Posted on 06/21/2005 12:48:03 PM PDT by kharaku
I google searched carpatho and slavonic for the above - I also recall a few other sources as well as one authority I met a few years ago who was quite convincing. The carpathians were very remote until a few generations ago.
I really don't understand the point, but the OCA Church I go to was founded by Russian immigrants, most of the children of that generation are pretty Americanized by this point but the newer members, ones who've come from Russia, are all from Moscow or East regions. The priest is Carpathian (Romanian) but was assigned to the parish only a couple years ago. I'm not seeing the great carpathian influence you're aluding too.
And from this Catholic (with numerous Orthodox and Byzantine relatives) as well.
Like I said, the "Russian" churches of 19th century came to be predominantly filled with Carpatho Ukrainian parishoners.
http://www2.orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA
"When the monarchy in Russia fell and the Church of Russia began being persecuted, a group of Russian bishops fled from northern Russia, joining with some in the southern portion of the country and organizing themselves via meetings in Constantinople and Serbia. These came to be known as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Meanwhile, the Metropolia, the Russian diocese in America, which was becoming increasingly less Russian and more Carpatho-Russian (with the reception of many thousands of former Uniates under the leadership of St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre), began a winding path toward independence from the jurisdiction of Moscow. The increasingly Carpatho-Russian/ex-Uniate character of the Metropolia is seen in its choice to name itself in 1906 as the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America under the Hierarchy of the Russian Church"
This seems to explain the confusion of traditions present in most OCa churches, but doesn't make for any solid 'Russian OCA churches aren't really Russian at all' claims as you seem to be insinuating.
In the book I have "The Divine Liturgy Prayer Book", published by St Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church 1500 186th Street, Lansing, IL 60438, (708) 418-3788, the Slavonic is written in the Latin alphabet, so even I can read it.
You'll have to forgive me, but while the link tells what everyone knows, namely that the OCA (i.e. the Metropolia) has a lot of Carpatho-Russians, it says nothing at all about this being true of ROCOR parishes. I really would like examples of long-time ROCOR parishes that are predominantly Carpatho-Russian before I believe that to be true. It isn't that it matters if my impressions are right or wrong, it is just that I don't get what axe you seem to be trying to grind here.
Also, as kharaku points out, there are definitely Great Russian parishes and parishioners in the OCA. This is especially true on the West Coast, where both OCA and ROCOR parishes are predominantly Great Russian (via the Harbin emigration.) Not surprisingly, it is on the West Coast that the ROCOR and OCA seem to get along the best in recent years. From what kharaku is saying, these Russian-dominated parishes are not uncommon in parts of the East, either.
Recent immigrants from Russia are of course changing a lot of ethnic dynamics in all Slavic parishes -- I'm talking only about the older emigrations in my comments.
Your persistent use of "Carpatho-Ukrainian," when every CR I've ever known has used the term "Carpatho-Russian" (or, if they want to make things particularly distinct from Russia proper -- "Carpatho-Rusyn") makes me wonder if your real complaint is not that Carpatho-Russians in the emigration were too insular, but rather that they weren't Ukrainian nationalists.
As to the chants, they certainly survive here and there in oral tradition. I have Carpatho-Russian and Galician chant books sitting on the shelf behind me. There are many interesting and unique features both to the chants and to the texts reflected in the chant books.
The modern language that is closest to Church Slavonic is probably Bulgarian. Levels of comprehensibility of Slavonic is less a function of what one's native tongue or dialect are and more a function of how much the languages are used. Johann von Gardner has written eloquently about what he discovered in the back-hills of the Carpathian Mountains in terms of how the common peasants knew the services, the texts and the chants to remarkable degrees, all on the basis of repetition and oral tradition. Of course, that was now more than a half-century ago, and apparently most of that got lost during the Iron Curtain years.
What is interesting is that Church Slavonic may have a hard time surviving as a unifying liturgical language of the Slavic Orthodox lands. The communist era really did a number on the ability of people to understand the language, since the living links of passing it down as a liturgical language were largely broken, and since the practice of teaching the language to children in schools obviously was done away with.
Many recent Russian immigrants say that they can understand the liturgy in English better than in Slavonic. Very sad. Serbs and Ukrainians are eliminating Church Slavonic in favor of their modern vernacular, probably for the same reason. The Russian Church appears to be committed to retaining Slavonic, even though the level of comprehension for a man off the street is only about 50% these days. Contrast that with "King James" English, with >95% comprehension.
As someone interested in chant, the loss of any living liturgical language is a great tragedy, since when one changes the language, none of the old chant books are usable, and the tradition of how melodies are fitted to the texts is lost... I hope that the Russians and the Bulgarians, at least, keep Slavonic alive.
