U
- Status
T
theistgal
Guest
So Byzantine Catholics are forbidden to express their opinions. OK, got it - thanks for clarifying.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Dizzying thread. 
Woodstock has maintained (with no evidence) that:
Woodstock writes:
Also, there has been a conflation of liturgical hymns, paraliturgical hymns, traditional hymns, and Eucharistic Hymns. This conflation makes questions about what is encouraged and what is banned more complicated than necessary.
OK.
From the Cantor’s Companion:
“The custom of singing hymns before and after the Divine Liturgy is greatly beloved by the faithful of the Byzantine Catholic Church, and is encouraged.” CC p12.
"After the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy and the singing of “Many years” or “Eternal memory”, as appropriate, additional hymns may be sung according to local custom. The same guidelines should be used as before the Divine Liturgy."CC p21.
“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.” CC p.20.
**Hymns are encouraged. ** Paraliturgical hymns are among the hymns encouraged before and after the liturgy. They are considered not appropriate, according to the CC, during the liturgy, at communion. Cantors are instructed not to use them, but only liturgical/scriptural hymns, at communion.
But wait: the MCI website has, on its “spiritual songs” page, under the major heading para-liturgical hymns:
What is clear, then, is that cantors are being encouraged to use liturgical and scriptural hymns at communion, and these only after the full communion hymn. Metropolitan Basil’s own actions, however, clarify that, whatever the wording in the CC, this is a goal to be reached economically. Woodstock appears to want greater strictness and less economy, but hasn’t provided any motivation or reasons why.
Finally, the flame that got this all rolling: UC’s lament that:
Of these, the numbers that specifically refer to partaking of communion - and thus might seem out of place before or after the liturgy - amount to three: “Let me this day…” (grey green, only); “I do believe” (all books); "Give me Your Body (all books).
The first of these is in the RDL (“Accept me today”); the latter two could be used *even under the strict application of the CC guidelines *if the texts were reworked to parallel the Prayer before Communion, and the Communion Hymn “Receive the Body”, respectively. All of the others are more general and could easily continue to be used at other times, e.g., before or after the Divine Liturgy, where paraliturgical hymns are encouraged. So even in strict case, the threat of our tradition of hymn singing is far more imagined than real.
And btw, none of these pewbooks contains “Radusja Carice”.
This all strikes me as just crying wolf. But I am glad to see that UC feels free to cry and is not forbidden from expressing his opinions.
Woodstock has maintained (with no evidence) that:
Then UC writes to Woodstock:
Woodstock writes:
But also writes:
Also, there has been a conflation of liturgical hymns, paraliturgical hymns, traditional hymns, and Eucharistic Hymns. This conflation makes questions about what is encouraged and what is banned more complicated than necessary.
OK.
From the Cantor’s Companion:
“The custom of singing hymns before and after the Divine Liturgy is greatly beloved by the faithful of the Byzantine Catholic Church, and is encouraged.” CC p12.
"After the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy and the singing of “Many years” or “Eternal memory”, as appropriate, additional hymns may be sung according to local custom. The same guidelines should be used as before the Divine Liturgy."CC p21.
“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.” CC p.20.
**Hymns are encouraged. ** Paraliturgical hymns are among the hymns encouraged before and after the liturgy. They are considered not appropriate, according to the CC, during the liturgy, at communion. Cantors are instructed not to use them, but only liturgical/scriptural hymns, at communion.
But wait: the MCI website has, on its “spiritual songs” page, under the major heading para-liturgical hymns:
So, the MCI website does not go as far as the CC in instructing cantors not to use paralitugical hymns during communion - notwithstanding Woodstock’s remarks to the contrary. Woodstock’s notion that the “pew book”, “the Council of Hierarch’s promulgation and the bishop’s spoken direction to cantors all clearly state this” [prohibition] is also a stretch.
