Please point me to the rubrics that call for an archaic language in the liturgy.
My favorite is the Gospel of the Road to Emmaus in the Slavic Church:with the two disciples you have all sorts fo duals which have dropped out of the Slavic languages (except Slovenian) still in the Church Slovanic.
Anna Comnena talks about teaching Greeks (i.e. Romans) to speak Greek (i.e. Attic):
That's just it: there is no need for a canon. It is that deeply engrained in the East.
Not deeply engrained enough, apparently, since the Church translated the liturgy into modern English without anyone raising a fuss.
LOL. Where have you
been. You're lucky to get English, modern, archaic or Indo-European given the fuss in many quarters over this, e.g. the Greek Archdiocese of Canada/Toronto.
Couple of things on that, first of which is that Orthodox didn't translate it. Hapgood has dominated English liturgy in North America for the past century. She was, and remained, an Episcopalian, and the ECUSA's predecessor was part, if not the main, part of her intended audience, to reunite the "branches," East and West. Hence the BCP language, explicitely using the KJV and the BCP for the Psalms, and even the BCP translation of the prayer of St. Chrysostom ("Byzantinization" started before the WRO even existed, or were thought of). (In contrast, St. Nicholas the Apostle of Japan rejected the earlier translations by Protestants, not for problems of dogma, but because they used vernacular Japanese, and he started his own translation into archaic Classical Japanese). Prior to her, translations were done by Fr. Bjerring, a convert priest (who later apostacized) who served the East coast Orthodox, being installed in New York in 1870. He had to translate them for the simple reason that he did not speak either Russian/Slavonic nor Greek, and had to go from a German translation. Most of his parish barely spoke English, so the English being used didn't become an issue.
Prior to that, English was used in the San Francisco Cathedral, the parishes in New Orleans and Galveston as the lingua franca of the mixed congregations, and liturgical use wasn't in question. The "English priest" Fr. (soon to officially St.) Sebastian Dabovich translated for the clergy (he was the first priest born in America of European parantage, but just barely: his mother went into labor as their boat sailed past the Golden Gate Bridge towards immigration).
Things didn't change much until the conversion of Fr. Ingrim Irwin, the first of a rash of convert priests when the See of North America was translated to New York. A former Episcopalian, he began writing English articles in the Russia/Ukrainian publications (oddly, the HGS allowed Ukrainian in North America although banned in the Empire: despite the 1st Ammendment, the Church publications had to get the approval of the Russian censor). When St. Tikhon returned to Russia, he was tranferred to St. Raphael's jurisdiction. There his started the Anglisation of al-Kalimah (now the Word), and began to target the children of the Arabs, who were being lured away by English services of the Protestants. At the same time, back in the Mother Patriarchate, Arabic had just been restored as the liturgical language, and so was undergoing a process of translation/standardization not unlike what was going on in America, at a time that the Christians were standardizing modern Arabic (yes, the Christians. The Muslims refused to acknowledge anything but Quranic Arabic at the time). Given that dynamic, Fr. Irwin placed a premium on intelligibility, as he spoke out forcefully for mission (severely criticizing Hapgood in the process) in North America. Hence, no reason to adopt the Eastern mentality on language (i.e. diglossia). The Syrian Diocese went from 100% Arabic in 1906 to 84% at least some English, including 52% all
English, in 1916. Up until the OCA and the switching to English which picked up steam after Autocephaly, the Antichians were the biggest source of English Orthodoxy.http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/08/language-in-american-orthodoxy-1916/
Another source of English translation came from Archb. Fan Noli's Albanians. Back in the empire the Porte forbade Albanian and the Phanar excommunicated those who used it, and the Greeks brought that rule here in America: the origin of the autocephalous Church of Albania sprung into existence from the refusal of the Greek priest in Boston to bury an "Albanian Nationalist." So Fan Noli and the Albanians went to the Russian bishop. Fan Noli translated into English and Albanian the classics (Harvard educated, he was a philologist, aside from liturgical translations, and himself a poet in both languages) of English and the writings of Albanian natinalists. His writings helped standardize Albanian (accomplished within his lifetime). Again, a different dynamic than usual in Eastern countries, and given that history, not suprising that we have the translations we have. (another element being that Vatican, with a different agenda, approved and published all sorts of materials in English, which we all use).