Can someone help me here with definitions, as I love liturgical chants, and am drawn toward the Orthodox church services, and want to know more of the history of the church. I've been trying to plow through all of the above comments to get a better perspective, but I've been stymied because of certain words I need a definition of. Such as the following:
Metropolia = OCA (what does OCA mean, Orthodox Churches of America?; I'm just guessing here.
Both churches: OCA & ROCOR (if they were both formed outside of Russia, what is the difference between them, and why haven't they united?)
Carpatho-Russian refers to what group or groups of people? As I assume it means from the Carpathian mountain area, what countries are encompassed here. What's the difference between Carpatho-Russians and Carpatho-Ukrainians, if any. How do the Bulgarians fit in. Serbs? If you aren't a Carpatho-Russian, what are you? A Great Russian? And what is included geographically in that definition?
Need a definition of Uniate. Who are they and how do they fit in w/the Russian Orthodox Church, OCA or ROCOR).
Lastly, when Pope John Paul II died, there was a Catholic Eastern Orthodox group represented there. How do they fit in or not fit in w/the rest of the Orthodox kingdom of churches? Also, I loved their chants. Are their chants different from Russian chants, or other Slavonic chants? Does anyone know of any CD's that one can buy w/the type of chants heard at the funeral of JPII? Or the names of any other CD's w/good orthodox chants?
I need a mini church history lesson here, if someone wants to take the time, so I can better understand that which you speak of. If you know of any good books that I could read to bone up on this subject, please let me know. I'd truly appreciate it. Ok, my questions are now out there for anyone to answer. Some of you seem incredibly knowledgeable, so I should get some good answers. Thanks.
P.S., if anyone knows of any good websites to go to re Russian Orthodoxy, OCA, ROCOR, Eastern Orthodoxy, please let me know. Thanks.
The history of the Russian Orthodox Church here in America (and of Orthodoxy here in general) is very complicated. The reason is that originally, all of Orthodoxy was under the guidance and authority of the Russian Mission here in America. The Russian revolution basically blew that all apart, and in the aftermath, most of the ethnic groups sought refuge under the guidance of their churches in the "old countries," and the Russians themselves broke up into 2 and sometimes three or more groups. All very bad.
The story varies depending on who tells it, but the basic trajectory is this:
The ROCOR was a Synod of Russian bishops who, as a result of the revolution, found themselves in exile as the White armies were defeated by the Bolsheviks and driven to the borders. The main home was in Serbia initially. They always viewed themselves as a part of the Russian Church, which was under communist domination. It is this group that is reuniting with the Russian Church proper even as we speak. This is a big deal, since this was a church heavily populated by those who violently fought the communist takeover.
The Metropolia has a murky history, but basically it seems as though this was a group of Great Russian (i.e. Russia proper) and Small Russian (i.e. made up of the Slavic peoples on the eastern borderlands) immigrants who at one point decided to make peace with the Russian Church in Russia, rather than be under the ROCOR. It later was given "autocephaly" or self-governance by the Russian Church in Russia, but this autocephaly has never been recognized by any church other than the Russian Church. This is what is now known as the OCA, or the Orthodox Church in America.
Carpatho-Russians are a people from the Carpathian mountains of Eastern Europe. They found themselves politically isolated after border changes, and most of those here in the US came from what was the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Part of the strategy of the empire and of the Catholic church was to trick or force or bribe (this is from the Orthodox perspective -- many Roman Catholics believe this was voluntary and principled) Orthodox Christians and their clergy living in the empire to have a "Unia" with Rome. They were allowed to keep their liturgy and most of their practices, and only had to acknowledge the primacy of the Pope, and the correctness of RC teachings and practices. Many common people didn't even know that there had been a change to being in union with the Roman Catholic church.
When these "Uniates" came to America (the preferred term nowadays is "Eastern Catholic"), they found themselves faced with a Roman Catholic hierarchy that didn't understand them and that looked down on them. Large numbers of them returned to the Orthodox Church in the later 19th century under the Russian mission. For a number of reasons, most of these Carpatho-Russian parishes went with the Metropolia, rather than the ROCOR.
The Eastern bishops liturgizing at the Pope's funeral were all Eastern Catholics -- those who follow Eastern liturgical practices, but are in union with Rome. Some are very Latinized (such as the Maronites), while others are very close to the Orthodox in beliefs and practices. As I recall, the chants used at the service were in Greek and were of the Byzantine (Greek) type. Byzantine chant is used by the Arabic Orthodox churches, the Romanians, the Greek-speaking Patriarchates, and by Bulgarians and Serbs (in Slavonic) as well. It is characterized by a single melodic line, with a holding-note, or "ison" (sounds like a drone) to anchor the melody.
There are also Serbian chant forms that are derived from Byzantine, but distinct. Same for Bulgarian.
