Ruthenian Music Revisions

[dvdjs]

Please do not attribute such “implications” to me. I never said the RDL carried “grave spiritual danger”. I gave my opinion. I do not like the music. But the gender-inclusive language is a real issue for me. But again, I did not say it was a “grave serious danger”. I did say that I had many other reasons for leaving communion with Rome.

Fine. Your dislike of the music was not a not a serious matter as to your leaving the Catholic church. It was only serious enough that you felt the need to share the barb, unaccompanied by any substantive comment at all, with us. Think about the charity of that, as you bemoan the what you perceive as a lack of charity to you.

 

[Mickey]

It was only serious enough that you felt the need to share the barb, unaccompanied by any substantive comment at all, with us. Think about the charity of that, as you bemoan the what you perceive as a lack of charity to you.

I bemoan nothing my friend. If you would visit the Ruthenian Catholic forum, you would see that the opinion held by myself, is shared by many. There is no lack of charity involved. There are no barbs being thrown. Many do not like the new music–and even more are very upset about the gender-neutral language.

Nothing less–nothing more.

 

[Patchunky]

What was REALLY up-lifting was the Theophany hymn that was supposed to be sung this past Sunday.

It was that “ancient” Ruthenian hymn O COME ALL YE FAITHFUL

O Come all ye Faithful, joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, o come ye, to the River Jordan…

Oh, PUHLEEEEZZZZEEEEE…

Give me a break…

So much for the musical prodigy…

I’d REALLY like to see the “original” Ruthenian version of that from the 1880’s…

 

[dvdjs]

… I will not discuss these reasons because I am tired of the arguments and lack of charity. Please leave me in peace.

I bemoan nothing my friend

I suspect that it will be difficult to coherent conversation.

At any rate, I am unfamiliar with a Ruthenian Catholic forum; if you mean the forum at byzcath, however, I am very familiar with it. I am aware of the criticisms given there of the of the music from the MCI. I think that there are, with very rare exception, lame. If you wish to discuss any particulars, I am happy to oblige.

The fact that others share your opinion, of course, adds no cogency whatsoever to your remarks. If you want to about something substantive fine. If not, what exactly is your point?

 

[Mickey]

I suspect that it will be difficult to coherent conversation.

I do not understand this sentence.

I am aware of the criticisms given there

Good. Then you know of which I speak.

I think that there are, with very rare exception, lame.

If you are a fan of the RDL, then I would expect that you would not agree with any criticisms.

If you wish to discuss any particulars, I am happy to oblige.

No thank you. I’ve expressed my disappointment, and you do not agree. So be it.

The fact that others share your opinion, of course, adds no cogency whatsoever to your remarks.

Frankly, your opinion about the views of the multitudes who have been scandalized by the RDL, is meaningless to me.

If you want to about something substantive fine.

I do not undersatnd this sentence.

 

[jj2011]

Yes. Gender-neutral language is a very sore spot for me. I see it as a caving in to the whims of the minority radical feminist faction.

That’s because it is.

As the Roman Catholic Church attempts to un-do some of the modernist experiments of the last generation, the Byzantine Catholic Church is begining to implement it. It is very sad for me.

It’s sad to see Byzantine Catholics making the sorts of mistakes Latins have made since the sixties, although I think that these are temporary aberrations that will pass.

 

[Mickey]

That’s because it is.

Amen brother. Amen.

It’s sad to see Byzantine Catholics making the sorts of mistakes Latins have made since the sixties, although I think that these are temporary aberrations that will pass.

I hope that your words prove to be prophetic.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Yes. Gender-neutral language is a very sore spot for me. I see it as a caving in to the whims of the minority radical feminist faction.

Not really.

Some words in Slavonic and Greek are in fact gender neutral, as far as referring to either or both men and women.

The Greek introduction to the Epistles, ADELFOI (generally rendered “Brethern” in English) can acually mean “brothers” or “sisters” or “brothers and sisters” together.

What’s the matter with rendering it “Brothers and sisters”, since in this case that’s what the clear intent is?

 

[Woodstock]

What’s the matter with rendering it “Brothers and sisters”, since in this case that’s what the clear intent is?

The problem is that most Americans don’t speak Greek or Slavonic, and that’s why we have an English translation. When translating, it is important to find the right word to convey the sentiment and context of what is written. The sentiment and context of neutralized language in America is radical feminism. There isn’t anyone I know of who argues the intent of neutralizing everything was the most accurate translation. Instead, they defend the actions as being accurate while acknowledging their motivations to be as suspected.

 

[Mickey]

Not really.

Yes, really.

Some words in Slavonic and Greek are in fact gender neutral, as far as referring to either or both men and women.

I am aware of this.

What’s the matter with rendering it “Brothers and sisters”, since in this case that’s what the clear intent is?

