir that responds in Galician (UGCC) Chant, as found here:
OK. He doesn't like it enough to use it. That says something. Good for him. His church is probably not empty.
He is bound to the UGCC Synodal promulgated text so he couldn't use it even if he wanted to. On the other hand there a plenty of Ruthenian parishes using the RDL that aren't anywhere near empty, quite full in fact, and there are parishes still using the Levkulic books some full, some empty.
OK. He doesn't like it enough to use it. That says something. Good for him. His church is probably not empty.
My parish uses the RDL and is full every Sunday. Not just full but growing with lots of young families.
Well, the parishes closer to the Cathedral and in the urban areas might have older and fewer people, but in the smaller suburbs, they are like how Nelson Chase describes. It all depends on the neighborhood demographics, and how things are in those areas.
OK. He doesn't like it enough to use it. That says something. Good for him. His church is probably not empty.
My parish uses the RDL and is full every Sunday. Not just full but growing with lots of young families.
It's always encouraging to hear good news about our Church. Anecdotal evidence, however, abounds and though usually correct in its domain, can also lead to contradictions as in comparing the two examples above.
So I would be interested -- in general of the BCC faithful -- in the answer to some basic questions:
1. Have you ever experienced the "full" liturgy celebrated according to the Ruthenian Recension as give in the Slavonic typical edition on equivalent translation as the 1965 English Liturgicon? If not, would that be desirable?
2. Should we, as a Church, be celebrating according to this complete form, at least occasionally, or at least that it be available and permitted in English?
3. Is this complete form not suitable for the present condition of our Church?
4. Is the abridged form that is the RDL better suited for the present needs of the Church?
5. Should we adhere to the text of our Recension as the standard for our liturgical expression as much as possible?
6. Do we have the best translation in English of the Recension text?
7. Does/should the person in the pew even care about the above questions?
1. Yes, but only because the Administrator compiled a full translation and arranged for it to be celebrated in the Ruthenian chapel of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was glorious.
2. We should always be striving to celebrate the Liturgy as fully and perfectly as possible, according to the normative texts.
3. I cannot see why not--other than the Metropolia paid for all those books.
4. No, because it suffers from fatal flaws.
5. Yes, why should it not be?
6. The 1965 Book was a good start. The Administrator's study edition works from there and improves upon it.
7. Apparently so, since they vote with their feet.
My opinion is of no consequence; I concelebrate as my bishop instructs.
7. Do the people care? 90% will abide by what the pastor decides is the norm. The other 10% will generally find something to grumble about regardless.
One questionable item with regard to the Ruthenian Recension is the instruction of the deacon for the catechumens to leave before the Anaphora. This would have to include unbaptized infants an non-Catholic spouses, family and visitors. This could prove to be a scandal if not instructed properly.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.