What is clear, then, is that cantors are being encouraged to use liturgical and scriptural hymns at communion, and these only after the full communion hymn. Metropolitan Basil’s own actions, however, clarify that, whatever the wording in the CC, this is a goal to be reached economically. Woodstock appears to want greater strictness and less economy, but hasn’t provided any motivation or reasons why.
Finally, the flame that got this all rolling: UC’s lament that:
- an idea surmised from the fact that “traditional Rusyn-Slavonic para-liturgical hymns, like " Radusja Carice”, are no longer found in the newly-revised Divine Liturgy pewbook."
Of these, the numbers that specifically refer to partaking of communion - and thus might seem out of place before or after the liturgy - amount to three: “Let me this day…” (grey green, only); “I do believe” (all books); "Give me Your Body (all books).
The first of these is in the RDL (“Accept me today”); the latter two could be used *even under the strict application of the CC guidelines *if the texts were reworked to parallel the Prayer before Communion, and the Communion Hymn “Receive the Body”, respectively. All of the others are more general and could easily continue to be used at other times, e.g., before or after the Divine Liturgy, where paraliturgical hymns are encouraged. So even in strict case, the threat of our tradition of hymn singing is far more imagined than real.
And btw, none of these pewbooks contains “Radusja Carice”.
This all strikes me as just crying wolf. But I am glad to see that UC feels free to cry and is not forbidden from expressing his opinions.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
I personally see no harm in singing the Eucharistic para-liturgical hymns during the distribution of the Eucharist. Until such a time our churches become totally Eastern and Orthodox in look, I don’t think we become less “Eastern” by singing Eucharistic para-liturgical hymns.Dizzying thread.
Woodstock has maintained (with no evidence) that:
Then UC writes to Woodstock:
Woodstock writes:
But also writes:
Also, there has been a conflation of liturgical hymns, paraliturgical hymns, traditional hymns, and Eucharistic Hymns. This conflation makes questions about what is encouraged and what is banned more complicated than necessary.
OK.
From the Cantor’s Companion:
“The custom of singing hymns before and after the Divine Liturgy is greatly beloved by the faithful of the Byzantine Catholic Church, and is encouraged.” CC p12.
"After the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy and the singing of “Many years” or “Eternal memory”, as appropriate, additional hymns may be sung according to local custom. The same guidelines should be used as before the Divine Liturgy."CC p21.
“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.” CC p.20.
Hymns are encouraged. Paraliturgical hymns are among the hymns encouraged before and after the liturgy. They are considered not appropriate, according to the CC, during the liturgy, at communion. Cantors are instructed not to use them, but only liturgical/scriptural hymns, at communion.
But wait: the MCI website has, on its “spiritual songs” page, under the major heading para-liturgical hymns:
So, the MCI website does not go as far as the CC in instructing cantors not to use paralitugical hymns during communion - notwithstanding Woodstock’s remarks to the contrary. Woodstock’s notion that the “pew book”, “the Council of Hierarch’s promulgation and the bishop’s spoken direction to cantors all clearly state this” [prohibition] is also a stretch.
What is clear, then, is that cantors are being encouraged to use liturgical and scriptural hymns at communion, and these only after the full communion hymn. Metropolitan Basil’s own actions, however, clarify that, whatever the wording in the CC, this is a goal to be reached economically. Woodstock appears to want greater strictness and less economy, but hasn’t provided any motivation or reasons why.
Finally, the flame that got this all rolling: UC’s lament that:
In the pewbooks that I’ve looked over, only those without music for the hymns have a large number of hymns included. The number of hymns marked for use at the Communion ranges from 5-12 in the (Grey ('65), Green ('65), Black ('70), and Blue ('78) books. By comparison, the RDL book ('07) has 10 hymns listed as appropriate for Communion (following the CC guidelines).
- an idea surmised from the fact that “traditional Rusyn-Slavonic para-liturgical hymns, like " Radusja Carice”, are no longer found in the newly-revised Divine Liturgy pewbook."
