The original article in Arabic was written by Father Romanos (Bachir) Al-Osta, Archon Protopsaltis of the Melkite Catholic Antiochian See. It is translated, with permission, by Melkite Musings.
As Archon Protopsaltis, Fr. Romanos is the Head of the First Cantors of the entire Melkite Church. In other words, he is the Chief Cantor of the global Melkite Catholic Church. He has founded several schools of chant in Lebanon, including the Patriarchal Choir of St. Stephanos the Melode, and he has recently founded a new school in Australia where he was transferred earlier this year.
He works tirelessly on reinvigorating and developing the rich tradition of Byzantine Chant within the Melkite tradition. Besides his personal work in Cantoring and Musical Writing, he works with numerous other skilled cantors on forming the laity's knowledge and mastery of Byzantine Chant, with the goal of having a qualified choir in every Melkite parish.
In 2007, during my visit to one of the monasteries of the Holy Mountain (Mount Athos) in Greece, where I stayed for almost a week, I observed and experienced, albeit briefly, the sweetness and beauty of chanting. There, far from the lights of the world and their mortal attractiveness, exit, out of the mouths and hearts of worshippers and monastic cantors, voices... or rather a voice. Spirits... or rather a spirit. One voice and one spirit. One heart. It is the direction of all of our hearts, towards the heavenly Church and Her saints.
Communal chanting is the basis of participation and prayer. It does not dispense from individual chanting, indistinguishable from the communal. It is a tradition, a tradition is entrusted to us, and what is entrusted is not to be taken lightly, like the Bible and the dogmas of faith. It is the Gospel itself.
When we chant a troparion, kontakion, cherubikon, or a hymn to the Holy Theotokos, we include with us every individual present at the prayer service or Divine Liturgy, whether living or having fallen asleep in the hope of the Resurrection. This means that the chanting has to be of a unified text and musical passage, clear, accurately tuned or, in our case, as accurately as possible.
The chanted passage, inherited down hundreds of years, is chanted with all those who have fallen asleep in the Lord across those years and centuries. They are members of the one body of Christ, present with us in every Divine Service, glorifying, praising and chanting, whether the living faithful themselves attend or not.
Chanting is a prayer, and prayer is a request, meditation, asking forgiveness, communicating in spirit with the Creator, an open dialog between you and Him, participating in the divine, if only for a moment. It is a self-offering, a school of humility, a constant and continuous pursuit of forgiveness and the purification of the heart, until the fullness of Christ is attained, the fullness of Caritas.
Chanting is a true expression of what the soul feels towards its Creator, in which everyone chants united in one prayer. You can also excel in this particular skill which God has blessed you with, expressing what the rest are unable to, while they are united and absorbed into the unified act of Divine worship.
We say that chanting is the pulpit of theological preaching, which means it's a very delicate matter, even dangerous, because if misused, it can lead to the downfall of the cantor and the present faithful, the praying congregation.
The soloist is more likely to fall than the choir and its gathered members, because the gathered cantors already represent the congregation, and the congregation is the purpose to begin with. This does not mean cancelling the role of soloists, but rooting it within the framework of some principles to be respected, which are ecclesial par excellence.
What exactly are these frameworks?
The ecclesial/liturgical dimension is one of the main dimensions that tends to be sidelined and avoided, given that it limits to a certain extent the ambitions of individuals and the emergence of individualism and ego. For this reason, some tend to purposefully ignore this dimension in order for the liturgy to become a theatre for their own desires. Given that accountability cannot be adequately applied to intentions, it is God who judges, and all we can do is warn of such errors and work for the greater good of the community and the salvation of souls. The ecclesial/liturgical dimension is one that focuses on the community's unity through its prayer, faith, and the application of this faith. This also includes the manner of prayer, given that the manner we pray is the manner we believe, and our belief is reflected in our prayer.
This is why the first point that is assessed within the ecclesial dimension is the unity of faith, and this unity requires a unity in prayer. Unity in prayer requires a specific location, and it is a location set aside for the celebration of the Mystery beyond all understanding, the Mystery around which, in which, and through which the faithful come together, where the hearts and minds are united in being uplifted to the Trinity.