Meanwhile, in Greece the Evangelika "Gospel Questions" (the translation of the NT into Modern Greek and distributed in Greece, at nearly no cost, sponsored by the Queen of the Greeks) resulted in bloodshed and deaths, the deposition of the Archbishop of Athens and the fall of the government. All that without a canon or a rubric.
Here's the problem Isa- your entire argument in favor of the WR and liturgical phyletism
You mean the DL in the language the Faithful actually speak: whether English, Yupik, French or Spanish...or whatever?
is based on obscure historical tangents which have negligible relevance
rococo and baroque?
and which the average Orthodox in the US or other western lands is neither aware of nor affected by.
Those in the WRO, and the Western detractors of Orthodoxy say otherwise.
The Eastern rite is served in modern English, not middle English and not Anglo-Saxon, so what are you complaining about?
Since I pray in Arabic, for myself, nothing. Just defending the Catholicity of the One, Holy, Catholic
[that means sent] Church.
Are you now critiquing the Eastern Rite because the form of English selected was not sufficiently archaic?
Just stating the fact that this is not the usual manner of things in the East.
Did Sts. Cyril and Methodius deliberately pick archaic dialects when they formed Old Church Slavonic? Did St. Innocent of Alaska reach for the oldest forms of native languages they could find?
LOL. Bad examples, as neither the Slavs nor the Amerindians had any means to have an archaic form of their language-that requires a literary form to make the comparison, and the saints were the first to put the languages into writing. Plus SS Cyril and Methodius were technically a Western mission. The written form they created, the Glagolithic, survives in Croatia, using the Western rite. I've refered to the example of St. Nicholas of Japan above, and I'll add the Classical Chinese translations done by the Orthodox missions: both Japan and China had literary traditions, where the choice of an archaic form was available, and chosen. When Romanian finally came into its own, it borrowed Slavonic for its archaism (the knowledge of Latin was completely gone at the time), as Coptic and Syriac used Greek, and Arabic used Syriac. But getting back to the Slavonic, once the Cyrillic alphabet was adopted, yes, archaisms like the "Greek letters" (letters that were different in Attic but merged in Koine) and breathings (meaningless in Slavonic) were adopted.
Confusing Rome with the World (and uniformity of rite is this part of this Urbs et Orbis error) is the core of its errors.
The Vatican's errors are exactly what the Church says they are- filioque, Papal supremacy, etc. [/quote]
The filioque was Spain's error. It only became the Vatican, and the cause of Rome being dropped from the diptychs, when introduced at Rome, and Rome therefore insisted all the other Churches adopt it. Same with the authority of its bishop over all the other Churches.
The Church has never made its critique of the Vatican on the phyletist grounds
Au contraire: The Byzantine lists: errors of the Latins By Tia M. Kolbabahttp://books.google.com/books?id=X8F9EghcuD8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=erros+of+the+latins&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
that everyone should get his own rite for his own culture and ethnicity.
Constantinople was not yet underway for a century after the schism to transform itself into the Phanar, and suppressed the rites of the other local Churches.
The old local rites are dead and gone; let's put away the fantasy roleplaying and accept what the Church has given us.
Like the Resurrection? Yes, these dead bones live.
Interesting how you both say
I agree here. If established Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran parishes want to convert and adopt this rite, and the Orthodox bishops concede to this,
and tell them to "put away the fantasy roleplaying and accept what the Church has given us." What when those "established Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran parishes" establish other parishes (as I said, Apostolic means "sent")? Would they be setting up Eastern parishes?