OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 05:49:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: increase of latin language in western rite will increase orthodox praxis  (Read 10524 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« on: May 16, 2011, 02:02:12 AM »

Christus resurrexit!

Orthodox christianity has never known a monolithic liturgical language to dominate and exclude all others. Clearly their are traditional liturgical languages which form the root and basis of our oldest liturgies to hold the standard of translations high and to unite ourselves in times when theological questions arise.

Just as we can find many languages used in Eastern rite liturgies, we should be able to find a certain diversity within the western rite liturgies. Just as we find certain Eastern Churches which uphold Slavonic language libaries and liturgies we might also see there is an equal gift for Western rite Churches to have Latin language libraries and liturgies.

At this time 99%, possibly close to 100% of the approximately 45 missions and churches within the Antiochian and Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia in the USA have only one language for nearly everything they do regarding their faith. That language is english.

It is my belief that if the western rite(s) within orthodox christianity do not take stronger care to defend and uphold the preservation of knowledge, study and liturgical usage of the latin language they will not be able to fully represent western christianity and maintain themselves to be legitimate forebears of this holy precious patrimony, which has in recent times been greatly weakened within both protestant and latin papal christianity.

    Many of the difficulties and disagreements which exist within understanding "who we are" as western rite orthodox christians could better be resolved if their were more usage or knowledge of latin, in any way, no matter how small, it would help.

In no way do I dismiss that english is a legitimate language to be used. However if one takes more care to focus on the culture that their church produced in the latin language one will have a much clearer meaning of what it means to be both "western" and "orthodox".

Additionally, with greater knowledge and usage of latin there would be a greater respect from some of those within the west who would be most sympathetic toward collaborating in some fashion with the Orthodox Church. Traditional latin/roman rite catholics.

I can see nothing but good to come from greater knowledge of Latin.
It is for that reason that the prosarium/hymnal I hope to have published in 2012 will include all texts fully notated in both languages.

Your thoughts?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 02:05:20 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2011, 02:10:51 AM »

Latin is the glory of the Western Church.  While English will I imagine always dominate for pastoral reasons in the Western-rite in English speaking nations, I hope that priestly formation will encompass learning Latin, and that solemn Latin masses especially for hierarchical services, ordinations etc have some place in the Western-rite.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2011, 02:13:32 AM »

I always thought that the Orthodox ideal was liturgy in the local language and not a dead one? 

With the (Supposed) Current resurgence of the Tridentine mass in the modern Roman rite, Are you not afraid that doing something like this will lead to accusations that Western rite Orthodoxy is a form of reverse uniatism?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2011, 02:19:42 AM »

I think Latin has some parallels with Church Slavonic, which I strongly favour retaining within ROCOR, at least in conjunction with English for those parishes where it is warranted. My comment was really about the veracity of Latin culturally.  There are many arguments for - and against having a Western-rite Church which has the potential as you say to be a Western parallel to the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is in particular a risk of western syncretism and a failure to interiorize Orthodoxy in its fullness, however that is perhaps more a measure of my own nature, than a comment on anyone else's.  For me Orthodoxy is encapsulated within the Chrysostom Liturgy, in whatever language it is served in, and I would always choose that -  because that is what I am comfortable with, in any canonical jurisdiction over attendance at a Western-rite mass.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2011, 03:52:44 AM »

No dead languages in the Liturgy. They create a false dichotomy between the Church and secular life.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2011, 03:54:23 AM »

No dead languages in the Liturgy. They create a false dichotomy between the Church and secular life.
What false dichotomy?
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2011, 03:57:10 AM »

That the Church is some special place where other rules are obligatory than in normal life, that it's the place for worshipping God and other places aren't, than people should behave well there and they don't have to outside the Church.

People should behave well and remember God no matter where they are.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 03:58:13 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,103


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2011, 06:28:07 AM »

No dead languages in the Liturgy. They create a false dichotomy between the Church and secular life.

Yeah, that's why people speak French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian and Romansch today- because Latin is so 'dead.'  Roll Eyes Also, we hear a form of Greek in my church that is very different from what you would hear if you went to Greece. It may not be the Greek of the ancient philosophers, but it's certainly not the Greek of, say, a news report this morning. I am not a native speaker of Greek, and I experience a dichotomy between my life and parish life every time I go to church. Still, I don't feel that going to church is a useless experience at all.

I assume there are parts of Wales where you would pretty much have to hold the liturgy in Welsh. Yet the Welsh language had almost disappeared, and was only revived in the last century or so.

Go to Russia and ask people what they speak, and they'll tell you Russian. Go to church and what do you hear? Old Slavonic.

It's not hard at all to get simple booklets which have Latin on one side and English or some other local language on the other. I own a couple of these. Latin is not that hard to pronounce, if you give it a shot.

There is something to be said for things that are simply beautiful in their own right. If the people who go to a given parish enjoy hearing the Latin, why is that bad? You can hear other languages at other parishes, if you need to.

If the people in this particular church want to hear Latin, I think they will still be able to get along okay after they go home.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2011, 06:37:41 AM »

That the Church is some special place where other rules are obligatory than in normal life, that it's the place for worshipping God and other places aren't, than people should behave well there and they don't have to outside the Church.

People should behave well and remember God no matter where they are.

This is the same reasoning people use to make churches look like dentist offices or corporate meeting rooms. The fact is, the church is a special place. Even when our liturgies are in the vernacular, even when translators try very hard to be informal, we don't use the same sort of language we do in ordinary conversations.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2011, 08:14:40 AM »

Christ is risen!
No dead languages in the Liturgy. They create a false dichotomy between the Church and secular life.
What false dichotomy?
That what you do on Sunday has nothing to do what you do the rest of the week, especially as what you do on Sunday is out of date.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,217



« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2011, 12:40:41 PM »

Many of the difficulties and disagreements which exist within understanding "who we are" as western rite orthodox christians could better be resolved if their were more usage or knowledge of latin, in any way, no matter how small, it would help.

In no way do I dismiss that english is a legitimate language to be used. However if one takes more care to focus on the culture that their church produced in the latin language one will have a much clearer meaning of what it means to be both "western" and "orthodox".
I don’t have a problem with Latin, but I don’t buy this argument at all. One of the biggest objections I have to WRO is the liturgical and theological archeology involved in producing its rites; it is hard to define the Orthodox west when the west hasn’t been orthodox for a minimum of 800 years and – depending on which timeline you use – possibly as many 1,200.  Very often what you get are mutilated liturgies that have been purged of their Romanism (or Protestantism) but are trumpeted as “restored.”

I am not against the WRO, but I don’t think that restoring Latin will bring about a western Orthodox revival. That’s dreaming in the same way that FSSP priests in Catholic circles think that if only they bring back enough traditional liturgies the Catholic Church in the U.S. will turn around.
One does not have to be Eastern to be Orthodox, but I feel like many of our western efforts are just shooting in the dark.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2011, 02:36:59 PM »

I don’t have a problem with Latin, but I don’t buy this argument at all. One of the biggest objections I have to WRO is the liturgical and theological archeology involved in producing its rites;

Could you elaborate on which aspects you believe are liturgical & theological archaeology?

Because, at least within the Antiochian Church, the only theology we hold to is Apostolic theology, as expressed by the Fathers and Saints of the undivided, truly Apostolic Church. And the only liturgies we use are those that have been kept alive and handed down to us today. Did you have specific things in mind, that have been dug up from the past?

Quote
it is hard to define the Orthodox west when the west hasn’t been orthodox for a minimum of 800 years and – depending on which timeline you use – possibly as many 1,200.  Very often what you get are mutilated liturgies that have been purged of their Romanism (or Protestantism) but are trumpeted as “restored.”

Some specifics might be nice Smiley

Quote
I am not against the WRO, but I don’t think that restoring Latin will bring about a western Orthodox revival. That’s dreaming in the same way that FSSP priests in Catholic circles think that if only they bring back enough traditional liturgies the Catholic Church in the U.S. will turn around.
One does not have to be Eastern to be Orthodox, but I feel like many of our western efforts are just shooting in the dark.

What are your suggestions, then? Because we really only have 3 options available to us: 1) revive and bring back into use liturgies that existed intact before 1054, 2) adapt living liturgies within specific guidelines set out by the Orthodox Church, or 3) create something entirely new.

There's a reason why option 2 was adopted by the Antiochians, for mainly pastoral (rather than purely ideological) reasons. It might not be without its "problems" but I think one has to agree that options 1 & 3 wouldn't be without their own sets of problems and challenges as well.

We can't forget, when all is said and done, what the point of it all is anyway because that's what should determine the routes we take. The point is to worship God in spirit and in truth, to commune with our Savior and to become one with him, to be within the shelter and safety of the Ark of Salvation.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 02:46:12 PM by Sleeper » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2011, 02:52:56 PM »

The Liturgy has always been in the language of the people. Latin died out long ago as a spoken, common language.

Yes, I know that Koine Greek and Church Slavonic are no longer spoken, but from my experience in Greece, Koine didn't appear to be extremely different. (but that is another debate)

I don't have much problem with a few things being in Latin, but the vast majority of the service ought to be in English, or the common, vernacular language of the people.

That is one of the very few things that Vatican II in the Roman Church actually got right.



For comparison:

Current Greek Liturgy:
Ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.
(In peace, let us pray to the Lord)

In modern Greek, that would be mostly the same, except 'Ev would be replaced by "Στην". And the extra marks would be removed. (in Modern Greek, words only have 1 emphasis mark) I'm not sure, but the order of the words might also change around.

Whereas, if you take Latin...
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
(In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.)

Then in Italian (forgive me, this was translated by Google Translate):
Nel nome del Padre e del Figlio e dello Spirito Santo. Amen.

You can see a relation, but Latin would still be unintelligible to even an Italian who doesn't know Latin. Latin is a dead language, but it is unlike Koine Greek or even (to a degree) Church Slavonic, whose modern variants were still pretty similar.

The services ought to be in the vernacular, that is why Latin should not be used. No one speaks it anymore as a vernacular language.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 03:10:17 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,217



« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2011, 03:44:26 PM »

There's a reason why option 2 was adopted by the Antiochians, for mainly pastoral (rather than purely ideological) reasons. It might not be without its "problems" but I think one has to agree that options 1 & 3 wouldn't be without their own sets of problems and challenges as well.

I suppose that my answer to all of this is “I  don’t know.” I’m of the opinion that it will take more than using rites that are more palatable to the western tongue to develop a true Western Orthodoxy.

I think using rites that are strikingly similar to the one used in heterodox circles can be problematic for potential converts (especially those used to those same rites), but I am loathe to contradict St. Tikhon or the tradition of economia in the Church as a whole. What liturgy gets used is the bishop’s prerogative, and that’s that as far as I am concerned. If the choice was between a WRO-English language church or a Byzntine-Greek language Church, I would attend the WRO one without a second thought.

What I don’t like is people digging up disused and sometimes incomplete rites (e.g. the Sarum) or other western rites (e.g. like the OP has suggested in multiple threads) and declaring, “Ha! We have restored Western Orthodoxy!” The faith is more than the liturgy. (And I guess that is both my critique and affirmation of WRO.)

I am on my lunch break right now, and I will try to bring back some examples of what I mentioned earlier.

Quote
We can't forget, when all is said and done, what the point of it all is anyway because that's what should determine the routes we take. The point is to worship God in spirit and in truth, to commune with our Savior and to become one with him, to be within the shelter and safety of the Ark of Salvation.
Amen. Amen. Amen.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 03:45:12 PM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2011, 04:24:48 PM »

There's a reason why option 2 was adopted by the Antiochians, for mainly pastoral (rather than purely ideological) reasons. It might not be without its "problems" but I think one has to agree that options 1 & 3 wouldn't be without their own sets of problems and challenges as well.

I suppose that my answer to all of this is “I  don’t know.”


That's refreshing to hear, especially on this topic!

Quote
I’m of the opinion that it will take more than using rites that are more palatable to the western tongue to develop a true Western Orthodoxy.

This is true. However, it will take more than merely translating the St. Chrysostom liturgy into English to develop a true Western Orthodoxy as well. It will have to be a combination of things, not the least of which is having an authentic liturgical use for contemporary Western people (of whatever provenance, whether East or West), thorough catechesis, thorough exposure to the Fathers (both East and West) and time.

And, as has been said before, this is going to be true for converts no matter what rite they eventually worship within.

Quote
I think using rites that are strikingly similar to the one used in heterodox circles can be problematic for potential converts (especially those used to those same rites),

It can be problematic for some, but it has also proven to be anything but. There's a very real temptation to say nothing good ever came out of insert-whatever-tradition-so-and-so-convert-came-out-of and to dive headlong into "Eastern" Orthodoxy, merely because everything seems so "new" and "different" and it feels like they're discovering Christianity for the very first time and the next thing you know they've got a beard down to their nipples and they're trying to perfect their Greek accent. However, this doesn't lessen the dire need for one to truly convert, and this is also not without its own problems and challenges.

What I have seen born out in experience is that often those who stay within their own tradition in Western Orthodoxy, are often far more capable of truly become Orthodox, because they don't mistake the forest for the trees. It's very easy to equate Orthodoxy with Eastern Christianity (and, let's be honest, many popular Orthodox writers don't care to make the distinction) and they don't have to get comfortable with, or learn to be as authentic within an entirely new and foreign tradition. They don't equate "Orthodoxy" with onion domes and iconostases and pew-less naves and the liturgies of Ss Chrysostom & Basil and all of the other external expressions of Eastern cultures that have come to incarnate the Apostolic faith. They're able to see the Apostolic faith incarnated within their own tradition as it was expressed by the Western cultures of the first millennium in an equally authentic and beautiful way.

And that's all Western Rite Orthodoxy is, when all is said and done. It's the Western expression of the Apostolic faith as it has been kept alive by Western peoples. Does that mean every single aspect of the total expression is identical, or hasn't undergone development, or hasn't been grafted in from outside of the Church's boundaries? No, but that's not true of the Eastern expression either.