The community, united in its prayer and faith, also becomes united with other communities that share the same faith, and as such the same prayer. All these assembled churches form one community, united in its prayer "that they may be one as We are one." (John 11/17)
This matter extends to the form in which the good news and the word of God is proclaimed in the Divine Liturgy, the various services, as well as the Liturgy of the Hours. This is also expressed through chant, in the manner that voice and performance are used for expression, and this too has to be unified, or pointing towards unity. Even the multitude of accepted tones, 8 in total, remain unified.
This multitude of tones in the Greek liturgy, meaning the liturgy following the Greek rite, is a familiar and well-entrenched matter, with specific frameworks, established since the foundation of the Church. Various aspects of liturgical prayer have developed based on these 8 tones, and the number 8 refers to the eighth day of the week, a day which transcends the seven days of the temporal week, given that it is the day of the Lord, out of the bounds of time, the day of the resurrection that is perpetually present in the consciousness and hope of the faithful.
Being rooted in such notions, the selection of those 8 tones was intertwined with the liturgical, spiritual and theological life. What has reached us in modern times is the result of an experience of around nineteen centuries of prayers, petitions and vigils carried out by the Holy Fathers. They have combined their thoughts and prayers, weaving them into the most appropriate and correct form of proclaiming the Word, worthy of the Divine Presence, the presence of the living Christ through his Holy Spirit in every liturgical service, the most important being, of course, the Mystery of Mysteries, the Divine Liturgy.
The Church in her history has maintained all the ascetic bases and elements, not only in the way of chanting, but also regarding the beautifying element, itself shaped by the Philokalia and Greek musical elements tied to Greek philosophy.
Everything offered to God must be shaped by beauty and order. Love of beauty is a characteristic tied to the perfection of divine beauty, of God who is above all imperfection.
Love of order is due to the fact that the God of our fathers is a God of order and of putting order to things. When one reads Genesis, one sees that God created in the first, second and third day the heavens and the earth and all that roams on it, and light, and separated light from dark. We conclude that the Lord our God was ordering the process of creation and directing it per his wisdom.
The question that poses itself today is the following: Where are we in regards to order and the love of beauty in our prayers. Is our God not perfect and the source and perfection of beauty?
How then should our performance, particularly of ecclesial chant, be?
Nowadays, as in previous times, we suffer in our Antiochian circles, as well as their diasporas, from chaos and lack of even the most basic care on behalf of our ecclesial authorities regarding this foundational vein of the parish's work of evangelisation. This is either due to ignorance as a main cause, or because of a factor that is now commonly known: social culture in that area.
Anything related to parish and ecclesial work is, in the eyes of the Christian people, a free service that is carried out without regard to the efforts, sacrifices and importance of what is being done by those who have invested their time into that service. I am referring here to those who serve the temple, including: the parish priest, the deacons in their various roles, and to them are joined the cantors who are part of this service, and this is the theme of our analysis, as well as its core.
The problem is cultural par excellence, given that outside our Antiochian culture and way of thinking, we do perceive the care given to the efforts of such cantors. This is because, firstly, time has value for them, and secondly, because our Christian culture understands that those who have devoted their time for such a service, to help us truly live part of heaven on earth, have learned the methods of preserving ecclesial tradition by studying chant in an ordered and systematic way. ecclesial music is the guarantor of the ecclesial aspect of prayer, and that ecclesial aspect plays a role in protecting the prayer of the faithful and the unity of their faith and worship. How? In the manner of performing the text and the unity of these musical and poetic texts.
The cantor can sometimes express through the way he performs the chant, but only in a way that is faithful to tradition. "Tradition" in regards to ecclesial music has two meanings, both resembling each other, of course: the first refers to faithfulness in transmitting teachings through evangelisation, the second refers to imitating what has preceded it, not only the teachings but the manner of teaching them too. This is why we see a student attempting to imitate their teacher's performance, because faithfulness in transmitting teachings affects even chanting. The student imitates the teacher, and the teacher imitates their own master, and so on... till we reach the point from which this teaching had originated, the roots of this performance and this chanting.
