Beautiful Holy Queen

[ASimpleSinner]

Sorry I don’t know the Hungarian word for “Vostochnik”. I would beg to dissagree with your definition of it. I always thought it meant somone who is an “Eastern Christian”, in soul, body and mind, that have a great affinity with other fellow “Eastern Christians” , even if they are “In Union with Constatntinople”.

U-C

BTW, where did I define vostochnik?

And what is the comment about Hungarian supposed to mean or imply? How is that relevent, and why would you need to know the term when talking with me?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

JOJ BOZE!!!

I agree with you there U-C

here we go again

Just curious Patchunky, you say you agree with U-C who said “that tells me a lot” after I answered the inappropriate and irrelevent question of how long I have been a Greek Catholic - 3 years away from two decades now…

If you agree “that tells me a lot” can you share with me what you feel that tells?

 

[Aramis]

For me, with almost 20 years since I first joined a BCC parish, and about 13-14 of those spent attending there, the new tones are nice.

The differences between old and new tones is minor for any given one, but they are Legion. (yes, intentional pun.)

But then again, when I was first learning to be a cantor, the then pastor provided me to study the old 1910-era tones written down.

While what I hear the head cantor do is the same as was done at St Stephen’s in Detroit, and at the BCC in Orlando… none of them matched what was supposedly the standard: the 1910-era written Prostopinije book.

So NEITHER is the “Authenitic” Ruthenian prostopinije. Nor will any notated work ever be “authentic”, since chant is the most changable part of the DL.

 

[Woodstock]

There has been no “ban” on singing para liturgical hymns by the bishops or anyone else.

I repeat my earlier post and its references for clarification of what has been banned and on whose authority:

Professor Thompson made it clear, on the bishop’s authority, that any parishes singing Eucharistic para-liturgical hymns are in violation of the promulgated revision. They may only be sung before or after the Liturgy and may not be included inside it. If sung before the Liturgy, they have to be followed with his setting as the last hymn before the Liturgy. They are especially forbidden during communion.

See here and here.

  	 				"If you're singing in English and it's congregational, sing what's in the [new Revised Divine Liturgy] book."

“Since the distribution of Communion is the very heart of the Eucharistic celebration, only liturgical texts may be sung during this time.”

 

[dvdjs]

I repeat my earlier post and its references for clarification of what has been banned and on whose authority:

Thanks, but no thanks; you obscure rather than clarify, Woodstock.

Professor Thompson made it clear, on the bishop’s authority, that any parishes singing Eucharistic para-liturgical hymns are in violation of the promulgated revision. They may only be sung before or after the Liturgy and may not be included inside it. If sung before the Liturgy, they have to be followed with his setting as the last hymn before the Liturgy. They are especially forbidden during communion.

One of the links you gave is a thread on the topic of alternative settings of the liturgical hymns. On that question, the council of hierarchs was silent. You quote an instruction of Bishop Andrew, that, with his retirement, is obsolete. The former head of the MCI made it plain that the idea was to take the present time to learn the common settings in the new book, but to expect a growing repetoire.

Please give time for people to thoroughly become acclamated to the tunes therein; I for one will be working for a “supplement” to the Faithful’s Book with other prostopinije melodies, but it’s not going to be for a while yet.

(chantermt from the first link).

None of this, has to do with paraliturgical hymns.

That topic is considered on the other link that you gave. And SVP is correct: there is no outright ban. There are, however, specific instructions as to what types of hymns are appropriate at what times. My sense is that we have had, and maintain much more latitude in the use of para-liturgical hymns in the liturgy than is customary within Orthodoxy. (For, example, there is an Indiana list post from Bishop Tikhon (OCADOW) criticizing in the strongest terms the use of Christmas carols of any provenance at the Nativity liturgy). I like our way - it is our way. But we should realize that our way is not especially Eastern. And we should realize that some guidelines on what is fitting at various times is not inappropriate, is not a ban on paraliturgical hymns, and does not represent a failure of our bishops to be in touch, or to protect our tradition.