We can't lose site of the whole reason we have liturgies and calendars and written prayers, etc., in the first place, or we're no different than the Pharisees who honored God with their lips (and their externals) but whose hearts were far from Him.

Quote
but I am loathe to contradict St. Tikhon or the tradition of economia in the Church as a whole. What liturgy gets used is the bishop’s prerogative, and that’s that as far as I am concerned. If the choice was between a WRO-English language church or a Byzntine-Greek language Church, I would attend the WRO one without a second thought.

Again, that's refreshing to hear. I know that's not true of everyone...

Quote
What I don’t like is people digging up disused and sometimes incomplete rites (e.g. the Sarum) or other western rites (e.g. like the OP has suggested in multiple threads) and declaring, “Ha! We have restored Western Orthodoxy!” The faith is more than the liturgy. (And I guess that is both my critique and affirmation of WRO.)

I agree, I'm not a fan of liturgical archaeology either. It may prove necessary in some instances, but overall, there's a certain unmistakeable wisdom in Antioch's approach to the Western Rite.

Restoring Western Orthodoxy, to my mind, is to bring to the Orthodox Church a heritage that truly has a Western memory, which goes much deeper than honoring Western saints and translating things into English. To have a Western Orthodoxy that is truly Western requires that the overall expression and life of the Western Orthodox Church(es) be that of actual Western culture; that which was and is born out of our common Western experience.

In other words, a true restoration of Western Orthodoxy would mean for it to be both truly Western meaning genuinely having emerged and embodied and crafted by Western peoples, and truly Orthodox meaning the Apostolic faith that was once delivered unto the saints.

And this is what we have and see within canonical WRO today, especially within the AWRV. We celebrate, and participate in, the Divine Mysteries of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church by means of the cultural and spiritual heritage of the ancient Christian West, as it has been handed down to us today. Plain and simple. It is both Western and Orthodox.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,303



« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2011, 04:32:34 PM »

My problem with the Western Rite is that it removes some of the Liturgical unity that I believe is important.  However, that is a personal opinion, and the calendar issue has already pretty much done that.  So, since we have a Western Rite, I am not all that particular with what language they want to use.  All of the WR people that I know came out of the Anglican Communion.  Latin is not thier language of choice, but rather English.  I guess that if a boat load of Old Catholics came on board, I would not object to them using Latin - even if I did actually have anything to say about it.  Now, if I could attend one of the old Liturgies from Venice during the time of Geovanni Gabrielli, I could easily be converted to the Western Rite.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2011, 04:59:29 PM »

My problem with the Western Rite is that it removes some of the Liturgical unity that I believe is important.  However, that is a personal opinion, and the calendar issue has already pretty much done that.  So, since we have a Western Rite, I am not all that particular with what language they want to use.  All of the WR people that I know came out of the Anglican Communion.  Latin is not thier language of choice, but rather English.  I guess that if a boat load of Old Catholics came on board, I would not object to them using Latin - even if I did actually have anything to say about it.  Now, if I could attend one of the old Liturgies from Venice during the time of Geovanni Gabrielli, I could easily be converted to the Western Rite.

Well, hopefully the only thing some converts to is Orthodoxy, not a ritual expression Wink

However, I would like to point out that when the Apostolic Catholic Church was at its closest unity, it was most diverse in its expression. True, as we saw in the East, liturgical uniformity can be important when its the only thing uniting people under great persecution and limited freedom, but that's not the situation under which those parts of the world where Western Orthodoxy makes sense finds itself. If history shows us anything, in fact, it would actually be that unity is brought about when individual cultures express and incarnate the Apostolic Faith in their own peculiar ways.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,303



« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2011, 05:07:02 PM »

My problem with the Western Rite is that it removes some of the Liturgical unity that I believe is important.  However, that is a personal opinion, and the calendar issue has already pretty much done that.  So, since we have a Western Rite, I am not all that particular with what language they want to use.  All of the WR people that I know came out of the Anglican Communion.  Latin is not thier language of choice, but rather English.  I guess that if a boat load of Old Catholics came on board, I would not object to them using Latin - even if I did actually have anything to say about it.  Now, if I could attend one of the old Liturgies from Venice during the time of Geovanni Gabrielli, I could easily be converted to the Western Rite.

Well, hopefully the only thing some converts to is Orthodoxy, not a ritual expression Wink

However, I would like to point out that when the Apostolic Catholic Church was at its closest unity, it was most diverse in its expression. True, as we saw in the East, liturgical uniformity can be important when its the only thing uniting people under great persecution and limited freedom, but that's not the situation under which those parts of the world where Western Orthodoxy makes sense finds itself. If history shows us anything, in fact, it would actually be that unity is brought about when individual cultures express and incarnate the Apostolic Faith in their own peculiar ways.

That is a good point.  I guess that I get caught up too much on what I consider Unity.  To be fair, I guess that I could say that as long as we all celebrated the Feasts and Fasts at the same time, how we did it would not be as important to me.  However, that belief came with age, because I certainly did NOT believe that in my younger days when I believed that even changing “thou” to “you” was a direct attack by the devil.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2011, 05:12:32 PM »

I love the DL in Church Slavonic.  Even though I was not fluent in Cyrillic, I still thought that the music and chanting was great, especially compared to the rather dull sounding English versions.  Luckily I went to a ROCOR parish which did around 90% of the DL in Slavonic (Complete with a bi lingual Russian/English sermon by an extemporaneous preacher).  I had a copy of the "Chlib Dusi" with English on one page and phonetic Slavonic on the other.  Even though this translation was obviously Carpatho Russian in origin (Complete with the soft H instead of G for "Gospodi") I had no problem following the DL with this help.  The priest even commended me for being creative enough to use such a book in following the liturgy and told me that this was how he learned Slavonic originally.

The "Chlib Dusi" (Heavenly Bread) is a great service book for laity who attend a Slavonic DL.  It is unfortunately hard to get and can only be (to my knowledge) ordered from a Church supply company in Pennsylvania.  Well worth it though!
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 05:14:21 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,303



« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2011, 06:58:33 PM »

Robb,

I noticed the same thing, both in Slavonic Churches and Latin ones.  While it is really great for people to hear the service in their own language, often the original tongue does not translate well into English and keep the same meter.  I wish that we in the Orthodox world could do what was done in a heavily German section of the United States.  Three weeks out of the month the Service was in English, and one in German.  It was interesting hearing the German hymns in the language and meter that they were originally written. I am not so sure that it always has to be one way or the other when it comes to language.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #20 on: May 16, 2011, 08:01:57 PM »

My problem with the Western Rite is that it removes some of the Liturgical unity that I believe is important.  However, that is a personal opinion, and the calendar issue has already pretty much done that.  So, since we have a Western Rite, I am not all that particular with what language they want to use.  All of the WR people that I know came out of the Anglican Communion.  Latin is not thier language of choice, but rather English.  I guess that if a boat load of Old Catholics came on board, I would not object to them using Latin - even if I did actually have anything to say about it.  Now, if I could attend one of the old Liturgies from Venice during the time of Geovanni Gabrielli, I could easily be converted to the Western Rite.

Well, hopefully the only thing some converts to is Orthodoxy, not a ritual expression Wink

However, I would like to point out that when the Apostolic Catholic Church was at its closest unity, it was most diverse in its expression. True, as we saw in the East, liturgical uniformity can be important when its the only thing uniting people under great persecution and limited freedom, but that's not the situation under which those parts of the world where Western Orthodoxy makes sense finds itself. If history shows us anything, in fact, it would actually be that unity is brought about when individual cultures express and incarnate the Apostolic Faith in their own peculiar ways.

This is a very good point.  Before any of the schisms that last even unto today, there was the Assyrian liturgy, the liturgy of Alexandria, of St. James, of Constantinople, of Syria, probably some Indian one given that St. Thomas went there, and of course a whole host of Western rites.  Too often it seems people forget that the Liturgy of St. John Crysostom didn't fall out of the sky on the day of Pentecost (though, it is also important to remember it was originally crafted by St. James, then redacted by St. Basil, and then St. John Crysostom), and in fact that there were many Orthodox liturgies for some time in th Church.

As for Latin being the WR, I don't know why it should be desired.  I mean, no one today speaks Latin as their everyday language - not even the people in the Vatican.  It would be akin to the Antiochian Church all of a sudden deciding to start serving the liturgy in Assyrian instead of Arabic, or the Alexandrian Church deciding that starting next Sunday they will use Coptic.  When the people who are being served by the Church in a particular parish do not speak the language being used (or a descendent of that language), then there is a problem.  However, if traditionalist Roman churches started to join the Orthodox Church, then I wouldn't say they must change from using Latin to using English, just as - in the event of a union between the OO and EO, no one should demand that the Armenians cease to use Classical Armenian or that the Copts take out all elements of Coptic from the liturgy.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2011, 09:57:14 PM »

I am an inquirer into WRO. I am a cradle practicing RC, who was disturbed by the direction of the church so I started investigating Orthodoxy. I took classes at a GO churn and attended a liturgy mainly in Greek.it was nice but I had no real clue what was going on. The Antiochian church I am now attending has a service that is very familiar to me, but the theology is definitely Orthodox. Another point is that my wife has macular degeneration and has memorized most of the RC liturgy, so the change for her would be less if she decides to convert also. Having an English translation of the Greek service would do her no good. I was very glad to find the WRO. As far as Latin goes I understand a good part of the Latin liturgy but do agree that English services were one of the only good things from VII.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #22 on: May 16, 2011, 10:14:17 PM »

Why oh Why didn't the western rites Orthodox churches  take up The Ancient Liturgy Of St. James ,Instead of using the revised and revised Liturgiy/mass.....The Liturgy of St. James could be served with the priest facing the congragation or his back towards them and with in a iconastasis or without one..... police
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2011, 12:35:27 AM »

Umm...perhaps because it is like 5 hours long?  Do you want to go to Church for five hours every week?

Also, they frequently like to have a bit of continuity with the liturgy they had prior to becoming Orthodox.  Would you expect the Romans to start using the Liturgy of St. James if they became Orthodox, or would you think it ok for them to use a revised form of their present liturgy (or, preferably, of the Roman Rite)?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2011, 12:43:27 AM »

I witnessed the Liturgy of St. James being served in the serbian church as a kid, it wasn't 5 hr. long about 2 hours give or take...The priests served out side the Iconastasis ,Facing the people ,communion was given seperate  ,not mingled in a chalice... .....

Maybe your thinking about the oriental Litugy of St.james maybe that ones longer.....

Umm...perhaps because it is like 5 hours long?  Do you want to go to Church for five hours every week?

Also, they frequently like to have a bit of continuity with the liturgy they had prior to becoming Orthodox.  Would you expect the Romans to start using the Liturgy of St. James if they became Orthodox, or would you think it ok for them to use a revised form of their present liturgy (or, preferably, of the Roman Rite)?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 12:56:34 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2011, 01:12:35 AM »

I witnessed the Liturgy of St. James being served in the serbian church as a kid, it wasn't 5 hr. long about 2 hours give or take...The priests served out side the Iconastasis ,Facing the people ,communion was given seperate  ,not mingled in a chalice... .....

Maybe your thinking about the oriental Litugy of St.james maybe that ones longer.....

Umm...perhaps because it is like 5 hours long?  Do you want to go to Church for five hours every week?

Also, they frequently like to have a bit of continuity with the liturgy they had prior to becoming Orthodox.  Would you expect the Romans to start using the Liturgy of St. James if they became Orthodox, or would you think it ok for them to use a revised form of their present liturgy (or, preferably, of the Roman Rite)?

Not sure why they'd face the people. Facing liturgical east has always been the practice...
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #26 on: May 17, 2011, 01:19:57 AM »

That Liturgy was so unusual ,Different from what i was use too , that it stuck in my mind ,I was traumatized ,and i never forgot about it....... police




I witnessed the Liturgy of St. James being served in the serbian church as a kid, it wasn't 5 hr. long about 2 hours give or take...The priests served out side the Iconastasis ,Facing the people ,communion was given seperate  ,not mingled in a chalice... .....

Maybe your thinking about the oriental Litugy of St.james maybe that ones longer.....

Umm...perhaps because it is like 5 hours long?  Do you want to go to Church for five hours every week?

Also, they frequently like to have a bit of continuity with the liturgy they had prior to becoming Orthodox.  Would you expect the Romans to start using the Liturgy of St. James if they became Orthodox, or would you think it ok for them to use a revised form of their present liturgy (or, preferably, of the Roman Rite)?

Not sure why they'd face the people. Facing liturgical east has always been the practice...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 01:24:11 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2011, 01:21:52 AM »

My problem with the Western Rite is that it removes some of the Liturgical unity that I believe is important.  However, that is a personal opinion, and the calendar issue has already pretty much done that.  So, since we have a Western Rite, I am not all that particular with what language they want to use.  All of the WR people that I know came out of the Anglican Communion.  Latin is not thier language of choice, but rather English.  I guess that if a boat load of Old Catholics came on board, I would not object to them using Latin - even if I did actually have anything to say about it.  Now, if I could attend one of the old Liturgies from Venice during the time of Geovanni Gabrielli, I could easily be converted to the Western Rite.

Well, hopefully the only thing some converts to is Orthodoxy, not a ritual expression Wink

However, I would like to point out that when the Apostolic Catholic Church was at its closest unity, it was most diverse in its expression. True, as we saw in the East, liturgical uniformity can be important when its the only thing uniting people under great persecution and limited freedom, but that's not the situation under which those parts of the world where Western Orthodoxy makes sense finds itself. If history shows us anything, in fact, it would actually be that unity is brought about when individual cultures express and incarnate the Apostolic Faith in their own peculiar ways.

I agree with Punch on this point.

What troubles me most about the Western Rite is that it seems every parish has its own very distinct way of doing things. I realize this is true in the Eastern Rite as well, but the differences are with musical settings and things, not so much in the "meat" of the liturgy. It troubles me that, essentially, the divine services are conducted according to the liturgical interests of the priest. I know a WR priest and it seems that a lot of his material is the result of his own personal liturgical archaeology, and I get the sense that is true elsewhere too.

