Eastern Catholics, what is your opinion on this? Lack of knowledge of ignorance?

[ByzCathCantor]

Unfortunately, that was (is) true to an extent. However, in all fairness, he was not a commission of one, and critique of the musical settings (as well as the seemingly strict adherence to Bokshaj) could have been effectively challenged by many involved in the project.

P.S. Involvement of our Orthodox brothers and sisters with whom we share the Rusyn Prostopinije tradition (“peer review”, if you will) could have helped as well, both with the chant and in taking bigger and better strides toward unity.

 

[dvdjs]

Summing up as best I can, on major points of contention, concerns with the promulgated revision included:

Issues with translation, which many felt were not consistent with the reference texts and introduced potential differences in understanding from that which was generally accepted based on these reference Scriptural texts.

I think you give too much credit to the criticism. There was a great deal of nitpicking about style and tone, dressed up with sweeping charges about grave significance. For the most part the arguments were weak and backed by little or no scholarly discussion. There is always a way, if you are clever enough and have the inclination, to read heresy into some phrase or another. Supposedly, de gustibus non est disputandum, but in fact that is really what we dispute.

Introduction of the use of gender inclusive language (which some say even raised eyebrows in Rome

On the contrary, the clear statement from at least one member of the liturgical commission was that the reviewer of the text at Congregation of Oriental churches specifically asked for the use of horizontal inclusive language - as he himself had used in his own translation, and had publicly advocated in other venues I believe that some people see important theological concerns, but again compelling scholarly arguments were notably lacking. And the usages in the RDL are very modest - even as critics like to conflate them with egregious vertical usages. Some people seem sadly to be playing out their conservative politics in church affairs. This political agenda has been revealed by the words used in criticizing the inclusive language (neutered, castrated, emasculated, etc.) or the approval of departures from literal translations to incorporate, masculine pronouns, ad hoc. It’s a shame really: we have women in the nave, mixed with men, singing, and reading. These are, IMO, mush more significant changes, and many are very recent ones.

Finally, I think that you left out one other major area of concern. While the RDL restores a number of elements of the liturgy that have fallen into disuse - at least in the parochial setting - many people felt that this step forward was insufficient. Abbreviations typical of ACROD are still in use, but many curiously wanted more of a mimicry of Russian practice.

I do want to agree with your point on restoration of services. Asides from the universal restoration of the Presanctified liturgy, we have more vespers and matins now that in the past 50 years in the US.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think you give too much credit to the criticism.

Don’t get me wrong my friend, I’m not advocating any positions - simply reinterating the main concerns that have been circulated by many - right, wrong or indifferent - in response to the follow-up question.

Your responses indicate your familiarity with these issues, so I think I did relay faithfully (in summary) in my earlier post. That said, I benefitted from reading your comments and gleaning your perspective - many thanks!

Truthfully I could not possibly offer any intelligently supported opinion on either of the first two points mentioned - way beyond me. Besides, my vocation in our church is that of cantor - I care first and foremost about preserving our beautiful chant tradition. That said, regarding the musical settings, it was a challenge for me to adjust. I was trained by a very well respected cantor, and it took me awhile to master some of the new settings. I know much has been said on this topic, as well, but my approach has been to see the good in what has been done (a comprehensive work of common reference for the entire Metropolia), and to do the best I can with it for the good of our parish faithful.

Peace!

 

[dvdjs]

I think that there was some personal animosity toward J. Michael Thompson as well, although I was fond of him.

I take great, great delight in agreeing with Hesychios.

As far as the new musical settings go: there are details here and there that I would change - and do when I lead them. But the criticisms of the opponents fall pretty much into three categories: poor musicianship (not understanding accents, figures like appogiatura, in defining the melodic line); abject musical illiteracy (those who oddly cannot hear the greater congruence of the “new” music with the Old Slavonic forms); gross chauvinism (Thompson was not nash; his recordings don’t have the old Carpathian sonority etc.).

The objection of efforts to have some standards turns history on its head. We established cantors schools and music publications as soon as we developed a degree of adult literacy.

 

[dvdjs]

Besides, my vocation in our church is that of cantor - I care first and foremost about preserving our beautiful chant tradition. That said, regarding the musical settings, it was a challenge for me to adjust. I was trained by a very well respected cantor, and it took me awhile to master some of the new settings. I know much has been said on this topic, as well, but my approach has been to see the good in what has been done (a comprehensive work of common reference for the entire Metropolia), and to do the best I can with it for the good of our parish faithful.

I agree with what you post here in every detail.

One aspect of the new music that made implementation difficult was that there were many little changes - very tricky to make for those who do not read well, and very hard to master without a lot of repetition. Another was that some bad habits that became enshrined in the “new” music of the 60’s and 70’s was restored to a practice similar to the Slavonic. These changes led to some shifts of the sense of the musical line - accent notes versus figures. (Two big examples: antiphons and podoben: the Nobel Joseph). The overall effect was that the new music sounded peculiar until it was mastered. But it has far greater fidelity to the Slavonic.

And Peace to you!