While one of the guidelines is to use only liturgical and scriptural texts during communion, the idea of Woodstock that “Eucharistic para-liturgical hymns, … if sung before the Liturgy, … have to be followed with his setting as the last hymn before the Liturgy” is not what chantermt actually said on the given link"

1. In discussing hymns before the celebration of the Divine Liturgy (especially on the Lord’s Day and feasts), the Cantor’s Companion says:

“When selecting a hymn or hymns to be sung prior to the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, the text of the hymn should reflect the propers of the Divine Liturgy for the day, the season in which the DL is taking place, or the time of day at which the DL is being celebrated.” (CC p. 12) … I would like to nuance this a bit. If a parish is singing SEVERAL hymns before the DL, the one during the incensation (i.e., closest to the beginning of the DL) should be the most relevant to the issues listed in the Cantor’s Companion.

(chantermt on the second link.)
There is much more latitude here than Woodstock allows. In particular the restriction to “his setting as the last hymn before the Liturgy” just isn’t there.

The thread is worth reading also to realize that there is no conspiracy to discard our hymns. Indeed plans to publish a hymnal are noted in the thread.

 

[Woodstock]

Ung asked about Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns and I responded about Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns by quoting Prof. Thompson who quoted the promulgated revision which specifically bans the singing of any hymns not found in the RDL during Communion. That covers the entire Metropolia and is binding on all Ruthenian parishes, with those who are taking paraliturgical hymns at Communion disobeying the Council of Hierarchs. If, as many in this thread assert, a good number of parishes are still taking paraliturgical hymns at Communion despite their definite ban, then the hierarchs do indeed seem out of touch with their people. The practices of Orthodox jurisdictions has no bearing on the statements of fact I have made.

I ask you, if they wanted Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns to be preserved, why would they forbid them until an indeterminate future date in which a tentatively hoped for hymnal is put out?

 

[dvdjs]

I offer my most sincere welcome - even if long belated - to Aramis, A Simple Sinner, and MoreThan1Hat and any others who, later in life, have joined the BCC - to which I also belong. I am sorry that you will encounter some that seem to feel that pedigree rather than cogency is the important qualification for having a voice in matters.

And for he record, for those who do care: I say this as a cradle member of the BCC. And the son, grandson, …, of cradle members of the BCC - back to the Carpathians.

 

[dvdjs]

Ung asked about Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns

Yes but others, including the OP and SVP, to whom you responded, spoke more broadly. Even UC asked both about Marian and Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns.

I responded about Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns by quoting Prof. Thompson who quoted the promulgated revision which specifically bans the singing of any hymns not found in the RDL during Communion.

I think that is correct, in particular if one differentiates hymns and psalms. It seems clear enough that the intent is to restrict the texts used in the liturgy to liturgical hymns and scriptural hymns. This may just be provisional - while a hymnal is worked out - or it may in fact be related to a stricter adherence to Eastern traditions. I am not sure.

If, as many in this thread assert, a good number of parishes are still taking paraliturgical hymns at Communion despite their definite ban, then the hierarchs do indeed seem out of touch with their people.

The assertion of being out of touch does not follow. I hardly imagine that there is any need for ritual police to report from the parishes to alert Bishops to clamp down on violations. Where does this legalistic mindset come from? The Bishops may know more than you imply, and may react more economically than you think proper. Indeed they may be very much in touch on these matters.

I ask you, if they wanted Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns to be preserved, why would they forbid them until an indeterminate future date in which a tentatively hoped for hymnal is put out?

This question is muddled. I suggested above why para-liturgical hymns may be suppressed at communion. It may be like suppression of Stations of the Cross, Eucharistc Adoration, or other practices suppressed in the name of Eastern ritual purity. But the use of these paraliturgical hymns has not been forbidden! They may be used at other times and other places.

 

[Woodstock]

The assertion of being out of touch does not follow. I hardly imagine that there is any need for ritual police to report from the parishes to alert Bishops to clamp down on violations. Where does this legalistic mindset come from? The Bishops may know more than you imply, and may react more economically than you think proper. Indeed they may be very much in touch on these matters.