What’s wrong with brethren? Why should it be “for us and for our salvation” instead of “for us men and for our salvation”? Why should we say that Jesus Christ is gracious and “loves us all” instead of using the beautifully reverent title for Jesus Christ as “The Lover of Mankind”?

Who exactly is offended? The clergy are not offended by the use of words such as “mankind”. The majority of men and women and children in the pews are not offended. Who is offended?

I can answer that for you. The radical feminists and those who sympathize with them are offended. And sadly, the Byzantine Catholic Church has surrendered to their agenda.

 

[dvdjs]

I do not understand this sentence.
Good. Then you know of which I speak.
If you are a fan of the RDL, then I would expect that you would not agree with any criticisms.
No thank you. I’ve expressed my disappointment, and you do not agree. So be it.

Frankly, your opinion about the views of the multitudes who have been scandalized by the RDL, is meaningless to me.
I do not undersatnd this sentence.

Sorry that I posted hastily, and dropped a couple of words.
As to your contradiction is successive posts, I meant to write:
I suspect that it will be difficult to have a coherent conversation.
And again:
If you want to talk about something substantive fine.

It appears, however, that you don’t. Frankly, I don’t understand why people who don’t want to discuss an issue, nevertheless want to register their one-bit (up/down) opinion. What is the use of that, when they conceal whatever it is that informs their opinion.

You make a claim that “multitudes” have been scandalized by the RDL. I call your bluff: provide some evidence to support the claim, if it is true.

If you are a fan of the RDL, then I would expect that you would not agree with any criticisms.

This is a very telling remark. There are things I like about the RDL and music, and things that I don’t like. I am not a fan(atic); I don’t have an ideological axe to grind. As such, I learn from people who have a valid argument to make. But those who just vent an unreasoned opinion, sadly, illuminate nothing.

 

[dvdjs]

The sentiment and context of neutralized language in America is radical feminism. There isn’t anyone I know of who argues the intent of neutralizing everything was the most accurate translation. Instead, they defend the actions as being accurate while acknowledging their motivations to be as suspected.

Are we still talking of the RDL? Then please, for the sake of those who haven’t read it or heard it, be accurate and precise.

The translation does not engage in “neutralizing everything”, as could be inferred from your post. In some circles, gender neutral language means deleting references to God as Father, or the Son as male. So let’s be clear: the RDL does not venture into this realm, period. It has some instances of horizontally inclusive language, wherein a gender neutral term is used to refer to humans beings - both male and female.

While the extension of gender neutrality to God might have radical feminism as its context, gender neutrality in referring to human beings is just every-day formal language. Who is threatened by this? I don’t understand the fear.

There isn’t anyone I know of who argues the intent of neutralizing everything was the most accurate translation. Instead, they defend the actions as being accurate while acknowledging their motivations to be as suspected.

Are we still talking about *radical feminism * as the suspected motivation. Radical feminism includes so much that is utterly antithetical to the church that I think you must have switched gears here. Otherwise I ask: whom do you know, on the Ruthenian IELC and among our bishops, that acknowledge radical feminism as their motivation?

 

[mgy100]

Back to the issue of Musical Revisions.
Regardless of personal opinions, points were given as to WHY the musical settings were revised.
-To fit the English better.
-To codify and unify what was being used in the parishes
-Many parishes had diverted from the Bokshay (spelling?), etc…

Sing a tropar in Slavonic then sing the English versions, especially earlier versions. The musical notation was put up on car stands, the Slavonic was slid out and English put in.

The result was a choppy singing of English. The Slavonic still rolled easily because, well, the music fit it.

So the new revisions are to be more true to the Mukacheckavo dialect of Prostopinije while having the music fit the English.

And I do indeed know Carpatho-Plain chant. I’ve been cantor a lot and have filled in at other parishes, etc… I know the Tones, irmos, etc… So I’m not speaking as a pedestrian here.
I’m not arguing for or against the revisions here.
I’m merely stating WHY they were done.

 

[Diak]

“I know that the loudest complaints in my parish are from Ukrainians, who are upset that the rubrics are a return to unison singing, as is proper for the Ruthenian plainchant.”

These people (Ukrainians) have a rich history of harmonzied music often referred to as samoylka, distinct from prostopinje, and have been deprived of that. If they do complain it is understandable. It is interesting that in the UGCC Anthology other musical traditions are allowed, such as Prostopinje, Kyivan chant, etc. for those parishes with those subpopulations.

It would be nice if that “inclusivity” were also reciprocated to our UGCC faithful who are not able to attend their own parishes. Or perhaps they should start their own UGCC mission.
FDRLB

 

[Aramis]

“I know that the loudest complaints in my parish are from Ukrainians, who are upset that the rubrics are a return to unison singing, as is proper for the Ruthenian plainchant.”