This fidelity in transmitting teachings and preaching, including consistency in the content of prayer, the faith of the community and the manner of expression, points to the unity of the faith and prayer of the ancient Christian community, always linked to the prayers of those who are here present and those who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection. This is the principle of fidelity, consistency and unity that we are referring to, and it is the principle on which we build our ability to face the developments of history filled with the sins of humans, the tragedies of peoples, the changes of time, and the differences that follow in languages, national thinking, cultural and intellectual occupations, and others...
Ecclesial or liturgical service should be ordered, since it is neither a playground not a place for chaos and disrespect. Rather, it is a house of prayer and worship, of the presence of God and permanent presence of the Trinity. It is also a foundational principal for moving the souls of the faithful, but this must happen in a clear, prayerful, and sober manner that is closer to the principles of prayer and contemplation than it is to acting, theatre and strong emotions.
Emotions, acting and theatre!! These are words we hear, but they are intruders to the ecclesial concept and expression. Where did they come from and how did they enter into the ecclesial lexicon?
Before the Byzantine era, the Classical era, founded on Greco-Roman culture, would base itself on the human senses. As such, these senses seeped into the arts and all that pertains to expression, most of all drawing, music, theatre, and singing, and they became obvious in the works of art and the artistic, social and religious life. When the Byzantine era arrived, and after it wrestled with aspects of Classical culture, it formed new foundations on which it relied. This made the frameworks of Classical culture almost non-existent, and as the ascetic, theological and prayerful dimension came to the forefront, expressions of Classical culture like arts and music and painting disappeared with time, as they have in the past and in every civilisation that has passed and will pass throughout human history.
One of the clearest examples we have is in art. A Classical era painting expresses the minute details of the body, showing the human state in all its emotional aspects, while a Christian Icon is purely a liturgical art that has, for theological and faith-based reasons, fully expulsed all beautifying aspects of humanisation and emotions.
Why did the Byzantines distance themselves from these elements?
The arts of the Byzantine era focused, especially in painting and music, on Iconography, Mosaics, Murals, Singing, Ecclesial chant, etc...
In their early days, mosaics included all the human elements, and we see them slowly recede before the ecclesial depictions. Singing, however, remained exceptionally free from ascetic chains and maintained its Classical aspect regarding tradition.
The common individual notices a difference between Classical and Byzantine, between what can be described as Emotion, Sense and Feeling on one hand, and Solidity/Stagnation, Sternness and Seriousness on the other. This is because Byzantine elements are Theological, Ascetic, Contemplative, Educational, Christian, characterised by sternness and seriousness, other-worldliness (concerning the fate of humans after death), and kingdomly (because human speech has no place in the world above, and this is what an Icon depicts for example).
As such, the influences are clear, the reasons are known, and there is no reason to justify them. Christ is the head of the Church and the State together. The teachings of the holy fathers and the holy Gospel are the new laws for the new people of God. There is no doubt that Byzantium preserved all that the Greek civilisation produced, in all the sciences, and that it was rich material in its universities, particularly in the capital Constantinople. After its fall in 1453 A.D., scholars went out to lift up Europe. However, we have to mention that the Eastern Romans at a certain period, especially after their clash with the Abbasids, were considered by the latter to have buried or distanced themselves from the sciences, considering themselves (Abbasids), during the days of the Caliphate of Al-Maamoun, to be the legitimate inheritors of Greek culture and philosophy.
Whether or not this was true or mere propaganda, given that the Abbasids were in dire need of an incentive to lift their state and develop it, it was still a smart excuse by the rulers of Bani-Abbas (Abbasids), because it reveals an aspect of the cultural and religious direction, and the clear line that the Byzantine Romans were drawing and the image they were portraying at the time.