This is not the same as the liturgical diversity of old, because the bishops still were intimately involved in those matters. Early on, the Churches were few and far-between, so bishops were personally present in many of the parish communities. But today, there are no Western Rite bishops. Our bishops—God bless them—in general have neither the time nor the knowledge to supervise these things. Their forte is the Eastern Orthodox ways as they have always been.

I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was a dedicated WR bishop(s) in the Churches that have WR parishes. But for now, it seems like the WR is a group of priests, to a large extent unsupervised, who are conducting liturgical experiments in their own little laboratories. Such things need to be done I suppose, and it was done in the past, but it should then be intimately overseen by bishops, whose Orthodoxy is thoroughly ingrained and above reproach.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 01:25:28 AM by bogdan » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2011, 01:23:40 AM »

Could someone provide more info on the length of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, given that St. Basil's liturgy is a shortened version of it and St. Chrysostom's is a shortened version of St. Basil's?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2011, 01:27:35 AM »

I witnessed the Liturgy of St. James being served in the serbian church as a kid, it wasn't 5 hr. long about 2 hours give or take...The priests served out side the Iconastasis ,Facing the people ,communion was given seperate  ,not mingled in a chalice... .....

Maybe your thinking about the oriental Litugy of St.james maybe that ones longer.....

Umm...perhaps because it is like 5 hours long?  Do you want to go to Church for five hours every week?

Also, they frequently like to have a bit of continuity with the liturgy they had prior to becoming Orthodox.  Would you expect the Romans to start using the Liturgy of St. James if they became Orthodox, or would you think it ok for them to use a revised form of their present liturgy (or, preferably, of the Roman Rite)?

Not sure why they'd face the people. Facing liturgical east has always been the practice...

St James' liturgy is served facing the people, I'm pretty sure.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2011, 01:34:10 AM »

Could someone provide more info on the length of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, given that St. Basil's liturgy is a shortened version of it and St. Chrysostom's is a shortened version of St. Basil's?

St James' is done very rarely, though I know an old priest who loves it a great deal and serves it occasionally. It's several hours long. Not sure exactly on the length.

This is going a little afield, but the Liturgy of St John is not a straight-up revision of St Basil's. IIRC, St Basil's is Constantopolitan while St John's is Antiochene, coming from different traditions and distinct liturgical schools. Over time they kind of merged, and by the 1300-1400s or so, they were interchangeable to a large extent. The biggest differences are the priest's secret prayers; the litanies and almost all the hymns are the same. I don't know if this was always the case though. I imagine they were more distinct originally.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2011, 01:43:15 AM »

The biggest divide in WRO parishes seems to be between those who want to use the Gregorian liturgy (Former RC's I'm guessing) and those who want to use the St Tikhon Liturgy (Former Anglicans I'm guessing).  There are a number of other forms used by WRO, but these two are, I have heard the most prevalent. 

They also have a mass called the "Rite of Port Royal", but I think its just a Tridentine Mass.  BTW, why would a WR community be named for a bunch of schismatic nuns of the RCC (Jansenist ones too)?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2011, 01:51:48 AM »

The biggest divide in WRO parishes seems to be between those who want to use the Gregorian liturgy (Former RC's I'm guessing) and those who want to use the St Tikhon Liturgy (Former Anglicans I'm guessing).  There are a number of other forms used by WRO, but these two are, I have heard the most prevalent. 

I believe that's true for the AWRV. And I personally think that's a fine approach; the two liturgies are rather distinct from each other. I am somewhat troubled by using the BCP liturgy though, since the Anglican Church's entire existence was in schism with Orthodoxy. But that's the AWRV's general approach: Anything that is not objectionable may be used. I'm not sure how I feel about that approach though, since orthodoxy is often more subtle than simply the words written on the page....I don't know.

I have heard that ROCOR's WR is not quite as organized though, and there are almost as many rites as parishes, with varying degrees of quality. But I don't know that for a fact, it's all gossip and hearsay. Lips Sealed
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2011, 04:04:52 AM »

Could someone provide more info on the length of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, given that St. Basil's liturgy is a shortened version of it and St. Chrysostom's is a shortened version of St. Basil's?

St James' is done very rarely, though I know an old priest who loves it a great deal and serves it occasionally. It's several hours long. Not sure exactly on the length.

This is going a little afield, but the Liturgy of St John is not a straight-up revision of St Basil's. IIRC, St Basil's is Constantopolitan while St John's is Antiochene, coming from different traditions and distinct liturgical schools. Over time they kind of merged, and by the 1300-1400s or so, they were interchangeable to a large extent. The biggest differences are the priest's secret prayers; the litanies and almost all the hymns are the same. I don't know if this was always the case though. I imagine they were more distinct originally.

Thank you for the info, I was 90% sure I'd read somewhere that the liturgy was like 5 hours long but for the life of me I can't get even a vague hint of where I read this, I thought someone would either be able to back up the idea it is very long or tell me I'm nuts
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2011, 10:47:45 AM »

My problem with the Western Rite is that it removes some of the Liturgical unity that I believe is important.  However, that is a personal opinion, and the calendar issue has already pretty much done that.  So, since we have a Western Rite, I am not all that particular with what language they want to use.  All of the WR people that I know came out of the Anglican Communion.  Latin is not thier language of choice, but rather English.  I guess that if a boat load of Old Catholics came on board, I would not object to them using Latin - even if I did actually have anything to say about it.  Now, if I could attend one of the old Liturgies from Venice during the time of Geovanni Gabrielli, I could easily be converted to the Western Rite.

Well, hopefully the only thing some converts to is Orthodoxy, not a ritual expression Wink

However, I would like to point out that when the Apostolic Catholic Church was at its closest unity, it was most diverse in its expression. True, as we saw in the East, liturgical uniformity can be important when its the only thing uniting people under great persecution and limited freedom, but that's not the situation under which those parts of the world where Western Orthodoxy makes sense finds itself. If history shows us anything, in fact, it would actually be that unity is brought about when individual cultures express and incarnate the Apostolic Faith in their own peculiar ways.

I agree with Punch on this point.

What troubles me most about the Western Rite is that it seems every parish has its own very distinct way of doing things. I realize this is true in the Eastern Rite as well, but the differences are with musical settings and things, not so much in the "meat" of the liturgy.

What meaty differences did you have in mind? We aren't allowed to change the liturgies that have been approved for us, so it can't be that. Are you talking about the calendar? I know in some instances it's at the priest's discretion as to which saint will be honored on a particular day, but even then, most of that has already been worked out.

I'd be interested in what you experienced that was so different in substance from one WR parish to another.

Quote
It troubles me that, essentially, the divine services are conducted according to the liturgical interests of the priest. I know a WR priest and it seems that a lot of his material is the result of his own personal liturgical archaeology, and I get the sense that is true elsewhere too.

He shouldn't be doing that, if it's true. I mean, unless it's something minor. It concerns me, though, when you say "liturgical interest" because we cannot make adjustments to the approved liturgies.

If it's something else though, perhaps like a Stations of the Cross service, or something, then yes, you'll see parishes do those differently. Would that really trouble you though?

Quote
This is not the same as the liturgical diversity of old, because the bishops still were intimately involved in those matters. Early on, the Churches were few and far-between, so bishops were personally present in many of the parish communities. But today, there are no Western Rite bishops.

When we're talking about the liturgical diversity of old, it's mainly to demonstrate that the Apostolic Faith was always expressed differently by the cultures that incarnated the Faith, and also to show that true, genuine unity is not gained by liturgical uniformity, as many like to argue. Liturgical uniformity is an abnormality and, while it has proven to be useful to bolster unity in dire times, history also shows us that the Faith thrives when a people takes it and makes it their own.

Quote
Our bishops—God bless them—in general have neither the time nor the knowledge to supervise these things. Their forte is the Eastern Orthodox ways as they have always been.

Our bishops supervise our parishes to the same extent they supervise any other parish, whether ER or WR. They don't treat us differently and we're not left to do as we wish according to our own desires. In fact, you could make a case that because the AWRV is so small (comparatively) that we are more closely monitored than any ER parishes, which are not exempt from innovation in praxis just because they use the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom.

Quote
I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was a dedicated WR bishop(s) in the Churches that have WR parishes.

I think you'll find that most of us agree on this (although I've grown quite fond of my Bp. BASIL and would miss him dearly) and I don't think it's too far out where this will be the case.

Quote
But for now, it seems like the WR is a group of priests, to a large extent unsupervised, who are conducting liturgical experiments in their own little laboratories.

Again, I'm very interested to hear what gave you this impression, because I can't help but say it's a gross caricature that I've not seen born out in my experience at all. The AWRV not only has bishops that we answer to, we also have our Vicar General and his assistant to answer to, as well as Met. PHILIP, whom we technically answer to directly. We have been given approved texts for our services, and exercise freedom in those areas where we've been given permission to do so (such as devotional services).

If priests are going rogue and changing the liturgy or incorporating elements that they have not been given permission to do, that is definitely a singular offense and should probably be reported.

Quote
Such things need to be done I suppose, and it was done in the past, but it should then be intimately overseen by bishops, whose Orthodoxy is thoroughly ingrained and above reproach.

Agreed, and honestly, if you spend any decent amount of time in a WR parish, I think you'll find this to be the case. Certain people like to spread the false meme that WR parishes are nothing but High Church Protestants who wanted to stay what they were but be "legit" under one of the truly Apostolic Churches, of which the Orthodox Church was the only one left. It's not only preposterous, it's outright deceit and dangerous.

Come to one of our humble parishes and ask yourself what we have gained if that were the case, since so many priests lost their friendships, their homes, their pensions, so many parishioners lost their church property, etc. We did NOT stay what we were, and that was fine by us, even though it required vast amounts of sacrifice. We became Orthodox because we believe in the Orthodox confession of Faith, and recognize that the Holy Orthodox Church is truly Christ's Bride, the guardian of Truth.

The biggest divide in WRO parishes seems to be between those who want to use the Gregorian liturgy (Former RC's I'm guessing) and those who want to use the St Tikhon Liturgy (Former Anglicans I'm guessing).  There are a number of other forms used by WRO, but these two are, I have heard the most prevalent. 

I believe that's true for the AWRV. And I personally think that's a fine approach; the two liturgies are rather distinct from each other.

It's true, but I wouldn't call it a "divide" for there is no animosity. There's no greater divide between us than there was between the Church in the British Isles (which is the patrimony of our Liturgy of St. Tikhon) and the Church of Rome (which is, obviously, the patrimony of the Liturgy of St. Gregory).

Quote
I am somewhat troubled by using the BCP liturgy though, since the Anglican Church's entire existence was in schism with Orthodoxy.

First of all, we don't use the BCP liturgy. The Liturgy of St. Tikhon was based upon the Anglo-Catholic Mass found in the American Missal with certain things incorporated from the 1928 BCP, which was itself the fruit of a centuries-long tradition away from the distinctly Protestant tradition of subsequent BCP's from 1549 on. It's actually a fascinating history, which would require a thread of its own Smiley

However, I understand the initial impulse to hold the rite suspect because of its presence amongst Anglicans. But the first BCP itself was not the whole-cloth fabrication of an entirely new liturgy. It was, more than anything, a translation into English of the latin services that had been in use since the 9th century at least. Yes, it underwent developments, as all living things do, but the Latin liturgical heritage that was assumed into the first English BCP, and subsequently developed by the Elizabethans, Caroline Divines, Non-Jurors, Anglo-Catholics, etc., (some of whom formally sought union with the Eastern Orthodox Church) was of genuine, pre-Schism, Apostolic origin. It has been said that the Anglicans reformed a Catholic Church, they didn't start a Protestant one. I think that's true. Aside from breaking communion with the Pope of Rome, their was no vast break from that which came before (at least at first) and there has always been bodies within the Anglican Church (some of which I mentioned above) that emphasized their truly historic and Catholic heritage, keeping what they had inherited in line with that ancient spirit.

When all is said and done, the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is really nothing more than an adaptation of the Roman rite that was brought to the British Isles in the 6th century. That it was maintained and further developed by those outside the Church could cause one to balk at the idea of its use, but once you know who those people were, what their intentions were, and see the fruit of their labors, well, it's no wonder St. Tikhon went through all the trouble of sending the 1892 American BCP all the way to Moscow for review, and its no wonder the Holy Russian Synod thought it quite possible that the Orthodox faith could be expressed through it, and it's no wonder that it is today the liturgy in use by the majority of Western Orthodox parishes. And that's because its patrimony really is that of the ancient Orthodox West, and its the heritage that has been kept alive by the Western peoples until the present day, making it the ideal basis for any ongoing Western Orthodoxy into the future.

Quote
But that's the AWRV's general approach: Anything that is not objectionable may be used. I'm not sure how I feel about that approach though, since orthodoxy is often more subtle than simply the words written on the page....I don't know.

That's not the whole of the approach, though. The use of "nothing objectionable" is only after all that is proper for an Orthodox Christian is in place.

Quote
I have heard that ROCOR's WR is not quite as organized though, and there are almost as many rites as parishes, with varying degrees of quality. But I don't know that for a fact, it's all gossip and hearsay. Lips Sealed

The biggest difference between the AWRV and ROCOR's WR, to the best of my knowledge, is that the AWRV refused to bless individuals to the WR, but only allowed entire parishes to come in. ROCOR does seem to allow the use of a lot more liturgies than the AWRV, which has only blessed two, as well. But, there has been some recent dialog between the two entities and I think that's only a good thing, for both.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2011, 01:50:53 AM »

It seems to me that some of the original intent and purpose of my comment was not presented clearly enough in order to be understood as well as I had hoped it may be.

The majority of theological works for the western church that are important and of quality are written in latin. Many of them have not been translated or are difficult to find in translation.