I don’t follow your assertions.

The Council of Hierarchs promulgated the revision which we both agree bans the use of paraliturgical hymns during Communion. Professor Thompson was unable to get any further clarification or direction and after months of seeking it offered only his hope that a hymnal would be published to reintroduce and preserve the paraliturgical hymns, but reasserted the ban on their usage especially during Communion, the most common place they are used. There seems to be a general consensus that a large segment of the Ruthenian parishes continue to sing the paraliturgical hymns in defiance of the council of hierarchs. The Council has not offered any motivation, guidance or direction despite a large segment of their parishes generally known to be in direct disobedience of their intent.

The hymns were not important enough to codify and promulgate. Banning them from Communion was. If the hierarchs are using the promulgation as a time to return people to their roots, why do they offer no direction or guidance to the people? If they were not, why did they place a large segment of their people in a position of direct defiance? Either way, it doesn’t make sense and appears to me to be leaving the people to their own devices, and thus to be out of touch with their wishes and/or needs.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t follow your assertions.

The Council of Hierarchs promulgated the revision which we both agree bans the use of paraliturgical hymns during Communion.

I think this is correct, depending on what you mean, precisely, by paraliturgical hymns. As already noted scriptural texts that are not necessarily “liturgical” are used.

Professor Thompson was unable to get any further clarification or direction and after months of seeking it offered only his hope that a hymnal would be published to reintroduce and preserve the paraliturgical hymns,

Incorrect. You are confusing your irrelevant first link - in which there was talk of a request for clarification on the use of alternate settings of the liturgical hymns - with the relevant second link in which there no discussion any effort or ability to get further clarification.

but reasserted the ban on their usage especially during Communion.

No. He reasserted a ban on their use during communion, but did not assert a ban at other times. So not “especially” but “only” during communion.

There seems to be a general consensus that a large segment of the Ruthenian parishes continue to sing the paraliturgical hymns in defiance of the council of hierarchs.

Really? We have reports here from a few parishes. Where does the idea of the large segment come from. Or the consensus?

The Council has not offered any motivation, guidance or direction despite a large segment of their parishes generally known to be in direct disobedience of their intent.

Seemed like this “generally known” idea was a surprise to UC at least. I don’t know of any support for the idea “the Council has not offered any motivation, guidance or direction”. Indeed the very ban, speaks directly to the opposite.

The hymns were not important enough to codify and promulgate.

The second thread that you linked to discussed some of the difficulty in codifying the hymns. One might say that there were additional difficulties as compared to scriptural or liturgical hymns. And even that they are of lesser importance than the liturgical material. I think the priority of Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins, Compline, over paraliturgical hymns is correct.

If the hierarchs are using the promulgation as a time to return people to their roots, why do they offer no direction or guidance to the people?

They did. Read the Cantors companion and the thread that you linked to.

If they were not, why did they place a large segment of their people in a position of direct defiance?

Again with the legalistic mindset.

Either way, it doesn’t make sense and appears to me to be leaving the people to their own devices, and thus to be out of touch with their wishes and/or needs.

Of course it makes sense: while there is an effort to adopt a more Eastern expression during communion, there is no reason to police parishes for strict enforcement, rather, latitude is given as people make the adjustment - some faster, some slower.

You seem to want to insist that BCC Bishops are out of touch. I am unconvinced by what you write. Your argument is too legalistic, and includes unsupported facts and factual errors. You are really stretching.

 

[kitkatty]

BTW, where did I define vostochnik?

And what is the comment about Hungarian supposed to mean or imply? How is that relevent, and why would you need to know the term when talking with me?

I will interject even though this comment was directed to Simple. Now I am curious,is this a slam against someones nationality? If so its pretty low to say the least. I am Hungarian, surely Ung cant be prejudiced? If I have misinterpreted anyones remarks I apologize.

 

[dvdjs]

I looked at the Cantor’s Companion to double check the guidelines for singing at communion.

