A Review of The Divine Liturgies (2006), by Father Peter Galadza

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 (Pittsburgh: Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church, 2006), 467+pp.

     The Byzantine Catholic Church of the USA (“Pittsburgh Metropolia”) has taken an epochal step towards 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 above-noted book. This pew book is accompanied by a seven-CD instructional recording by the renowned Schola Cantorum, 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.

     Being pioneers in the use of English, 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 re-visit 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 because 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 unanimously stands 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 during communion, and a helpful glossary of liturgical terms.

     Reviewing each of the aforementioned, 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 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 they are 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 omitting 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.
As regards 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. 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
Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Canada

This article appeared in the April/May 2007 issue of Pastoral Music, a publication of the National Assocation of Pastoral Musicians, and is reprinted here with the author's permission.