Therefore to understand the mind of the western church in it's most orthodox manner (the further back you go the more you find we could say, though it is plenty orthodox in important ways long past the 1054 date.) There is no way to do this without knowledge of the latin language. The 9 book mitrale of Sicardo of Cremona for example is something that could be made required reading for western rite seminarians, yet it does not exist in any translated books.

here for example is an example of what I mean.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2011, 01:58:43 AM »

The Ambrosian tradition, which draws on the fourth-century Antiochene doctrine of the somatic real presence of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, is exemplified by Ambrose of Milan and pseudo-Faustus of Riez. They employ a notion of consecration of the bread and wine, which corresponds to "conversion" of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Also Isidore of Seville employs consecration in the sense of the conversionist theology of the Eucharist favored by Ambrose.

   The followers of Augustinian tradition concerning the composition of the sacraments of the body and blood favour a theology which is more at home with the fifth-century Antiochene doctrine, favoured by the Patriarch Nestorious and Theodorest of Cyrus. They employ a concept of consecration which places in the foreground the idea of sanctification of the eucharistic elements through a divine action by which a grace is added to the eucharistic elements which otherwise remain unchanged. While Augustine himself views the grace as related to the eucharistic sacrament by extrinsic denomination and offered only to members of the Church, others understand the grace to be contained in the sacrament.

   Fulgentius of Ruspe (a fellow pronconsular african) probably follows Augustine's teaching regarding the sanctification of the eucharistic elements. But he refers the term explicitly to the sanctification of the liturgical assembly by which it is enabled to offer the acceptable sacrifice to God. Facundus of Hermiane seems to opt for the idea that consecration identifies the divine action by which the eucharistic grace is added to the eucharistic elements and thereby qualifies them as sacraments of the body and blood of Christ.

   Pope Gelasius's use of consecration includes the meaning atributed above to Facundus of Hermiane. In the referance to consecration of the the "divine mystery" in Epistle 7.2, it seems that Gelasius has in mind the theological outlook of theodoret of Cyrus: the sanctification of the elements of bread and wine, and the goal of the consecration of the elements, namely, the sanctification of the participants of the divine liturgy.

   The phrase "consecration of the body and blood" is used by Hilary of Poitiers, the presbyter Sedulius, and Caesarius of Arles. To this group can be added Pope Gregory the Great who introduces a similar saying. For hostia means, in some sense, the body and blood of Christ.

   Hilary refers to the historical body of Christ which has been consecrated by the sacrificial act of approved priests and, therefore, which exists under the formality of sacrament of the historical body: the eucharistic body of Christ which is qualified as consecrated body, because it is the body liturgically sacrificied. Sedulius refers to the action of Christ at the Last Suppper when he dedicated himself, his life, through the ritual offering of his body and blood. Here consecration has the meaning of sacrificial action.

   Caesarious of Arles says that the liturgical assmply both "sees and hears" the consecration of the body and the blood. Hence he is referring to the liturgical symbolic verbal and gestural language which expresses the sacrificial action of the Church in union with Christ accomplished over the eucharistic gifts, and in virtue of which the elements become the "body and blood," "spiritual sacraments," "divine sacrifices."

   Among the examples cited, Pope Gregory the Great projects the concept of consecration which unambiguously includes that of making the sacrament of the body and blood, the elevation of the sacrament to unity with the risen and glorified Lord, and the elevation of the earthly Church to unity with the heavenly Chruch. But it remains doubtful whether for him the phrase "consecration of the body and blood" bears the technical meaning of the inclusive notion that is clearly discernible in some early scholastic sources.

CONCLUSION:

   It seems probable that the explicit formulation of the distinction between two interpretations of the meaning of "consecration," as appled to the eucharistic gifts, is a contribution of early scholasticism. Before the middle of the twelth century the term could bear the meaning of ritual expression of the mystery of conversion of the eucharistic elements of bread and wine, or include also the transitus of the eucharistic flesh to the heavenly realm in order to be united to the glorified body of the Lord.

   The early scholastic theological analysis of the composition of the sacraments of the Eucharist preceded in time the narrowing of the meaning of the term consecration to the ritual expression of the conversion of the bread and wine. Moreover, it made possible the rejection of the inclusive concept of "consecration of the body and blood." In the end the classical tripartite analysis of the composition of the sacraments of the body and blood limited the "sacramentum et res" to the true body and blood of Christ; and the grace of ecclesial unity, ultimately signified, was placed outside the sacrament. At the same time the term consecration defined the ritual activity which serves as the medium of the conversion of the bread and wine, and, therefore, by extension could serve as a synonym for conversion.

WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF LATIN...no one could make these determinations and thereby gain a better understanding as to what western rite orthodoxy is and is not.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 01:59:34 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2011, 02:05:59 AM »

In the West, the allegorical interpretation of the liturgy developed into an organized system only with Amalarius of Metz, who at the urging of Peter of Nonantola, decided to write  acomprehensive commentary on the liturgy. After Isidore of Seville (560-636) and his commentary De ecclesiasticis officiis, Amalarious was the major heir to the liturgical thinking of the Fathers of the Church, and he would be regarded as the undisputed master until Innocent III (1160-12126. His work would then be replaced by the great liturgical commetary of William of Durandus (1296).

Sicard, bishop of Cremona (1185–1215)

was a great canonist, who after having taught in Germany, became a diplopat, a renowned statesman, and bishop of Cremona, Italy. He wrote a "Mitrale sen De officiis ecclesiasticis summa" which depends closely on the Summa of Beleth, but also surprises us by the breadth of its treatment and by the wide range of sources used: constant citations of the Bible, patristic texts, and medieval commentators. Sicard takes into account the rite in use in Cremona and makes explicit references to what is in the sacramentary, but he has a far wider knowledge of liturgical books and takes into account liturgical usages from other traditions than that of Cremona.

   One aspect of his work should be pointed out: for every rite on which he comments he provides the reader with a great many interpretations, one after another, without ever singling out one as better or more meaninful than the others. All interpretations are logical and are strictly based on one or more passages of the Bible; all are traditional interpretations already developed by other authors, the Fathers or the medieval commentators, and all are equally possible and acceptable. For Sicard it is a matter of choosing a method, and this is something quite original; no less original is his realization that the method of the four senses, used in interpreting the Scriptures, can be applied also to the interpretation of the liturgy. He has thus grasped clearly, although perhaps unconsciously, a point that is characteristic of the patristric understanding of the liturgy, and he uses it skillfully and with freedom.

Why does Sicard multiply these figural explanations? Is there a reason for the many different explanations of each rite? There certainly is, and the reason is pastoral and catechetichal. The pastor of souls is meant to find in the Mitrale a collection of information and a source of inspiration for giving the faithful the explanations that he thinks most useful to them and best suited for ensuring a proper participation in the liturgy. Sicards commentary is concerned with what the faithful or the priest see during the Mass. Although he constantantly uses the word "transubstantiation" and is fully aware of its meaning, he is not interested in theology, does not construct a theory of sacramental realism, does not concern himself with the liturgical texts used in the Eucharist, and is not worried about these texts being understood. In order to better understand his, it is enough to read the commentary on the Preface and the Canon of the Mass, in which he comments not on the texts but on the titled of the various parts, the incipits, and, above all, on the pictures painted in the Sacramentary.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2011, 02:20:27 AM »

I think Latin has some parallels with Church Slavonic, which I strongly favour retaining within ROCOR, at least in conjunction with English for those parishes where it is warranted. My comment was really about the veracity of Latin culturally.  There are many arguments for - and against having a Western-rite Church which has the potential as you say to be a Western parallel to the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is in particular a risk of western syncretism and a failure to interiorize Orthodoxy in its fullness, however that is perhaps more a measure of my own nature, than a comment on anyone else's.  For me Orthodoxy is encapsulated within the Chrysostom Liturgy, in whatever language it is served in, and I would always choose that -  because that is what I am comfortable with, in any canonical jurisdiction over attendance at a Western-rite mass.

Yes, there is a risk of western syncretism. I briefly visited a WRO parish while I was a inquirer/catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I chose not to join the WRO parish because of western teachings such as venial vs. mortal sin (a Council of Trent teaching). One of the priests was instructing the Orthodox faithful to list not only the type of sin but also to distinguish between mortal and venial sin. That type of teaching has led many Catholics to experience scrupulosity.

I think if the WRO uses the Latin Mass, then they should use the most ancient Divine Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory the Great, which this holy pope standardized in the 6th century. This Divine Liturgy in Latin and in Greek (the Kyrie Eleison and Trisagion hymn) is truly Orthodox and needs no modifications unlike the revisions (added epiclesis) made to the Tridentine Mass used in the WRO.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 02:22:25 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2011, 08:42:07 AM »

Quote
What meaty differences did you have in mind? We aren't allowed to change the liturgies that have been approved for us, so it can't be that. Are you talking about the calendar? I know in some instances it's at the priest's discretion as to which saint will be honored on a particular day, but even then, most of that has already been worked out.

I'd be interested in what you experienced that was so different in substance from one WR parish to another.

This is actually why I stopped attending my local WR parish.

My first experience with the Orthodox WR was in another city, where I had absolutely no complaints with the service. When I started attending the WR in my current city, I found the priest (who in all other respects is a wonderful man and pastor) to basically do what he wanted with the liturgy. Some of the changes were: upon running out of hosts at communion, consecrating more on the spot; replacing "Behold the Lamb of God..." with "Holy things for holy people"; omitting the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei during Paschaltide; omitting any of the offertory prayers; omitting *all* of the propers other than the Epistle and Gospel during low mass; omitting the Asperges, Introibo, and everything up to the Introit; omitting the Last Gospel; and not using a paten at communion, where multiple times the Body or Blood would fall on the carpet.

There is another WR parish that (at least at one point in the past year) was offering a contemporary praise and worship service before the Mass.

I eventually switched to a different (ER) parish, as I found myself wondering every week what changes were going to show up this time, rather than focusing on prayer and the Mass.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2011, 08:48:15 AM »

Wow, I would've stopped going too! That's terribly unfortunate.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2011, 09:04:41 AM »


Have you tried to contact the local bishop?
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2011, 09:09:41 AM »

Wow, I would've stopped going too! That's terribly unfortunate.

It's why we need a bishop, and actual official liturgical texts. The "Orthodox Missal" fails miserably as a service book. There needs to be a real and complete missal, breviary, and ritual published and approved, and a bishop who can make sure priests are saying what's in black and doing what's in red.
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2011, 09:15:54 AM »


Have you tried to contact the local bishop?

The priest says the bishop is OK with everything he's doing, and the bishop has visited the parish several times, so I assumed that's that. To be honest, I think the bishop is quite understandably unfamiliar with the WR, and so things that would appear outrageous to a person used to the WR would pass by unnoticed.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2011, 09:24:08 AM »

It's my understanding that many WR priests have a vagante background and may still retain that mentality.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2011, 10:45:40 AM »

Wow, I would've stopped going too! That's terribly unfortunate.

It's why we need a bishop, and actual official liturgical texts. The "Orthodox Missal" fails miserably as a service book. There needs to be a real and complete missal, breviary, and ritual published and approved, and a bishop who can make sure priests are saying what's in black and doing what's in red.

The liturgical texts are official, of course, but I'd agree some consistency in the rubrical arena would be ideal. I have it on good authority that one is in the works, in fact. Many of the parishes are former Anglo-Catholic parishes, and retained most of the rubrics from the American Missal, of which Lancelot Andrews currently publishes a version of, which contains the Rite of St. Tikhon. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the basis for an official work of the AWRV.

Things take time though Smiley

It's my understanding that many WR priests have a vagante background and may still retain that mentality.

I think this seems to be more true for some of the ROCOR parishes, as most of the AWRV parishes are formerly Anglican.
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 862



« Reply #46 on: May 18, 2011, 02:54:39 PM »

The Liturgy has always been in the language of the people. Latin died out long ago as a spoken, common language.

Yes, I know that Koine Greek and Church Slavonic are no longer spoken, but from my experience in Greece, Koine didn't appear to be extremely different. (but that is another debate)

I don't have much problem with a few things being in Latin, but the vast majority of the service ought to be in English, or the common, vernacular language of the people.

That is one of the very few things that Vatican II in the Roman Church actually got right.



For comparison:

Current Greek Liturgy:
Ἐν εἰρήνῃ τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.
(In peace, let us pray to the Lord)

In modern Greek, that would be mostly the same, except 'Ev would be replaced by "Στην". And the extra marks would be removed. (in Modern Greek, words only have 1 emphasis mark) I'm not sure, but the order of the words might also change around.

Whereas, if you take Latin...
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
(In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.)

Then in Italian (forgive me, this was translated by Google Translate):
Nel nome del Padre e del Figlio e dello Spirito Santo. Amen.

You can see a relation, but Latin would still be unintelligible to even an Italian who doesn't know Latin. Latin is a dead language, but it is unlike Koine Greek or even (to a degree) Church Slavonic, whose modern variants were still pretty similar.

The services ought to be in the vernacular, that is why Latin should not be used. No one speaks it anymore as a vernacular language.
Devin, there are Latinists at work ressurecting the language. In certain situations, they speak only Latin. If their efforts are not in vain, Latin will be a vernacular. If the Western-Rite Orthodox are former Catholics, they will probably be accustomed to the latin.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2011, 03:55:57 PM »

Sleeper,

Thanks for your detailed reply. You clearly know much more about it all than I do, and your explanations do set my mind more at ease. I admit I don't have a ton of personal experience with the WR, but more secondhand information that may or may not be accurate. Some of my concerns clearly are based on misunderstanding.

Since the WR is so tiny I don't want to give names. But I do know a priest who is involved in the formation of materials for the AWRV, and I am simply concerned because he always has his nose in some old missal, doing research and compiling the information for future use. It comes across to me like everything is just being picked from here and there and thrown together. I'm sure it's a spiritual and well-researched process, but it just doesn't seem to have that same organic formation that the ER has. I am sure Bishop Basil does keep tabs on everything, but even so, it's still somewhat disconcerting.