Our churches have tended towards using the time during communion to sing “para-liturgical” hymns (i.e., those not a part of the official liturgical services of the Church). Such “para-liturgical” hymns are fitting before or after the Divine Liturgy or in a Pilgrimage setting, but not during Holy Communion. Since the distribution of Communion is the very heart of the Eucharistic celebration, only liturgical texts are to be sung during this time. Hymns which could be appropriate for this time are included near the end of the Divine Liturgies book. However, these hymns should only be sung after the Communion Hymn, itself, has been fully rendered,…

Once all of the verses of the Communion Hymn have been exhausted, the “Liturgical and Scriptural Hymns” given near the end of the Divine Liturgies book may be used as time allows. Very fitting are “Accept me today as a partaker” and the Polyeleos. Also fitting at a Divine Liturgy that is served in the evening is “Make us worthy.”

Cantors Companion pp20, 21.

 

[Woodstock]

And so Eucharistic paraliturgical hymns are banned, paraliturgical hymns are only to be taken outside the Liturgy, the only thing that may be taken is in the promulgated revision book. That’s what I’ve been saying all along!

Many posters came on to say that they weren’t banned because they are being used. One person even mentioned the Metropolitan using a paraliturgical hymn at communion. The Council of Hierarchs has made it clear that the revision book is the sole source that may be used for the Liturgy, as supported by my second link, and that all parishes were to be 100% switched over to it by last Theophany. They recognized that some transition would need to take place, and that is why the promulgation says it is “customary” to stand and not “STAND” for Communion, because they did not want to force people into disobedience. This was their own explanation for why they did not say to stand during all of Communion. It is clear that they expect 100% obedience and it is clear that there are some, possibly many, who are not in obedience. They did not leave any room for local transitions in the promulgation or the later clarifications when it came to the use of paraliturgical hymns, or anything else, during Liturgy, outside of the word and letter from the RDL pew book after Jan 6, 2007. If I am legalistic, then so are the hierarchs because I am merely repeating their own explanations.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I offer my most sincere welcome - even if long belated - to Aramis, A Simple Sinner, and MoreThan1Hat and any others who, later in life, have joined the BCC - to which I also belong. I am sorry that you will encounter some that seem to feel that pedigree rather than cogency is the important qualification for having a voice in matters.

Thank you and honestly it the rude comments don’t bother me. When people want to “go there” and ask me “well how long have you been a Greek Catholic?” my typical response is to ask them:

“Well how long did YOU go to Ss. Cyril & Methodius?”

I did my time on Perrysville Ave, did they?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I will interject even though this comment was directed to Simple. Now I am curious,is this a slam against someones nationality? If so its pretty low to say the least. I am Hungarian, surely Ung cant be prejudiced? If I have misinterpreted anyones remarks I apologize.

No, I think it was a reference to the fact that my family tie - my Greek Catholic Granny - is a Hungarian… And so, as is all too often the sad case, ethnicity was insinuated into the argument alongside demands I identify “how long I have been Greek Catholic.”

All too often folks want to pull out the pedigree chart and play the ethnic card to prove they are the “real” Greek Catholics, you are an amature, your opinion means less, and theirs means more.

Funny thing is, the “real ethnics” haven’t stepped up and gone to seminary in the same numbers as the “Nouveu-Greeks” have for at least two decades now. The year there were more than 12 of us at the seminary, not one of the US-born guys were “full blooded” and most of us were “Greek Catholic by choice” - Mexican, French, Costa Rican, German-Jewish, Irish, Armenian, Lithuanian, Mixy-mixes like myself and many others not so blessed to have grandparents come from the Carpathians.

But in some people’s books, that will always make us second class. Some people are still stuck in the 40s…

If all the people who weren’t nas left the priesthood today, there would be a whole lot of closed parishes tomorrow.