After the fall of the state, its scholars contributed to the uplifting of the capitals of Europe, and therein lies the paradox: humanist culture returned to reinvigorate the Classical era.
The following centuries maintained a development towards the Classical line, and with it the humanistic approach, which affected various fields of human, European and international thought. During that invigorating period of the history of Western Europe in particular, we see a blossoming of Theatre, Dramatic Literature and Singing. It became mixed with elements befitting this era, especially emotion, and theatrical singing developed in that same direction, imbued with emotion and gestures, given that performance was its pillar.
What is the relation between theatrical singing of the time, known as Classical Opera, and ecclesial chanting?
In truth, there is no relation between Eastern and Western ecclesial chant with what occurs on stages. It is possible that there is a relation regarding the musical aspect or points related to it, but the principle is clear: the church is not a stage for shows of singing and acting, and all that is in relation to ecclesial performance is distinct from the theatre, given that the church is a place of prayer. Prayer is dictated by conditions, particularly communal prayer, because the purpose is the "oneness" of prayer and the unity of the faithful with the Body of Christ through their participation in that divine liturgy and the calling down of the Holy Spirit and the revelation of the Trinity.
These elements influenced afterwards the ecclesial chant of the Westerners, but Byzantine chant maintained as large a distance as possible from them, being cautious of being influenced or permitting the inclusion of any of the humanistic elements that characterised the Renaissance and subsequent ages.
The elements of Byzantine chant were of course affected by residues and factors of Greek philosophy and elements of Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism and Pythagoreanism... followed by ascetic and Christian elements in that era which was characterised with the influence of the teachings of the holy Fathers.
Ecclesial music or chant focuses in particular on the word, putting it at the forefront, because evangelisation is the most important priority, spreading that word, announcing the Incarnation, the events of mankind's salvation plan and the glorious Resurrection, the most important event in salvation history.
Despite the fact that the Byzantines were the first to use the organ in court celebrations and the welcoming of ambassadors, and though they sent one to Charlemagne along with musicians to teach his own how to play it, they never used it in their liturgical celebrations. They did not even use any of the traditional instruments in any of their liturgical services, and that is due to reasons known by many but still ignored by some.
The first reason is the negative role of instruments at the ethical level, since the Christians of the early days were attempting as much as possible to distance themselves from anything related to pagan worship and thought.
The second reason is that instruments are a tool of distraction. The seventh canticle of the Divine Office of Vespers, especially of Sunday, reminds us of the prayer of the three holy youths in the furnace. We also chant in the seventh canticle of the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos about the youths who were resisting the noise of the musical instruments as they hymned to the Lord "blessed are You God of our fathers..."
The three holy youths were not affected by what was considered as "noise" or "disruption" regarding the prayer of praise they had lifted up to the Lord, a prayer of confession of the One God, one power over all of creation.
Their prayer bothered the ravaging non-believing Babylonian king who could not bear the words of praise to the God of gods, finding no other means but to disturb them through various musical instruments in order to silence their voice of blessing and praise. However, the unity of their voice was stronger than the noise of these instruments, which had become an image of the disturbance and noise that can affect the divine words sent to the ears and minds of the believers present at the communal prayer...
It is thus imperative to have an atmosphere that encourages the focusing of mind and heart. The content of the prayer texts imposes and clarifies the means of presenting them, which should be precise and serious, devoid of any element that sidelines the proclaimed word on behalf of whims or any other excuses.
In the history of Christianity, there is a clear indication that any attempt to distance oneself from Pagans in matters of ethics, or even from Jews in matters of worship, was valid and blessed. We see this clearly in the writings of the holy fathers, particularly in the fourth and sixth centuries, given that the image of the instrument in worship was despised by the Christians due to what came along in matters of immoral practices on the Pagan side. Even the idea of the "new testament" entered the thought of the fathers and the community of the faithful during that time, and they distanced themselves from the way of worship of the Jews, or at least differentiated it. We are the children of the new testament and we have seen the light of truth, our eyes having been opened to the new law and its lawmaker Jesus Christ the Lord and God.