Perhaps I simply don't have the stomach for the "sausage factory" and I should just pray for what they are doing, because I do think it has merit and promise.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 03:57:16 PM by bogdan » Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2011, 04:20:06 PM »

Devin, there are Latinists at work ressurecting the language. In certain situations, they speak only Latin. If their efforts are not in vain, Latin will be a vernacular.

(Speaking as a linguist specializing in language revitalization, and as a sometime member of the spoken Latin community...) the existence of geeks who speak Latin does not give any support to the use of Latin in liturgy. The hobbyist use of Latin as a vernacular never went away, so there's nothing to resurrect, but it is a niche community made up of people who pursued special training in the language while speaking something else natively. And it will never be a mass language again, Hebrew's about the only exception. The liturgy must be in the language of the masses, not the language of a small elite, even if they speak it really well and have made neologisms for modern life.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2011, 04:45:26 PM »


Have you tried to contact the local bishop?

The priest says the bishop is OK with everything he's doing, and the bishop has visited the parish several times, so I assumed that's that. To be honest, I think the bishop is quite understandably unfamiliar with the WR, and so things that would appear outrageous to a person used to the WR would pass by unnoticed.

That is sad. I think that the bishop should receive a detailed letter explaining the abuses you described.
I have seen other priests break the communion hosts to insure that everyone was allowed to receive Holy Communion.
Sometimes, if they still run out, they will utilize the reserved hosts in the tabernacle.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2011, 06:05:48 PM »

Quote
The liturgy must be in the language of the masses,

Quote
Whereas, if you take Latin...
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
(In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.)

Then in Italian (forgive me, this was translated by Google Translate):
Nel nome del Padre e del Figlio e dello Spirito Santo. Amen.

I for one think those examples between the latin and italian are strikingly similar in that instance, how one can conclude they are drastically different I do not comprehend.

I think that the liturgical latin used in the western mass is no more difficult to understand for italian speakers than the  liturgical greek used in the greek Orthodox divine liturgy is for modern greek speakers.
Half my family speaks a romance language, spanish, and as a person with some knowledge of it, this is the perception I have.

The point of view that the language used must be identical to that which is spoken by the masses is a heresy.

Holy things for the Holy, Holy language for the holy.

English if it is used liturgically must be of a higher more beautiful changeless nature from that which is spoken as the "vulgar tongue" everyday.

The english used currently in the western rites of the Orthodox Church is excellent and except for a few specific translation issues has nothing wrong with it.

However one is going to run into instances where not everything you need is always available in english and there is no time or ability to quickly convert them into english.

Rather than be prejudiced towards elements of ones own tradition because they currently exist only in latin, we must have the maturity and patience to use them when it is necessary and fitting to do so.

Perhaps because their has been a strong unfortunate tendency to allow nothing other than latin to be used within the Latin catholic papal church until 40 years ago, one may misunderstand my view as wanting to go back to that strict exclusivsity.

This is not what I am saying. However, as one who has been part of communities where people actually do "like" and prefer the usage of latin in the liturgy I can not anymore deny the merit and value of using latin than I can deny the merit of using hieratic elevated english as a liturgical language.

One must not be prejudiced against one or the other form. One must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. One must take a moderate position that recognized that the usage of both languages is necessary at different times, different places, for different peoples.

Not everyone who wants to use the western rite speaks english or a romance language.

But the gateway to understanding the ancient latin church is still one in which a value of latin for priests is of profound importance.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 06:16:54 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2011, 06:14:26 PM »

The problem is there are no Holy Languages. We are not Muslims, are we?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #52 on: May 18, 2011, 06:17:35 PM »

The problem is there are no Holy Languages.

I assume you've heard of Greek...?
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #53 on: May 18, 2011, 06:22:27 PM »

It's my understanding that many WR priests have a vagante background and may still retain that mentality.

What do you mean by vagante mentality?
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 18, 2011, 06:23:07 PM »

Quote from: Christopher McAvoy link=topic=36235.msg572650#msg572650
The point of view that the language used must be identical to that which is spoken by the masses is a heresy.

Holy things for the Holy, Holy language for the holy.

English if it is used liturgically must be of a higher more beautiful changeless nature from that which is spoken as the "vulgar tongue" everyday.

No, rather it is the belief that the divine can only be expressed in certain special languages that is heresy. This is a cornerstone of Orthodox history, how could you not know it? St Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs, condemned the Trilingual Heresy among hierarchs of the Roman Church by listing a dizzying array of vernacular languages used in his time to praise God.

Most of the New Testament and early prayers were written in more or less conversational Greek, a fact confirmed by the plethora of informal correspondence unearthed by archaeologists over the last century. Old Church Slavonic was very close to the late Common Slavonic vernacular (and the differences -- some lexical calques and unnatural syntax -- result from hasty translation from the Greek instead of an intent for a "holy language"). Even with the Latin of the Vulgate, St. Jerome's intent was only to correct the errors and Greek features of the Old Latin Gospels (rather amateur translations), not create something "higher".

The Finnish Orthodox Church got a liturgy in pretty ordinary language as soon as the country became independent from Russia (though the immense changes in standard Finnish over the 20th century mean that it now sounds stilted, but a revision will appear eventually). The Orthodox Church is presently engaged in evangelizing the people of Kenya. The liturgical texts created for these peoples were exhibited at my parish, and the translations are into everyday speech instead of trying to sound highfaultin'. I could go on and on...
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 06:28:07 PM by CRCulver » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #55 on: May 18, 2011, 06:33:25 PM »

It's my understanding that many WR priests have a vagante background and may still retain that mentality.

What do you mean by vagante mentality?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2011, 06:50:04 PM »

It's my understanding that many WR priests have a vagante background and may still retain that mentality.

What do you mean by vagante mentality?

A kind of choose-your-own-adventure approach to religion, shuffling traditions around on a whim, bringing in devotions or practices seen in books or fondly remembered from a previous church.

A lot of vagante stuff is liturgical LARPing.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 06:51:05 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,103


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2011, 06:52:31 PM »

Sorry to repeat myself, but I experience a dichotomy between my daily life and the church life every single time I go to church: I'm not fluent in Greek. I get through it thanks to the booklets, service texts and what parts I have memorized.

Again, it is not hard at all today to order affordable booklets which have Latin on one side of the page and another language on the other. So if some RCC or WRO parishes want that, why not?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2011, 08:40:58 PM »

Sleeper,

Thanks for your detailed reply. You clearly know much more about it all than I do, and your explanations do set my mind more at ease. I admit I don't have a ton of personal experience with the WR, but more secondhand information that may or may not be accurate. Some of my concerns clearly are based on misunderstanding.

Concerns are good, whether there is reason for them or not. It keeps people in check and doesn't let things slide. I think that's healthy, so thanks for sharing!

It can just get frustrating when there seems to be more mis-information "out there" than there is credible info. It's truly surprising how many nay-sayers have never even attended a service.

Quote
Since the WR is so tiny I don't want to give names. But I do know a priest who is involved in the formation of materials for the AWRV, and I am simply concerned because he always has his nose in some old missal, doing research and compiling the information for future use. It comes across to me like everything is just being picked from here and there and thrown together. I'm sure it's a spiritual and well-researched process, but it just doesn't seem to have that same organic formation that the ER has. I am sure Bishop Basil does keep tabs on everything, but even so, it's still somewhat disconcerting.

I know what you mean, but the liturgy itself is not likely to undergo any major changes any time soon. And that's a good thing, because the Liturgy of St. Tikhon actually is the fruit of a very long, organic process stretching back over half a millennium (and in some instances, even farther). This is particularly why I appreciate Antioch's insistence on utilizing the living liturgical tradition of the West, rather than creating something entirely new, or re-introducing a rite that has not been in use. Do you know what it is exactly he's assembling his materials for?

Also, to be fair, the Eastern liturgical tradition is not without its own peculiar developments, not the least of which is the suppression of legitimate rites in use and the enforcing of a liturgical uniformity hitherto unknown. I'm not sure you can rightfully call that an organic process Wink

Quote
Perhaps I simply don't have the stomach for the "sausage factory" and I should just pray for what they are doing, because I do think it has merit and promise.

Your prayers are appreciated, whatever their impetus!
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #59 on: May 19, 2011, 10:41:42 PM »

Quote from: Christopher McAvoy link=topic=36235.msg572650#msg572650
The point of view that the language used must be identical to that which is spoken by the masses is a heresy.

Holy things for the Holy, Holy language for the holy.

English if it is used liturgically must be of a higher more beautiful changeless nature from that which is spoken as the "vulgar tongue" everyday.

No, rather it is the belief that the divine can only be expressed in certain special languages that is heresy. This is a cornerstone of Orthodox history, how could you not know it? St Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs, condemned the Trilingual Heresy among hierarchies of the Roman Church by listing a dizzying array of vernacular languages used in his time to praise God.

Most of the New Testament and early prayers were written in more or less conversational Greek, a fact confirmed by the plethora of informal correspondence unearthed by archaeologists over the last century. Old Church Slavonic was very close to the late Common Slavonic vernacular (and the differences -- some lexical calques and unnatural syntax -- result from hasty translation from the Greek instead of an intent for a "holy language"). Even with the Latin of the Vulgate, St. Jerome's intent was only to correct the errors and Greek features of the Old Latin Gospels (rather amateur translations), not create something "higher".

The Finnish Orthodox Church got a liturgy in pretty ordinary language as soon as the country became independent from Russia (though the immense changes in standard Finnish over the 20th century mean that it now sounds stilted, but a revision will appear eventually). The Orthodox Church is presently engaged in evangelizing the people of Kenya. The liturgical texts created for these peoples were exhibited at my parish, and the translations are into everyday speech instead of trying to sound highfaultin'. I could go on and on...

All religions have a history of using an archaic, even dead language for worship.  Even many Protestant evangelical use the King James Bible with its Elizabethan style of English.  The idea of using a special, sacred language is so that a faiths will have something that does not change regularly (as all spoken languages do) In order to write down and express their divine truths.

Also, Orthodoxy has a history of using sacred dead languages for worship.  Look at the Aramaic of the Syrians, or the Koine Greek, definitely Church Slavonic can be held up as an example of a sacred tongue which could not be considered as "living" or in common vernacular use today, yet they are still regularly used for worship. 

Would you be opposed to these languages or think that ti was improper for local Orthodox Churches to use them for services? 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #60 on: May 20, 2011, 02:20:45 AM »

Quote from: Christopher McAvoy link=topic=36235.msg572650#msg572650
The point of view that the language used must be identical to that which is spoken by the masses is a heresy.

Holy things for the Holy, Holy language for the holy.

English if it is used liturgically must be of a higher more beautiful changeless nature from that which is spoken as the "vulgar tongue" everyday.

No, rather it is the belief that the divine can only be expressed in certain special languages that is heresy. This is a cornerstone of Orthodox history, how could you not know it? St Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs, condemned the Trilingual Heresy among hierarchies of the Roman Church by listing a dizzying array of vernacular languages used in his time to praise God.

Most of the New Testament and early prayers were written in more or less conversational Greek, a fact confirmed by the plethora of informal correspondence unearthed by archaeologists over the last century. Old Church Slavonic was very close to the late Common Slavonic vernacular (and the differences -- some lexical calques and unnatural syntax -- result from hasty translation from the Greek instead of an intent for a "holy language"). Even with the Latin of the Vulgate, St. Jerome's intent was only to correct the errors and Greek features of the Old Latin Gospels (rather amateur translations), not create something "higher".

The Finnish Orthodox Church got a liturgy in pretty ordinary language as soon as the country became independent from Russia (though the immense changes in standard Finnish over the 20th century mean that it now sounds stilted, but a revision will appear eventually). The Orthodox Church is presently engaged in evangelizing the people of Kenya. The liturgical texts created for these peoples were exhibited at my parish, and the translations are into everyday speech instead of trying to sound highfaultin'. I could go on and on...

All religions have a history of using an archaic, even dead language for worship.  Even many Protestant evangelical use the King James Bible with its Elizabethan style of English.  The idea of using a special, sacred language is so that a faiths will have something that does not change regularly (as all spoken languages do) In order to write down and express their divine truths.

Also, Orthodoxy has a history of using sacred dead languages for worship.  Look at the Aramaic of the Syrians, or the Koine Greek, definitely Church Slavonic can be held up as an example of a sacred tongue which could not be considered as "living" or in common vernacular use today, yet they are still regularly used for worship.  

Would you be opposed to these languages or think that ti was improper for local Orthodox Churches to use them for services?  

It is improper... It is against the traditions of our church and against our churches teachings.

Christopher, the thing is, Koine Greek and Modern Greek are different enough that Greek citizens cannot understand Koine. I just finished living in Greece for 3 months. Everyone I talked to there could not understand what was being said in the services, even though Byzantine Chant is excellent in it's pronunciation and enunciation of the words.
I think it's kind of sad that I was one of the few young people that could understand it, and that is only because I would print out a Greek/English translation of certain services so I could follow along.

Most young people in Greece don't go to church, for various reasons of course, but one of the main reasons is that they cannot understand the services. Koine Greek is a dead language.

I've heard the same things about Church Slavonic, but I haven't experienced this.

I can guarantee you that speakers of Italian would not be able to understand Latin, especially within a service. Sure, they might understand a couple words. But that doesn't mean they understand it well.
I can listen to an Orthodox service in Spanish, but I will only understand about 5% of the words. I might be able to say "oh they are saying something about the heart", or "they are saying something about a spirit"... But that doesn't tell me anything and it doesn't help me grow spiritually.

If such a situation is temporary, such as where I lived in Greece for only 3 months, then I believe it's okay to not understand services. But the common language should always be used in the services. All languages are holy, none are especially holy. This is not an Orthodox teaching. We must affirm that things must be in the vernacular language.

The decision to drop Latin in the Roman Catholic Church isn't the reason for the problem. It is actually something good that Vatican II accomplished; the problems within worship in the Roman Catholic Church run much, much deeper than language.
Vatican II was an overreaction. From what I've heard, there were already problems in retaining people in worship because it was in Latin and not understood. People would be taught ridiculous things so they would come to church. (such as it is a mortal sin to purposely skip church) Vatican II overreacted and not only allowed vernacular languages, but totally gutted the worship services and allowed empty, dead, shallow contemporary services.