Of these, the numbers that specifically refer to partaking of communion - and thus might seem out of place before or after the liturgy - amount to three: “Let me this day…” (grey green, only); “I do believe” (all books); "Give me Your Body (all books).
The first of these is in the RDL (“Accept me today”); the latter two could be used *even under the strict application of the CC guidelines *if the texts were reworked to parallel the Prayer before Communion, and the Communion Hymn “Receive the Body”, respectively. All of the others are more general and could easily continue to be used at other times, e.g., before or after the Divine Liturgy, where paraliturgical hymns are encouraged. So even in strict case, the threat of our tradition of hymn singing is far more imagined than real.
And btw, none of these pewbooks contains “Radusja Carice”.
This all strikes me as just crying wolf. But I am glad to see that UC feels free to cry and is not forbidden from expressing his opinions.
U-C
T
theistgal
Guest
I think it’s time for us to cry “Ung-cle” on this thread.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
… you meaning crying “ujko”!I think it’s time for us to cry “Ung-cle” on this thread.
U-C
T
theistgal
Guest
D
dvdjs
Guest
I agree, but also feel that there should be some limits. For example, I am not sure that we should include “O Lord I am not worthy”, or Jesus, my Lord", in our Eucharistic Hymnal
(but I admit that I have done both hymns). There are no shortage of well-known hymns, that arguably do not belong.I can understand the impetus behind adherence to liturgical or scriptural texts as a means to ensuring a proper “tone”. And as I detailed above, this adherence is easy to live with - especially because of the economy with which it is apparently being implemented. It cannot reasonably be represented as a threat to our tradition of hymn-singing, or as evidence of hostility to that tradition by anyone. And I am happy to see you drop this attitude in your latest post.
I, personally, see no harm in maintaining any number of practices that are clearly traditional to us, but which now seem to be being abandoned because of some, often vague sense of being more authentically Eastern.
Singing para-liturgical Communion hymns probably does in fact make us less Eastern - at least as measured, in the usual way, by some carefully selected barometer. But, you will not find me among those that care about such metrics…And you will thus certainly not find me among those setting out to threaten our tradition of hymn singing. The point to be made, however, is that such people probably do not, in reality, exist.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
D.,I agree, but also feel that there should be some limits. For example, I am not sure that we should include “O Lord I am not worthy”, or Jesus, my Lord", in our Eucharistic Hymnal
.
Those are a real blast from the past. My father still sings those hymns around the house, a snapshot of the '60’s and '70’s for sure! I was just refering to the Rusyn-Slavonic ones, they are more indigenous to our Rencension.
Do you still remember “O Sacred Heart Surrounded” lenten hymn?
Ung
S
SVP
Guest
I believe that’s “O Sacred Head Surrounded” – lyrics something like:
O sacred head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding head, so wounded,
reviled and put to scorn!
Our sins have marred the glory
of thy most holy face,
yet angel hosts adore thee
and tremble as they gaze
(here’s a link to the full lyrics and sound:
oremus.org/hymnal/o/o541.html)
A beautiful hymn indeed, though definitely not Eastern.
T
theistgal
Guest
I believe that’s “O Sacred Head Surrounded” – lyrics something like:
O sacred head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding head, so wounded,
reviled and put to scorn!
Our sins have marred the glory
of thy most holy face,
yet angel hosts adore thee
and tremble as they gaze
(here’s a link to the full lyrics and sound:
oremus.org/hymnal/o/o541.html)
A beautiful hymn indeed (though definitely not Eastern
).
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
The local Roman Catholic weekly (used to be about 15 minutes) tv program used it as their fade in and fade out theme during Lent. Very haunting and monastic, especially when sung “acapella”I believe that’s “O Sacred Head Surrounded” – lyrics something like:
O sacred head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding head, so wounded,
reviled and put to scorn!