 

[MoreThan1Hat]

I offer my most sincere welcome - even if long belated - to Aramis, A Simple Sinner, and MoreThan1Hat and any others who, later in life, have joined the BCC - to which I also belong. I am sorry that you will encounter some that seem to feel that pedigree rather than cogency is the important qualification for having a voice in matters.

And for he record, for those who do care: I say this as a cradle member of the BCC. And the son, grandson, …, of cradle members of the BCC - back to the Carpathians.

Thank you dvdjs, for the welcome. Sometimes I do not get involved in discussions such as these because I do not know how things used to be, and I don’t want to step on anyones toes. Also I don’t want to be thought of as a Latin who came blustering into the Byzantines with the thought of making it over into a poor copy of the Latin churches, with icons. And I’m not just a Latin who is trying to learn something of the Eastern Churches…I consider myself now an Eastern Catholic and am happy to do things the way that is proper to the Eastern Church…There is much that confuses me about the way the RDL was promulgated, but until I can word my questions and concerns coherently I will be content to read, listen and learn.

 

[Ungcsertez]

No, I think it was a reference to the fact that my family tie - my Greek Catholic Granny - is a Hungarian… And so, as is all too often the sad case, ethnicity was insinuated into the argument alongside demands I identify “how long I have been Greek Catholic.”

All too often folks want to pull out the pedigree chart and play the ethnic card to prove they are the “real” Greek Catholics, you are an amature, your opinion means less, and theirs means more.

Funny thing is, the “real ethnics” haven’t stepped up and gone to seminary in the same numbers as the “Nouveu-Greeks” have for at least two decades now. The year there were more than 12 of us at the seminary, not one of the US-born guys were “full blooded” and most of us were “Greek Catholic by choice” - Mexican, French, Costa Rican, German-Jewish, Irish, Armenian, Lithuanian, Mixy-mixes like myself and many others not so blessed to have grandparents come from the Carpathians.

But in some people’s books, that will always make us second class. Some people are still stuck in the 40s…

If all the people who weren’t nas left the priesthood today, there would be a whole lot of closed parishes tomorrow.

…that should be nash…

U-C

 

[theistgal]

You’d be suprised how many of the "Vostochniks"over there are reading your posts here, including the Administrator. You’re definitely not gaining any friends!

U-C

I’m a former poster at Byzcath who fled after the acrimoniousness and pettiness on daily display there caused me to lose my faith completely, for a while, anyway.

After a few months spending some “quiet time” at an atheist discussion board , I finally regained my temporarily-lost faith, checked to see if Byzcath had improved in my absence (no!) and came here instead.

I remember you very well from Byzcath, Ung, and may I just say – A Simple Sinner, you have most certainly gained at least one friend - me.

 

[Diak]

You seem to want to insist that BCC Bishops are out of touch. I am unconvinced by what you write. Your argument is too legalistic, and includes unsupported facts and factual errors. You are really stretching.

I looked at the Cantor’s Companion to double check the guidelines for singing at communion.

Dr. Singel, is there a viable Ruthenian - BCC community in Bozeman that gives you the opportunity to actually use the Cantors Companion?
FDRLB

 

[kitkatty]

I’m a former poster at Byzcath who fled after the acrimoniousness and pettiness on daily display there caused me to lose my faith completely, for a while, anyway.

After a few months spending some “quiet time” at an atheist discussion board , I finally regained my temporarily-lost faith, checked to see if Byzcath had improved in my absence (no!) and came here instead.

I remember you very well from Byzcath, Ung, and may I just say – A Simple Sinner, you have most certainly gained at least one friend - me.

Count me as friend too and I cant believe that the majority of Greek Catholics arent glad to have you, all those who have decided to practice the Catholic faith in the Byzantine tradition, be it two or twenty years ago.

Ung,as for the forum at Byz Cath I dont think anyone is very surprised that those who read/participate on that forum also do on this one, there arent really too many other Eastern Catholic forums at least that I`m aware of . The forum on Byz Cath seems to me anyways to be a better one to read than participate. I do notice on that forum of the large number that are members it seems to me only a small portion post with any regularity and there are probably lots more who have never even posted at all.