Latin, and any other "sacred" language doesn't make the service particularly holy. The Liturgy/Liturgies are just as holy in Modern Greek, English, Russian, etc... as they would be in Latin, Koine Greek and Church Slavonic.

Therefore, introducing/allowing Latin in the WR will only be an "imitation" of the Roman Catholic Church. It does not and will not do anything to increase/improve orthodox praxis or orthopraxis. People will be be given much greater benefit if it is in a language they can understand.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 02:28:30 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #61 on: May 20, 2011, 02:37:47 AM »

Quote from: Christopher McAvoy link=topic=36235.msg572650#msg572650
The point of view that the language used must be identical to that which is spoken by the masses is a heresy.

Holy things for the Holy, Holy language for the holy.

English if it is used liturgically must be of a higher more beautiful changeless nature from that which is spoken as the "vulgar tongue" everyday.

No, rather it is the belief that the divine can only be expressed in certain special languages that is heresy. This is a cornerstone of Orthodox history, how could you not know it? St Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs, condemned the Trilingual Heresy among hierarchies of the Roman Church by listing a dizzying array of vernacular languages used in his time to praise God.

Most of the New Testament and early prayers were written in more or less conversational Greek, a fact confirmed by the plethora of informal correspondence unearthed by archaeologists over the last century. Old Church Slavonic was very close to the late Common Slavonic vernacular (and the differences -- some lexical calques and unnatural syntax -- result from hasty translation from the Greek instead of an intent for a "holy language"). Even with the Latin of the Vulgate, St. Jerome's intent was only to correct the errors and Greek features of the Old Latin Gospels (rather amateur translations), not create something "higher".

The Finnish Orthodox Church got a liturgy in pretty ordinary language as soon as the country became independent from Russia (though the immense changes in standard Finnish over the 20th century mean that it now sounds stilted, but a revision will appear eventually). The Orthodox Church is presently engaged in evangelizing the people of Kenya. The liturgical texts created for these peoples were exhibited at my parish, and the translations are into everyday speech instead of trying to sound highfaultin'. I could go on and on...

All religions have a history of using an archaic, even dead language for worship.  Even many Protestant evangelical use the King James Bible with its Elizabethan style of English.  The idea of using a special, sacred language is so that a faiths will have something that does not change regularly (as all spoken languages do) In order to write down and express their divine truths.

Also, Orthodoxy has a history of using sacred dead languages for worship.  Look at the Aramaic of the Syrians, or the Koine Greek, definitely Church Slavonic can be held up as an example of a sacred tongue which could not be considered as "living" or in common vernacular use today, yet they are still regularly used for worship. 

Would you be opposed to these languages or think that ti was improper for local Orthodox Churches to use them for services? 

It is improper... It is against the traditions of our church and against our churches teachings.

Christopher, the thing is, Koine Greek and Modern Greek are different enough that Greek citizens cannot understand Koine. I just finished living in Greece for 3 months. Everyone I talked to there could not understand what was being said in the services, even though Byzantine Chant is excellent in it's pronunciation and enunciation of the words.
I think it's kind of sad that I was one of the few young people that could understand it, and that is only because I would print out a Greek/English translation of certain services so I could follow along.

Most young people in Greece don't go to church, for various reasons of course, but one of the main reasons is that they cannot understand the services. Koine Greek is a dead language.

I've heard the same things about Church Slavonic, but I haven't experienced this.

I can guarantee you that speakers of Italian would not be able to understand Latin, especially within a service. Sure, they might understand a couple words. But that doesn't mean they understand it well.
I can listen to an Orthodox service in Spanish, but I will only understand about 5% of the words. I might be able to say "oh they are saying something about the heart", or "they are saying something about a spirit"... But that doesn't tell me anything and it doesn't help me grow spiritually.

If such a situation is temporary, such as where I lived in Greece for only 3 months, then I believe it's okay to not understand services. But the common language should always be used in the services. All languages are holy, none are especially holy. This is not an Orthodox teaching. We must affirm that things must be in the vernacular language.

I say that,
Old Slavonic is close to the Slavic languages, there's some words that throw me , and the accent is some what different the way it's pronounced by Russians/Ukrainians and Serbs, ....Also It's even closer to the Balkan Slavic Languages because that's where it originated from and spread outward.... police
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #62 on: May 20, 2011, 03:17:28 AM »

Devin, I agree with every principle you've enunciated with great fervour, so please don't see this as antagonistic, but I just don't agree that Koine Greek is unintelligble to a speaker of modern demotic Greek.

I fail to see how Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα, τὴν ἁγίαν εἴσοδον and Δέσποτα, εὐλόγησε τὴν ἁγία εἴσοδο are so different, nor Πληρώσωμεν τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, and Ἂς συμπληρώσουμε τὴ δέησή μας πρὸς τὸν Κύριο, so that the latter in each case would be unintelligible to a modern Greek-speaker.

All the key words are present in the Koine sentences in an intelligble form. Even I can work them out and my Greek is absolutely terribad. In fact, Koine seems more forgiving as to grammar and syntax than is modern demotic Greek -- as long as all the key words are present you can usually figure out the meaning just by context. It requires work, but it's not like a Korean trying to decipher Japanese (both of which have a largely shared Chinese-derived vocabulary, as do the Romance languages via Latin).

Yes, the gap between Koine and modern demotic is probably greater than the gap between modern and King James English, but I don't think it's comparable to a modern American attempting to read Anglo Saxon runes or anything, like is sometimes made out.

Every Greek knows that θύρας are doors, even if they don't call them that in their every day life.

The Greeks have other reasons for avoiding Church, as has been acknowledged in this thread.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 03:20:55 AM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #63 on: May 20, 2011, 03:24:54 AM »

I agree in principle that the liturgy should be intelligible to the hearer, but ...

I don't agree that Koine Greek is unintelligble to a speaker of modern demotic Greek.

I fail to see how Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα, τὴν ἁγίαν εἴσοδον and Δέσποτα, εὐλόγησε τὴν ἁγία εἴσοδο are so different, nor Πληρώσωμεν τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, and Ἂς συμπληρώσουμε τὴ δέησή μας πρὸς τὸν Κύριο, so that the latter in each case would be unintelligible to a modern Greek-speaker.

All the key words are present in the Koine sentences in an intelligble form. Even I can work them out and my Greek is absolutely terribad. In fact, Koine seems more forgiving as to grammar and syntax than is modern demotic Greek -- as long as all the key words are present you can usually figure out the meaning just by context.

Yes, the gap between Koine and modern demotic is probably greater than the gap between modern and King James English, but I don't think it's comparable to a modern American attempting to read Anglo Saxon runes or anything, like is sometimes made out.

Every Greek knows that θύρας are doors, even if they don't call them that in their every day life.

The Greeks have other reasons for avoiding Church, as has been acknowledged in this thread.

I dont know, my Greek teacher (in Greece) who teaches language for a living said she took two classes on Koine and it's still too complex and different and she can't understand the services. Again, most Greeks I spoke with don't understand what is being said/chanted. I made friends with many Other young people and they couldn't understand it.

To me it doesn't look that different, but apparently it is.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #64 on: May 20, 2011, 03:30:03 AM »

Greek is one of the worlds most complex languages. Koine is even more complicated than modern Greek. That isn't just in pronunciation, spelling, accent, etc... But even in grammar and sentence structure.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #65 on: May 20, 2011, 03:37:51 AM »

I agree in principle that the liturgy should be intelligible to the hearer, but ...

I don't agree that Koine Greek is unintelligble to a speaker of modern demotic Greek.

I fail to see how Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα, τὴν ἁγίαν εἴσοδον and Δέσποτα, εὐλόγησε τὴν ἁγία εἴσοδο are so different, nor Πληρώσωμεν τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, and Ἂς συμπληρώσουμε τὴ δέησή μας πρὸς τὸν Κύριο, so that the latter in each case would be unintelligible to a modern Greek-speaker.

All the key words are present in the Koine sentences in an intelligble form. Even I can work them out and my Greek is absolutely terribad. In fact, Koine seems more forgiving as to grammar and syntax than is modern demotic Greek -- as long as all the key words are present you can usually figure out the meaning just by context.

Yes, the gap between Koine and modern demotic is probably greater than the gap between modern and King James English, but I don't think it's comparable to a modern American attempting to read Anglo Saxon runes or anything, like is sometimes made out.

Every Greek knows that θύρας are doors, even if they don't call them that in their every day life.

The Greeks have other reasons for avoiding Church, as has been acknowledged in this thread.

I dont know, my Greek teacher (in Greece) who teaches language for a living said she took two classes on Koine and it's still too complex and different and she can't understand the services. Again, most Greeks I spoke with don't understand what is being said/chanted. I made friends with many Other young people and they couldn't understand it.

To me it doesn't look that different, but apparently it is.

I just don't get it.

There must be some weird psychological effect at play. Maybe I am less put off by having to work really hard at understanding each individual word and sentence because my Greek is so bad and second-language-ish whereas, for them, if they don't understand it on first hearing, it is automatically perceived as alien and unintelligible?

You might already know this, but a similar diglossia-type problem exists in the Japanese liturgy: the liturgy is celebrated in an archaic form of Japanese that is rarely written and never spoken by modern Japanese speakers. Even with Japanese as my third language I don't find it completely alien and foreign -- just hard work to listen to.

I guess my only point is that Koine is not to demotic Greek as Latin is to French.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 03:39:30 AM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #66 on: May 20, 2011, 03:49:09 AM »

What about that Quite a few of our Serbian Clergy and Other Non Greek Orthodox Clergy speak and read greek , and can serve the liturgy in the old Greek , so it can't be that difficult to learn it....... Huh Huh What about Fr. Deacon Serb 1389 isn't he with the greek church , wouldn't he be serving Liturgy as a Deacon In a Greek church in old koin greek.... Huh
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 03:53:25 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #67 on: May 20, 2011, 03:55:31 AM »

What about that Quite a few of our Serbian Clergy and Other Non Greek Orthodox Clergy speak and read greek , and can serve the liturgy in the old Greek , so it can't be that difficult to learn it....... Huh Huh What about Fr. Deacon Serb 1389 isn't he with the greek church , wouldn't he be serving Liturgy as a Deacon In a Greek church in old greek....

The Greek Church down the road from us was served by a Serbian priest for a few weeks and he intoned the liturgy beautifully in Koine Greek. In fact, his accent was less mumbly and villagey than that of some of the Greek priests and chanters I have had to suffer through in the past.

I imagine it's a beautiful thing that Slavic clergy and laity can celebrate the liturgy together in understanding (because of the prevalence of Church Slavonic), even if it would be difficult or impossible to conduct an ordinary conversation?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #68 on: May 20, 2011, 04:02:08 AM »

What about that Quite a few of our Serbian Clergy and Other Non Greek Orthodox Clergy speak and read greek , and can serve the liturgy in the old Greek , so it can't be that difficult to learn it....... Huh Huh What about Fr. Deacon Serb 1389 isn't he with the greek church , wouldn't he be serving Liturgy as a Deacon In a Greek church in old greek....

The Greek Church down the road from us was served by a Serbian priest for a few weeks and he intoned the liturgy beautifully in Koine Greek. In fact, his accent was less mumbly and villagey than that of some of the Greek priests and chanters I have had to suffer through in the past.

I imagine it's a beautiful thing that Slavic clergy and laity can celebrate the liturgy together in understanding (because of the prevalence of Church Slavonic), even if it would be difficult or impossible to conduct an ordinary conversation?


The Serbian Late Metropolitan Christopher had part of the service once in old greek and old Slavonic , it was beautiful ......Greek is a beautiful language when sung /chanted in liturgy...... police
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 04:14:44 AM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 20, 2011, 04:11:29 AM »

It's not difficult to read in Church Slavonic, even very well, without the understanding.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #70 on: May 20, 2011, 04:20:37 AM »

It's not difficult to read in Church Slavonic, even very well, without the understanding.

But most that do speak it go to Mount Athos the Holy Mountian and learn it there....Not just Liturgical Greek , but regular greek as well.. And vice versa for the Greek Clergy that want to learn the old Slavonic because of the slavic monasteries there police
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #71 on: May 20, 2011, 05:05:59 AM »

Christ is risen!
I agree in principle that the liturgy should be intelligible to the hearer, but ...

I don't agree that Koine Greek is unintelligble to a speaker of modern demotic Greek.

I fail to see how Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα, τὴν ἁγίαν εἴσοδον and Δέσποτα, εὐλόγησε τὴν ἁγία εἴσοδο are so different, nor Πληρώσωμεν τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, and Ἂς συμπληρώσουμε τὴ δέησή μας πρὸς τὸν Κύριο, so that the latter in each case would be unintelligible to a modern Greek-speaker.

All the key words are present in the Koine sentences in an intelligble form. Even I can work them out and my Greek is absolutely terribad. In fact, Koine seems more forgiving as to grammar and syntax than is modern demotic Greek -- as long as all the key words are present you can usually figure out the meaning just by context.

Yes, the gap between Koine and modern demotic is probably greater than the gap between modern and King James English, but I don't think it's comparable to a modern American attempting to read Anglo Saxon runes or anything, like is sometimes made out.

Every Greek knows that θύρας are doors, even if they don't call them that in their every day life.

The Greeks have other reasons for avoiding Church, as has been acknowledged in this thread.

I dont know, my Greek teacher (in Greece) who teaches language for a living said she took two classes on Koine and it's still too complex and different and she can't understand the services. Again, most Greeks I spoke with don't understand what is being said/chanted. I made friends with many Other young people and they couldn't understand it.

To me it doesn't look that different, but apparently it is.

I just don't get it.

There must be some weird psychological effect at play. Maybe I am less put off by having to work really hard at understanding each individual word and sentence because my Greek is so bad and second-language-ish whereas, for them, if they don't understand it on first hearing, it is automatically perceived as alien and unintelligible?