These people (Ukrainians) have a rich history of harmonzied music often referred to as samoylka, distinct from prostopinje, and have been deprived of that. If they do complain it is understandable. It is interesting that in the UGCC Anthology other musical traditions are allowed, such as Prostopinje, Kyivan chant, etc. for those parishes with those subpopulations.

It would be nice if that “inclusivity” were also reciprocated to our UGCC faithful who are not able to attend their own parishes. Or perhaps they should start their own UGCC mission.
FDRLB

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is not the Ruthenian Church, even in Europe they are separated below the papacy. Different traditions. At least at my parish, they are not UGCC Refugees, fleeing the delatinizations of the UGCC. Also, 6 people does not a “subpopulation” make…

Vatican II makes it clear that each church is to return to its own authentic traditions. If one does want the Ukrainian traditions, one should go to a Ukrainian parish, or start a Ukrainian mission.

 

[jj2011]

Yes, really.
I am aware of this.
What’s wrong with brethren?

Nothing.

Why should we say that Jesus Christ is gracious and “loves us all” instead of using the beautifully reverent title for Jesus Christ as “The Lover of Mankind”?

If the original had been rendered as “Lover of Humankind,” I could possibly defend the translation on purely linguistic grounds. The actual translation is the sort of puerility which detracts from the majesty of the Divine Liturgy, and it should be changed back.

 

[Diak]

"The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is not the Ruthenian Church, even in Europe they are separated below the papacy. Different traditions. At least at my parish, they are not UGCC Refugees, fleeing the delatinizations of the UGCC. Also, 6 people does not a “subpopulation” make…

Vatican II makes it clear that each church is to return to its own authentic traditions. If one does want the Ukrainian traditions, one should go to a Ukrainian parish, or start a Ukrainian mission."

So what does six people make? An ignored minority? Obviously if they are not the entire or majority population of the parish, they then become a subpopulation - it is a standard word in English used to express such a thing.

Regarding your statement about VII - I heartily agree. As I recall there is currently no UGCC mission in Alaska, although I would be happy to put these people in touch with some clergy in Canada who might be able to help if they are interested.

There is also something called pastoral sensitivity; in areas of the West where our people are far-flung we in the UGCC are not above using music familiar to “Ruthenian” minorities in our parishes and missions. As I mentioned we have alternative musical settings in our Anthology in various chant styles as Prostopinje and Kyivan chant to accomodate those situations, which has worked out extremely well in my experience when I have had the occasion to do so.

As a UGCC deacon who is of Austro-Hungarian Empire descent, has worked in both UGCC and BCC parishes over most of my life first as a cantor and later as a deacon in parishes of both Churches, I do know a bit about the history of our respective Churches, as well as the liturgical and musical usages.
FDRLB

p.s. “Different traditions” is not at all clear as you have used it; there are many similarities as well shared by the descendants of the Church of Rus’ and it is far too complex to be reduced to two words. I apologize for posting in a way tangential to the thread topic.

 

[dvdjs]

If the original had been rendered as “Lover of Humankind,” I could possibly defend the translation on purely linguistic grounds. The actual translation is the sort of puerility which detracts from the majesty of the Divine Liturgy …

“puerility”? “detracts from the majesty…”? I wonder if you might like to elaborate. Or is this post just another example of hit and run?

 

[dvdjs]

It is interesting that in the UGCC Anthology other musical traditions are allowed, such as Prostopinje, Kyivan chant, etc. for those parishes with those subpopulations.

I am fascinated to hear this, Diak.

You are probably aware of the fact that there is some Galician chant in the new books - a setting of the Monogenes, Holy God (IIRC), Jelicy, and other liturgicla hymns. Galician melodies are, moreover, very common among the hymns brought from the old country. I take it from your post that the UGCC has a significantly larger component of Prostopinije. I’d love to know what made the cut? I would also like to know which parishes use considerable prostopinije. Perhaps with their, history Springfield OR, or the new church near Plano TX?

dvdjs

 

[jj2011]

“puerility”? “detracts from the majesty…”? I wonder if you might like to elaborate. Or is this post just another example of hit and run?

No, I don’t ‘hit and run’; I stand up like a man and defend my statements.

The phrase in question is Philanthropos, which means Lover of Mankind, or Lover of Men. I’m not a professional lexicographer or anything, but in Greek, anthropos is said to have an inclusive meaning; it means either “man” or “human”; hence, one could possibly justify translating it as “Lover of Humankind.”

The translators, however, in a clear case of political correctness, have quite literally emasculated the Greek by ripping out the notion of gender, or even the notion of ‘human,’ ‘humankind,’ giving us a rendering which the Greek did not say.

I called it a puerility, because that’s what a puerility is-- something which is by definition foolish or childish.

Nothing odious or insulting was said here; in fact, I’d be delighted if you prove me wrong.