Our sins have marred the glory
of thy most holy face,
yet angel hosts adore thee
and tremble as they gaze
(here’s a link to the full lyrics and sound:
oremus.org/hymnal/o/o541.html)
A beautiful hymn indeed (though definitely not Eastern
Ung
S
SVP
Guest
But did your parish(s) sing it as a communion hymn during communion?
That hymn is more suited to the Stations of the cross, or other Lenten devotion rather than during communion I would think, since the point of this thread has become the question of what do we sing at communion if not para-liturgical hymns?
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
…no, not sung as Communion hymn. It just popped in my mind when those other Latin hymns were mentioned. Definitely sung before or after Lenten liturgy or Stations of the Cross.But did your parish(s) sing it as a communion hymn during communion?
That hymn is more suited to the Stations of the cross, or other Lenten devotion rather than during communion I would think, since the point of this thread has become the question of what do we sing at communion if not para-liturgical hymns?
Ung
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually from the 50’s at least. I have the choral settings of these hymns that I found among my Dad’s old choir music, from the time that Msgr. Hrebin directed the choir. Yes, I agree that we should stick our indigenous hymns. Consider, however, the quality of the English of hymns like “Jesus, my Lord” or “O Lord I am not worthy” against the English versions of our Rusyn-Slavonic hymns. I think we ought to take another stab at translations.
D
Diak
Guest
There is, as has been pointed out well here, a very rich hymnographic tradition of Communion hymns amongst the Rusyns as well as the Kyivan Church. In the UGCC in my experience the most popular Communion hymn remains “Viruyu Hospodi” followed by “Tilo Christove”.
I am not so sure the Communion hymn is a “latinization” at all from the perspective of particular Slavic liturgical development. From a purely Greek liturgical yardstick which relies on psalmody at Communion rather than hymns, it may appear so.
The Old Ritualists only sing the Communion Verse for the communion of the clergy. They then have beautiful settings of “Tilo Christove” which are exclusively sung during Communion of the faithful. This is certainly a hymn and not psalmody, and no one will sensibly claim the Old Ritualists to be latinized. Communion hymns have been common certainly since Mohyla’s time (also pre-Nikonian) in the Kyivan Church.
FDRLB
I am not so sure the Communion hymn is a “latinization” at all from the perspective of particular Slavic liturgical development. From a purely Greek liturgical yardstick which relies on psalmody at Communion rather than hymns, it may appear so.
The Old Ritualists only sing the Communion Verse for the communion of the clergy. They then have beautiful settings of “Tilo Christove” which are exclusively sung during Communion of the faithful. This is certainly a hymn and not psalmody, and no one will sensibly claim the Old Ritualists to be latinized. Communion hymns have been common certainly since Mohyla’s time (also pre-Nikonian) in the Kyivan Church.
FDRLB
A
Aramis
Guest
Having heard communion hymns (rather than psalmodies) used for the layity’s communion at Russian Orthodox services, and not, to my knowledge, having been to an old believer parish…
I tend to agree, it’s not a latinization, but a slavic tradition.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Again we should avoid conflating, liturgical communion hymns (even if non-scriptural) with paraliturgical communion hymns. The issue that had been being discussed here was the use of non-scriptural, paraliturgical hymns. “Tilo Christove”, at least in a number of settings, is a liturgical communion hymn. (See, e.g., page 87 of the Cantor’s companion.) The use of this hymn is, of course, not only allowed, but it is prescribed in the RDL.
The replacement of psalms by composed hymns in the liturgy has been happening for nearly two millenia. I think that the idea of Latinization on this thread pertains to the use of unprescribed, non-scriptural paraliturgical hymns at communion.
D
Diak
Guest
Actually the opening post was a simple question if anyone was familiar with a particular hymn - everything else other than a direct response to the OP would appear to be conflating. But it’s been a good discussion, conflated or not. Thanks especially to Keith.
FDRLB
FDRLB
- Status