You might already know this, but a similar diglossia-type problem exists in the Japanese liturgy: the liturgy is celebrated in an archaic form of Japanese that is rarely written and never spoken by modern Japanese speakers. Even with Japanese as my third language I don't find it completely alien and foreign -- just hard work to listen to.

I guess my only point is that Koine is not to demotic Greek as Latin is to French.
As counter intuitive as it may seem, that fact that it is foreign to you is part of the reason why you have less difficulty than a Greek speaker.  You don't have the interference from the vernacular.  If being a native speaker guarenteed fluency, no one in the US would fail English.  And yet many non-ESL students in the US do.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #72 on: May 20, 2011, 05:11:31 AM »

Quote from: Christopher McAvoy link=topic=36235.msg572650#msg572650
The point of view that the language used must be identical to that which is spoken by the masses is a heresy.

Holy things for the Holy, Holy language for the holy.

English if it is used liturgically must be of a higher more beautiful changeless nature from that which is spoken as the "vulgar tongue" everyday.

No, rather it is the belief that the divine can only be expressed in certain special languages that is heresy. This is a cornerstone of Orthodox history, how could you not know it? St Cyril, Apostle to the Slavs, condemned the Trilingual Heresy among hierarchies of the Roman Church by listing a dizzying array of vernacular languages used in his time to praise God.

Most of the New Testament and early prayers were written in more or less conversational Greek, a fact confirmed by the plethora of informal correspondence unearthed by archaeologists over the last century. Old Church Slavonic was very close to the late Common Slavonic vernacular (and the differences -- some lexical calques and unnatural syntax -- result from hasty translation from the Greek instead of an intent for a "holy language"). Even with the Latin of the Vulgate, St. Jerome's intent was only to correct the errors and Greek features of the Old Latin Gospels (rather amateur translations), not create something "higher".

The Finnish Orthodox Church got a liturgy in pretty ordinary language as soon as the country became independent from Russia (though the immense changes in standard Finnish over the 20th century mean that it now sounds stilted, but a revision will appear eventually). The Orthodox Church is presently engaged in evangelizing the people of Kenya. The liturgical texts created for these peoples were exhibited at my parish, and the translations are into everyday speech instead of trying to sound highfaultin'. I could go on and on...

All religions have a history of using an archaic, even dead language for worship.  Even many Protestant evangelical use the King James Bible with its Elizabethan style of English.  The idea of using a special, sacred language is so that a faiths will have something that does not change regularly (as all spoken languages do) In order to write down and express their divine truths.

Also, Orthodoxy has a history of using sacred dead languages for worship.  Look at the Aramaic of the Syrians, or the Koine Greek, definitely Church Slavonic can be held up as an example of a sacred tongue which could not be considered as "living" or in common vernacular use today, yet they are still regularly used for worship. 

Would you be opposed to these languages or think that ti was improper for local Orthodox Churches to use them for services? 
The Syrians don't use Syriac-they use the spoken (at least at the time) form, Syriac.  The only ones who use Aramaic are the ones who speak Aramaic (and even they have moved to using Arabic now in Church while they still speak Aramaic).  The NT was written in Koine Greek, but the liturgy was Atticized.  Church Slavonic was the spoken vernacular when it was adopted, as was Latin.  Ditto Coptic and Ge'ez.  In fact, the Greek is the only example of the use of a dead language, i.e. Attic, in translating/composing DL.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #73 on: May 20, 2011, 11:55:33 AM »

It's not difficult to read in Church Slavonic, even very well, without the understanding.

Exactly, if one prays with the heart, the movements of the Divine Liturgy are the same ... taking us closer to theosis with the cloud of witnesses pressing us on.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2011, 11:58:44 AM »

Christ is risen!
I agree in principle that the liturgy should be intelligible to the hearer, but ...

I don't agree that Koine Greek is unintelligble to a speaker of modern demotic Greek.

I fail to see how Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα, τὴν ἁγίαν εἴσοδον and Δέσποτα, εὐλόγησε τὴν ἁγία εἴσοδο are so different, nor Πληρώσωμεν τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, and Ἂς συμπληρώσουμε τὴ δέησή μας πρὸς τὸν Κύριο, so that the latter in each case would be unintelligible to a modern Greek-speaker.

All the key words are present in the Koine sentences in an intelligble form. Even I can work them out and my Greek is absolutely terribad. In fact, Koine seems more forgiving as to grammar and syntax than is modern demotic Greek -- as long as all the key words are present you can usually figure out the meaning just by context.

Yes, the gap between Koine and modern demotic is probably greater than the gap between modern and King James English, but I don't think it's comparable to a modern American attempting to read Anglo Saxon runes or anything, like is sometimes made out.

Every Greek knows that θύρας are doors, even if they don't call them that in their every day life.

The Greeks have other reasons for avoiding Church, as has been acknowledged in this thread.

I dont know, my Greek teacher (in Greece) who teaches language for a living said she took two classes on Koine and it's still too complex and different and she can't understand the services. Again, most Greeks I spoke with don't understand what is being said/chanted. I made friends with many Other young people and they couldn't understand it.

To me it doesn't look that different, but apparently it is.

I just don't get it.

There must be some weird psychological effect at play. Maybe I am less put off by having to work really hard at understanding each individual word and sentence because my Greek is so bad and second-language-ish whereas, for them, if they don't understand it on first hearing, it is automatically perceived as alien and unintelligible?

You might already know this, but a similar diglossia-type problem exists in the Japanese liturgy: the liturgy is celebrated in an archaic form of Japanese that is rarely written and never spoken by modern Japanese speakers. Even with Japanese as my third language I don't find it completely alien and foreign -- just hard work to listen to.

I guess my only point is that Koine is not to demotic Greek as Latin is to French.
As counter intuitive as it may seem, that fact that it is foreign to you is part of the reason why you have less difficulty than a Greek speaker.  You don't have the interference from the vernacular.  If being a native speaker guarenteed fluency, no one in the US would fail English.  And yet many non-ESL students in the US do.

I used to teach ESL students, and some of my students became so fluent that you would not even know that English was not their first language.

When I used to chant in Greek, people would come up to me and ask if I were from Athens.
I cannot even speak Greek. Smiley
They did not even have an accent.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 958


« Reply #75 on: May 20, 2011, 01:14:06 PM »

Quote
Church Slavonic was the spoken vernacular when it was adopted, as was Latin.  Ditto Coptic and Ge'ez.

Church Slavonic was never a spoken vernacular during the time of St. Cyril and St. Methodius.  They created a written and liturgical language with vocabulary based on the old Slavic dialect of the Thessaloniki region.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #76 on: May 20, 2011, 01:18:12 PM »

Quote
Church Slavonic was the spoken vernacular when it was adopted, as was Latin.  Ditto Coptic and Ge'ez.

Church Slavonic was never a spoken vernacular during the time of St. Cyril and St. Methodius.  They created a written and liturgical language with vocabulary based on the old Slavic dialect of the Thessaloniki region.

Interesting.
Did St. Innocent of Alaska use the vernacular native languages when making translations in the various Alaskan languages?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 20, 2011, 01:24:05 PM »

Church Slavonic was never a spoken vernacular during the time of St. Cyril and St. Methodius.  They created a written and liturgical language with vocabulary based on the old Slavic dialect of the Thessaloniki region.

They created an alphabet, not a language.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #78 on: May 20, 2011, 01:27:57 PM »

Quote
Church Slavonic was the spoken vernacular when it was adopted, as was Latin.  Ditto Coptic and Ge'ez.

Church Slavonic was never a spoken vernacular during the time of St. Cyril and St. Methodius.  They created a written and liturgical language with vocabulary based on the old Slavic dialect of the Thessaloniki region.

It had to be a spoken language to be translated into from ,, Huh they did give us the Old Slavonic Alphabet some based off the Greek letters and others created for our different sounds...... police
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 01:29:49 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #79 on: May 20, 2011, 01:52:35 PM »

Church Slavonic was never a spoken vernacular during the time of St. Cyril and St. Methodius.  They created a written and liturgical language with vocabulary based on the old Slavic dialect of the Thessaloniki region.

As I wrote above, Old Church Slavonic is more or less the late Common Slavonic vernacular. Ss. Cyril and Methodius wrote what they spoke. They didn't create anything special for liturgy. It is Church Slavonic, which arose centuries later, that is something of an artificial language.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 01:54:48 PM by CRCulver » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #80 on: May 20, 2011, 01:54:18 PM »

On the positive side, using a dead language ensures that the meaning of words won't change. To wit, "Worship".
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #81 on: May 20, 2011, 02:18:23 PM »

On the positive side, using a dead language ensures that the meaning of words won't change. To wit, "Worship".

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are already passages in the KJV that are misunderstood by ordinary people today because the meaning of the words has changed in contemporary spoken English. Yes, you might claim that the text is meant to be understood in a certain way and training would teach you how, but to demand everyone take a special language course just to hear the word of God is un-Christian.
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 20, 2011, 02:22:58 PM »

Also, Orthodoxy has a history of using sacred dead languages for worship.  Look at the Aramaic of the Syrians, or the Koine Greek, definitely Church Slavonic can be held up as an example of a sacred tongue which could not be considered as "living" or in common vernacular use today, yet they are still regularly used for worship. 

Would you be opposed to these languages or think that ti was improper for local Orthodox Churches to use them for services? 

Even the Churches has sometimes expressed that continued use of archaic liturgical languages might be undesirable. The Russian Church was preparing to move away from Church Slavonic before the Revolution made everyone bunker down against any change for the sake of survival. Heavily atticized Koine Greek was OK for the Greek Orthodox Church in the days when everyone got some training in katharevousa, but as it's being increasingly forgotten, you can be sure the Church will have to confront this fact sooner or later.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #83 on: May 20, 2011, 02:36:00 PM »

Also, Orthodoxy has a history of using sacred dead languages for worship.  Look at the Aramaic of the Syrians, or the Koine Greek, definitely Church Slavonic can be held up as an example of a sacred tongue which could not be considered as "living" or in common vernacular use today, yet they are still regularly used for worship.  

Would you be opposed to these languages or think that ti was improper for local Orthodox Churches to use them for services?  

Even the Churches has sometimes expressed that continued use of archaic liturgical languages might be undesirable. The Russian Church was preparing to move away from Church Slavonic before the Revolution made everyone bunker down against any change for the sake of survival. Heavily atticized Koine Greek was OK for the Greek Orthodox Church in the days when everyone got some training in katharevousa, but as it's being increasingly forgotten, you can be sure the Church will have to confront this fact sooner or later.

Didn't riots occur in Greece when the Church authorities tried to impose a vernacular Greek on the populace?

I think those riots were even mentioned in one of my linguistics books.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 02:37:01 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #84 on: May 20, 2011, 03:12:29 PM »

Also, Orthodoxy has a history of using sacred dead languages for worship.  Look at the Aramaic of the Syrians, or the Koine Greek, definitely Church Slavonic can be held up as an example of a sacred tongue which could not be considered as "living" or in common vernacular use today, yet they are still regularly used for worship.  

Would you be opposed to these languages or think that ti was improper for local Orthodox Churches to use them for services?  

Even the Churches has sometimes expressed that continued use of archaic liturgical languages might be undesirable. The Russian Church was preparing to move away from Church Slavonic before the Revolution made everyone bunker down against any change for the sake of survival. Heavily atticized Koine Greek was OK for the Greek Orthodox Church in the days when everyone got some training in katharevousa, but as it's being increasingly forgotten, you can be sure the Church will have to confront this fact sooner or later.

Didn't riots occur in Greece when the Church authorities tried to impose a vernacular Greek on the populace?

I think those riots were even mentioned in one of my linguistics books.

I think back in 2003 there was one Bishop who proposed it, and then it was shot down by the Holy Synod of Greece. I don't know about the rest of the populace, but I don't know why they'd protest about that, unless it was the elderly folk.

For me, I actually enjoyed it in Koine Greek, and I've taken two classes of Modern Greek. I was able to learn/understand the Liturgy because I knew it in English. I could often tell a modern Greek term based on the archaic Greek term.
I don't know why it is difficult for them, but from the people I spoke to, all agreed that it was difficult. The attitude (from those I talked to) was that it "doesn't matter if you understand it". Which is something that I believe is un-Orthodox and is a negative influence from Western Christianity.

In fact, if you think about it, that is why the services are in Koine. Koine basically means "common" (or meant something similar) and Koine was the simple, common, vernacular language, it was the lingua franca of most of the Roman Empire. It isn't in Attic Greek for a reason, it was put in the most common, vernacular language that people understood, not because it is or was particularly "holy".

In fact, we can think back to Ss. Cyril and Methodius where they developed a written language for the Slavs so that the Slavs could read & understand their services. They could have kept it in Koine Greek, but they didn't.
Or the Armenians, where the Christians developed a written language for them.
That (in my opinion) is one of the reasons that Latin became the liturgical language for Rome, because it was the common language. Western Europe spoke a variety of languages, and the various liturgies were celebrated in the vernacular languages. It wasn't until later that the Pope demanded that everything be in Latin.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #85 on: May 20, 2011, 04:39:35 PM »


It is improper... It is against the traditions of our church and against our churches teachings.

Well if it is then the Church of Greece must also fall under your condemnation for voluntarely choosing the retain the Kione Greek as opposed to the vernacular.


http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2521-Orthodox-Church-bans-modern-Greek-in-Liturgy


ORTHODOX CHURCH BANS MODERN GREEK IN LITURGY,
Rejects Bishop's Initiative to Do Away with "Koine"

Athens (Greece), September 20, 2002

The Greek Orthodox Church has rejected a proposal to introduce modern Greek in the Liturgy.

The great majority of the Holy Synod opted to keep Koine Greek as it was spoken 2,000 years ago and used in New Testament texts. Koine has contributed to the "mystery" of the Liturgy, the Orthodox bishops emphasized...


Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #86 on: May 20, 2011, 05:30:45 PM »


It is improper... It is against the traditions of our church and against our churches teachings.