What do we conclude from all this discussion and all that has been presented?
Chanting, dear brothers and sisters, has a clear and directed role, which is the service of the Word by employing all means, vocal or performative, to convey the Spirit inspired to our holy fathers. Through their voices and deep spiritual experience, they turned chanting into the ambo from which we receive all theology, maintaining what they had been entrusted with, which we have discussed at the beginning of this article. It is a trust which has been carried down to us by all who have come before, from the holy Apostles to the current fathers, who suffer all kinds of sufferings, in an attempt to preserve the holy teachings and the means of their conveyance.
We stressed the fact that we are an apostolic Church, and the experience of such Churches comes from the life-giving Spirit, who reminds us of the words of Jesus our lord, and it is He who inspires us and encourages us on. How could it be that what was inspired to, and what was experienced by John Chrysostom, Basilios the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nazianzus, Romanos the Melode, John Damascene, Cosmas the Hymnographer, Stephanos the Hymnographer and Theophanos the Hymnographer simply a style, nonsense, or a meaningless state with no purpose or need?
The issue is not simply what we experience now, for what we experience has no meaning without being rooted in what these saints had experienced. If we do not understand what is being said or portrayed through the means used to portray all theology, then this is due to various circumstances that have befallen our people and affected many aspects, especially social and local, which has affected all aspects of ecclesial chant. Whoever compares the state of chanting in our (Melkite) Church before the (Lebanese) Civil War, and sees what it has become afterwards with all the attempts to restore the splendour of chanting and its place in the culture of our faithful, sees a clear distinction.
Our Church has forsaken its prayers in the Parochial service and environment, with the exception of monastic orders that have preserved, to a certain extent, the continuation of the Divine Office and the monastic prayers. Though these prayers are considered “monastic”, it was through these monasteries that parishes were invigorated, and through the chanting of these prayers that the souls of the faithful were moved… and I mean a respectful and balanced chanting, not the chaos, competition and showing off through performances that we see in some cases now.
Not returning these prayers or being committed to them in parishes (Vespers and Matins) and finding a way, or at least trying to, has weakened even the cantors themselves, in regards to two sides: the first is the spiritual and theological side, the second is the musical side.
These prayers are a school for all spiritual things, theology and spiritual understanding, a school in the expression of divine things and our link to heaven through the calling down of the Spirit and the conversing with the Trinity, with the Theotokos, the saints, the martyrs, confessors and monks.
With the importance of chanting and its sublime goals, we encounter today those who are “against chanting”, or those who are singers on the theatres of churches that have fallen victim to their whims… churches that we, or they, have turned into theatres for their distinction and a spotlight for their stardom. As such, the question poses itself: is this what we need, after we have seen the glory of holy chanting through everything we have experienced as a Church of Christ throughout the centuries and the previous years, and what we still experience today?
Is this what ecclesial chanting should be, in the way it is being promoted by some priests and cantors?
One of the main traits of chanting, and of the lawful and true cantor, is humility, joined with sufficient knowledge of the field. Do those who present chanting on various channels via trivial theatrical performances serve our prayer, or do they serve themselves in order to gain more mortal and finite popularity?
Chanting, as we have encountered it, is an evangelical invitation, and as such should have the same characteristics as the Gospel itself and the virtues linked to an evangelical and Christian life. Is this what we see in the chanting of some today? We can’t generalise, but our words are clear and directed to a specific category of people that is aware that what it is doing is not only a grave error but a prejudice and a crime in regards to ecclesial chanting, and a horrifying disfigurement of its pure image.
We do not feign humility, and we desire nothing but the good of the people. Chanting is a part of our spiritual life, and we wish it to remain such a beloved part. As much as the body requires nourishment, so do our souls require spiritual nourishment, represented by the acceptance of Christ in our lives via contemplation, prayer and holy Communion.
It is right to ask here: between prayer and theatrical performance, where exactly is the place of holy chanting? The correct choice is the one that remains committed to the dignity of chanting and its angelic place in the presence of God.
End of article.
Comments