The Russian family of chants is mostly based on Znamenny chant, which was originally derived from Byzantine chant nearly a millenium ago, and it maintains the same ethos, but which fairly early on melodically changed to fit Slavic musical idioms and the Slavonic language. Znamenny chant in its purest forms are maintained by the Russian Old Believers (another long story) and in the Galician (old Ukrainian) and to a lesser extent, Carpatho-Russian chant traditions. All of these traditional chants are unharmonized (i.e. a single melodic line) and of course without instrumental accompaniment.
Znamenny chant books have been preserved and published in Russia, and it is being revived after a long period of westernization (i.e. music sung in parts in western style -- although the unmetered nature of Orthodox chant was always maintained). Related Russian chants are linked to individual monastery traditions: Valaam, Optina, Kievan Caves, etc... Some are close to the Znamenny forms, others are of unknown origin, but have the same ethos.
As to CD's, I will privately e-mail you some suggestions as to what I think are good examples. It is easier to find good Byzantine chant than it is to find traditional Slavic chants in recordings. This is because the Byzantine musical tradition is an uninterrupted one, whereas the westernization of the Slavic traditions has obscured the traditional melodic chant in many cases. Again, this is all making a come-back, but it takes time.
Fascinating, you cleared up most of my questions, however created new ones, such as:
"by the Russian Old Believers (another long story) and in the Galician (old Ukrainian)"
Old Believers (you basically said that was a story in itself) but I'd be real interested in hearing it sometime from you, when and if you feel like it. Also, is there a new Ukrainian, if once there was the old (Galician)? What's the difference, what's the old?
Also, "It is characterized by a single melodic line, with a holding-note, or "ison" (sounds like a drone) to anchor the melody."
The drone is a very interesting musical feature. The (India) Indians use it, the Celtic (Irish) use it, and these old Byzantine chants use it. I wonder as to any possible connections within musical history. Supposedly the Celts migrated out of India (some say), so that would possibly explain one connection. Any theories on this?
In your private e-mail, if you could recommend, along with CD's, any books or websites that might be interesting to read, please feel free to give me any other suggestions. I thank you muchly for taking the time to answer all of my questions. I knew I would strike pay dirt when I saw your posts. That's why I singled out one of your comments to reply to. There's much mystery and history here to be plumbed. I've always had an interest in things Russian, and I am branching out now.
I was trying to paint a quick overview, and may not have done it too well.
It is hard to tell the story of the Russian diaspora in America to everyone's satisfaction. There is a lot of murkiness to the whole story, conflicting viewpoints, and polemics. I think this is why the MP and the ROCOR made the decision not to try to come to an agreement on what happened historically, but to leave that to the historians, and rather to look to the future.
Feel free to jump in and fill in any blanks that you think would be helpful for someone who knows nothing about American Orthodoxy. :-)
I attend an OCA parish, but also spent many happy years in ROCOR parishes. I love my parish, I loved my ROCOR parishes. I was exposed to very unpleasant prideful triumphalism in the OCA prior to coming to this parish, and I was exposed to very unpleasant pridful triumphalism in certain corners of the ROCOR.
The good members and clergy of both jurisdictions are busy tending to their own salvation, and don't get too involved in this stuff.
Yes, Eastern Catholicism in Eastern Europe is very much a live issue and a real impediment to improved relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I'm not sure I see a solution for that one on the horizon.
I think I have already documented that the founder of the UCA and the parishoners are largley Carpathian which lies in Ukraine and to a lesser extent in Poland, Slovakia, and Rumania.
It is a long way from Moscow.
That is the irony of calling it "Russian".
What do you think of the reference claiming Old Slavoni is the same as the Lemko dialects?
"but I've been stymied because of certain words I need a definition of"
Not to worry . The obfuscation is deliberate and several hundred years old. The end has been to obliterate the roots of the largest slavic migration to the US.
http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/peters.htm
Very few actual Russians emmigrated to the US prior to the revolution and virtually none after.
If one dropped in to visit an Orthodox Church once every 100 years, the superficial observer would be hard-put to see any changes. Yet organic growth and change of the services does take place. In earlier eras, it was possible for traditions isolated by distance and language to undergo more changes than is probably possible today.
The Russian Church and the Greek-speaking Churches alike underwent some changes over the centuries. When the printing press arrived in Russia, and decisions needed to be made regarding publishing books, Patriarch Nikon closely examined the Russian service books, comparing them with the Greek service books and saw that there were quite a few differences -- relatively minor.
Further examination revealed that there were several other divergences -- how the fingers of the hand were held when making the sign of the cross, the kind of stamp used to mark the bread used in the Liturgy, the way that prayer ropes were made, etc... Patriarch Nikon decided that uniformity with Greek practice was necessary, and uniformity within the Russian Church was needed. He therefore compiled standard service books, and replaced them throughout Russia, and he ordered his priests to come into line with Greek practice in many areas.
This provoked deep resentment and anger on the part of many pious believers. Whole groups of them refused to change, and many ended up fleeing Russia or going to more back-woods areas of Russia. This is what is known as the Old Believer Schism. These groups are incredibly interesting because they give snapshots of what worship, music, and practices were like in pre-Nikonian Russia. They have maintained a continuous living tradition of Znamenny chant, using the old "kruiki" notation (similar to Byzantine notation (squiggly marks above the text), rather than Western style musical notation. Some have actually returned to the Russian Church -- both the ROCOR and the Russian Church in Russia itself have Old Rites where the old liturgical ways are kept. History has shown that it wasn't always the Greek practices or texts that were older, incidentally.
The Nikonian reforms may have been valuable in maintaining liturgical unity within Orthodoxy, but they wreaked havoc on Znamenny chant, since every chant book in the land was rendered unusable. At this same time, there was an influx of Westernizing trends in music, especially the use of harmonized music, into Russia, mostly via the Ukraine. Peter the Great's changes also promoted westernizing the music.
There is a connection here with your other question about the Galician chants. Galicia is another area of the Ukraine that fell under Catholic rule, and became "Uniate." Like the Carpatho-Russians, since the Galicians were allowed to keep their old liturgies and practices, and since they had been cut off from contact with Russia, they did not undergo the Nikonian reforms. They kept their old chant books, and were quite conservative in this regard. Galician chant is remarkably close to the Znamenny chant found in the Russian Synodal chant books -- and again, it was a fairly continuous living tradition. I called it "old Ukrainian," because the Church in the Ukraine proper became quite Westernized in its music -- it is ironic that it was actually the areas under Catholic dominance that kept some of the old chants.
This is quite simplified, but the take-home point is that there are numerous melodies of the Znamenny chant tradition that have actually been only passed down within groups that are in schism from Orthodoxy!
No one knows about the origin of the ison. It was for a very long time an orally transmitted tradition -- older Byzantine chant books don't contain indications of the ison, even though we know it was used. There is fierce debate regarding whether an ison was ever used in Znamenny chant. I think the evidence is fairly compelling that it was not, since neither the Old Believers nor the Uniates of Western Rus passed down any tradition of an ison in their oral tradition, and also since it just doesn't seem to work with Znamenny chant. The addition of an ison to Byzantine chant deepens and intensifies the effect of the melodic line, without seeming like harmonization. The addition of an ison to Znamenny seems like poor harmonization to my ear, and doesn't add to it. I have one Znamenny setting that I use an ison with -- my choir likes it, but I don't.
When I get around to sending you my CD recommendations, I'll give you examples of recordings of Znamenny with and without ison, and I'll let you decide. I don't think that there is a right and wrong -- the addition of an ison was a later addition to Byzantine chant, too. The real question is whether it transmits the chant ethos.
And that is the real point to it all: Properly executed chant has the effect of accentuating the text, of having the texts penetrate deep into the subconscious, of aiding the effect of the timelessness of Christian liturgy, and of connecting us with Christians of past, present, future -- and in heaven. Chant is not an antiquarian or academic exercise for Orthodox Christians -- it is living and breathing worship. Perfection of execution and performance is not the point -- prayerfulness is. Either poorly done chant or excessively perfect chant can detract from prayerfulness. Chant is an aural iconography, and like Orthhodox icons, which follow a particular tradition of formulaic presentations and which subordinate the iconographer's personality to the tradition -- chant also subordinates the personality of those chanting to the tradition, allowing the Holy Spirit to be the real person acting.
Good links. There's a lot of bias around in all of the histories of all of the jurisdictions in America. Every single jurisdiction is uncanonical, since every single one has bishops in the same city as other Orthodox bishops. The whole situation is anomalous and wrong, and no-one has cause to be triumphalistic. The important thing is for us to share the same faith, and to pray and worship in the same tradition, holding tightly to the patristic ways of thought and worship.
Your comments re cultural traditions are interesting in light of what a recent Russian visitor said after visiting our parish -- he travels cross-country a lot, and said that parishes become less ethnic as he goes west. He was very put-off by what he saw as the excessive ethnic parochialism of his own OCA parish back in the northeast.
Variations of customs are to be expected. Orthodoxy has never been about lock-step uniformity of liturgical tradition, although if one follows the service books, the variations should be quite peripheral. A multi-ethnic parish like ours is pretty eclectic in practice, which can be a lot of fun. It gives me a lot of freedom as a chanter to explore the gamut of Orthodox tradition, finding out what "works" in our parish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.