Well if it is then the Church of Greece must also fall under your condemnation for voluntarely choosing the retain the Kione Greek as opposed to the vernacular.


http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2521-Orthodox-Church-bans-modern-Greek-in-Liturgy


ORTHODOX CHURCH BANS MODERN GREEK IN LITURGY,
Rejects Bishop's Initiative to Do Away with "Koine"

Athens (Greece), September 20, 2002

The Greek Orthodox Church has rejected a proposal to introduce modern Greek in the Liturgy.

The great majority of the Holy Synod opted to keep Koine Greek as it was spoken 2,000 years ago and used in New Testament texts. Koine has contributed to the "mystery" of the Liturgy, the Orthodox bishops emphasized...




Indeed it does, the Church of Greece is wrong in believing Koine is more "holy". They cannot retain their youth, and sadly, most of their churches are full of only the very elderly and the very young. I would estimate that people between the ages of 10 and 60 don't regularly attend church, and yet will be sitting directly outside drinking coffee.
From my conversations with Greek friends, it seems that the language seems to be a big part of that.

I'm sorry, I know it's not the jurisdiction I am a part of, but from what I saw and experienced, I have to say that the Church of Greece has to be shamed because of this. You know that Greece statistically is 90% Orthodox, and yet from what I experienced, and from my conversations, it seems that the vast majority don't attend church and don't have much to do with church period.
The fact is that it just isn't enough to "be Orthodox", you have to be practicing and you need to attend church, and you need to pray, and you need to participate in the church's mysteries. The Church of Greece, as well as other Orthodox Churches in the world, have fallen to heterodox Western teachings and unfortunately believe that there can be such a thing as a "sacred language", when things always need to be in the vernacular.

So yes Robb, it does indeed fall under my condemnation, and I say that willingly and without any feeling any need to retract my statement. Any church that refuses to have services in the vernacular is in the wrong.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #87 on: May 20, 2011, 06:27:45 PM »

Don't Serbs and Romanians use Serbian and Romanian frequently, as opposed to Church Slavonic? And Antiochian Church Arabic, is it intelligible?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #88 on: May 20, 2011, 06:46:39 PM »

Still Quite a lot of old slavonic... ..Plus when one hears slavonic  for a long time one gets so use to it ,that one doesn't distingush between serbian or slavonic anymore ,you just understand it ,,,now to read it, that's another story, the Alphabet is some what different...
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 06:50:03 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 20, 2011, 06:48:25 PM »

Don't Serbs and Romanians use Serbian and Romanian frequently, as opposed to Church Slavonic?

Romanians haven't used Church Slavonic for centuries. Liturgical Romanian is somewhat musty -- it has preserved a lot of Slavic loanwords that the literary and spoken language has generally replaced by e.g. cool French borrowings -- but it's still readily understandable.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #90 on: May 20, 2011, 06:58:13 PM »

Don't Serbs and Romanians use Serbian and Romanian frequently, as opposed to Church Slavonic?

Romanians haven't used Church Slavonic for centuries. Liturgical Romanian is somewhat musty -- it has preserved a lot of Slavic loanwords that the literary and spoken language has generally replaced by e.g. cool French borrowings -- but it's still readily understandable.
curious...
Have any of the Romainians kept the Cyrillic Alphabet alive after they discontinued it,when it was in use ,to write in the romainian Language...It would be a shame to lose it ,since it's part of there history.... police

Plus i would asume they would still have 17 century writings and before,  Romainian written in the  Cyrillic script  be they Gospels and  saint writings .....
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 07:19:54 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #91 on: May 20, 2011, 09:21:48 PM »

Don't Serbs and Romanians use Serbian and Romanian frequently, as opposed to Church Slavonic? And Antiochian Church Arabic, is it intelligible?

The Arabic used in the Antiochian Orthodox Church is liturgical and ancient.
It is not vernacular Arabic.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #92 on: May 20, 2011, 10:31:05 PM »

Christos Voskrese!
Quote
Church Slavonic was the spoken vernacular when it was adopted, as was Latin.  Ditto Coptic and Ge'ez.

Church Slavonic was never a spoken vernacular during the time of St. Cyril and St. Methodius.  They created a written and liturgical language with vocabulary based on the old Slavic dialect of the Thessaloniki region.
There is no evidence that Church Slavonic differed at all from what they spoke in Thessalonika at the time.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #93 on: May 20, 2011, 10:42:29 PM »

Christ is risen!
On the positive side, using a dead language ensures that the meaning of words won't change. To wit, "Worship".
LOL. Not for a language living on in its progeny, e.g. Attic/Koine and Demotic Greek, Church Slavonic and the various Slav languages, etc. in which case the meaning of the words change and confuse the modern speakers: one of my favorite examples is the Elizabethan "prevent," as in the BCP
Quote
Prevent us, O Lord,
in all our doings with thy most gracious favour,
and further us with thy continual help,
that in all our works begun, continued,
and ended in thee we may glorify thy holy Name,
and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Which makes no sense, until you know that "prevent" meant "to go before"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #94 on: May 20, 2011, 10:48:15 PM »

Christus resurrexit!

It is improper... It is against the traditions of our church and against our churches teachings.

Well if it is then the Church of Greece must also fall under your condemnation for voluntarely choosing the retain the Kione Greek as opposed to the vernacular.


http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2521-Orthodox-Church-bans-modern-Greek-in-Liturgy


ORTHODOX CHURCH BANS MODERN GREEK IN LITURGY,
Rejects Bishop's Initiative to Do Away with "Koine"

Athens (Greece), September 20, 2002

The Greek Orthodox Church has rejected a proposal to introduce modern Greek in the Liturgy.

The great majority of the Holy Synod opted to keep Koine Greek as it was spoken 2,000 years ago and used in New Testament texts. Koine has contributed to the "mystery" of the Liturgy, the Orthodox bishops emphasized...
...attempting to bring about themselves being chiefs with no Indians.

They do not speak Koine as it was spoken 2,000 years ago, for one thing, the pronunciation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 21, 2011, 06:12:40 AM »

They do not speak Koine as it was spoken 2,000 years ago, for one thing, the pronunciation.

I've met a long series of Greeks who believe that Koine was pronounced exactly the same as Modern Greek. When confronted with the fact that, for example, there's a remarkably large amount of ways to represent the sound /i/, some (the moronic) responded that the ancient Greeks just liked to have so many letters, while others (more reasonable, but still wrong) claimed that all of the sound changes between Attic and Modern Greek happened so early BC that surely by the time of the New Testament, people were speaking with Modern Greek pronunciation. The use of the Reconstructed Pronunciation at foreign universities has been attacked as a tool to keep the Greeks down.
Logged
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 980


WWW
« Reply #96 on: May 22, 2011, 07:26:06 AM »

Relating back to a comment offered by someone, that one WRO priest's nose is constantly in an old 'missal' or service book is hardly an indication that he is intent on resurrecting an antiquated or, worse yet, apocryphal liturgical form and foisting it upon his unsuspecting parishioners. Many clergy (and, apparently, not a few laypersons, judging by the critiques the latter are oft prepared to offer) are serious students of liturgical history and as likely to be absorbed in such sacred texts as you might be in a treatise on coats of arms, were heraldry your defining interest in life.



It's my understanding that many WR priests have a vagante background and may still retain that mentality.

What do you mean by vagante mentality?

A kind of choose-your-own-adventure approach to religion, shuffling traditions around on a whim, bringing in devotions or practices seen in books or fondly remembered from a previous church.

A lot of vagante stuff is liturgical LARPing.

An interesting description of what vagante do - and not really off the mark. However, I think that suggesting that 'many WR priests have a vagante background' is an overstatement or exaggeration, if one understands what vagante were and are. There is no question that there are clergy to be found in almost any, if not every, Apostolic Church - Catholic or Orthodox (and not merely the WRO) who came from a vagante heritage but were subsequently received into orders by whatever sacred process the local bishop favored - vesting, conditional ordination, re-ordination, economia. The WRO certainly has no monopoly in this regard and I hardly think that many in its ranks can fairly be labeled such.

The term vagante literally means 'wandering'. In the usage we ordinarily apply, episcopus vagante or 'wandering bishop', it traces back to the Middle Ages when bishoprics (and chaplaincies) were sometimes bought, granted as political plums, or obtained through nepotism. Often such bishops were entitled to or received a benefice (a diocese or other canonical entity that carried an income with it). Some later lost it, as the politics of the kingdom or other secular entity shifted. A bishop without a jurisdiction, or who had been deprived of his, might wander, preaching, and supporting himself by goodwill, by donations, and sometimes by practices that we'd rightly define as simony. These individuals came to be termed episcopi vagante.

In modern times, the term has come to be applied to 'bishops', sometimes initially validly ordained, sometimes not, who claim to be of a mainstream religious belief, but aren't in communion with the established Church(es) of that faith. Although fingers are often pointed at Catholics as being the most frequently beset by these characters, the Catholics have no monopoly on the phenomenon.

All hierarchical Churches which emphasize the importance of their Apostolic Succession - Latin and Eastern Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, and Lutheran (at least in the 'High Church' divisions of the latter two) can point to vagante whose origins either lie with them or by whom they are plagued - or both.

Some potential hallmarks of a vagante, in no particular order, are that:

    * they have grandiose titles (e.g., patriarchs, primates, supreme archbishops, and similar styling abounds among the genre);
    * they are vested in liturgical finery that would be the envy of a member of the papal court in its hour of greatest opulence;
    * they are surrounded by a small cadre of clerics with equally important titles, including sometimes multiple bishops, each of whom has been accorded a piece of the universe as their episcopal jurisdiction;
    * they post elaborate hierarchical genealogies on their websites or in their publications, purporting to prove their Apostolic Succession;
    * they offer the opportunity for ordination to the priesthood, and perhaps even to the episcopacy, to those who apply by e-mail or letter outlining appropriate credentials for same or who indicate a willingness to undertake a course of study (not uncommonly, for a fee);
    * they 'float' from one 'Church' to another, as there are splits in their ranks, frequently as a consequence of in-fighting among the leadership for the laz-y-boy recliner that doubles as the cathedra;
    * the name of their 'Church' will frequently include terms like "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Apostolic", often combined in imaginative ways;
    * the name of their 'Church' often suggests that it is a jurisdiction of, a branch of, or otherwise connected with an established mainstream Church or that it is a free-standing canonical jurisdiction (e.g., a patriarchate, an archdiocese, a primature, a diocese);
    * the name of their 'Church' suggests an ethnicity of origin that is belied by the appearance or surnames of the hierarchs and/or by any apparent connection with a mainstream Church of similar ethnicity or national origin;
    * their 'Churches' frequently are 'in communion' with other 'Churches' whose hierarchs display much the same characteristics as themselves;
    * their 'Church' consists of a single edifice, a storefront, an altar in their garage or family rec room, or lacks any street address, apparently existing only in the ethereal plane;
    * the reported census of faithful, if one can actually obtain a purported count, will frequently be outnumbered by the ordained clergy - perhaps even by the hierarchy;
    * those whose 'Churches' have 'parishes' will sometimes be shown (e,g., on websites) to each worship according to different rubrics and to even express different theological tenets;
    * their 'Churches' may mix theological doctrine with New Age, Eastern, spiritualistic, psychological, even alternative and holistic health concepts;

and, yes,

    * they most commonly use obscure, sometimes historical, sometimes apocryphal, liturgies in their worship.

These days, the web has afforded such undertakings the ability to present an appearance of wholesomeness, stability, religious commitment, and seeming legitimacy that was never as easily achieved by the vagante of a century ago. There's nothing that quite so convinces one's on-line followers of sincerity and adherence to Church teachings as a strategically placed website photo of the Pope or the EP or another well-known hierarch of whatever Church with which the vagante would have you  believe he is in communion. Even better, if the vagante can somehow obtain a 'photo op' and have the opportunity to be photographed with the Pope, the EP, whomever.

Vilatte, Mathew, Carfora, Ofiesh, Aneed, and the others of those times would be amazed at how far the genre has come.

True vagante have to be distinguished from those who have broken from their parent Churches, but have established an actual ecclesial entity, schismatic and/or heretical in the eyes of the parent Church, but with a level of respectability not usually accorded to those labeled vagante. To be fair, some of what are now considered mainstream, though schismatic, heretical, or non-canonical, Churches would, at their inception, have been deemed vagante.

That said, it's not a label to be casually applied.

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 07:31:07 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #97 on: May 22, 2011, 08:57:33 AM »

A damn fine post, Neil.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,986


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #98 on: May 22, 2011, 11:18:56 PM »

Thanks Neil for posting an excellent response.

Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #99 on: February 03, 2012, 12:20:03 AM »

A thorough and fair-minded description. I have to correct the incorrect Latin: the nominative (subject of a sentence) singular is episcopus vagans, and the nominative plural is episcopi vagantes.

We have to remember that there are also independents who became so not by breaking with anyone, but through other types of historical vagary. An example would be the non-Russian clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate in Italy when the MP was getting rid of them. The MP gave them "canonical releases" to no particular destination, and without attributing any wrongdoing to the clergyman being ejected.

I agree that such clergy could, with further passage of time, possibly fall into a clear vagante stance, or a clearly not vagante stance, or a stance difficult to characterize.

Thanks for an even-handed treatment of a very thorny problem.

Former Latin teacher,

Hieromonk Aidan+
http://www.orthodoxaustin.org

« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 12:21:08 AM by Fr.Aidan » Logged
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #100 on: February 03, 2012, 12:27:31 AM »

I understand written Latin pretty well but would not want to go a liturgy in it. Whenever I hear Benedictines do parts of the hours in Latin they somehow manage to make really well known things like the Lord's Prayer incomprehensible (though, I also don't like Gregorian chanting... Ambrosian is much nicer).
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 12:30:54 AM by Jason.Wike » Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 03, 2012, 02:55:57 AM »

Merry Hypoponte/Purification/Presentation/Candelmas, for you new calendarists out there.

I understand written Latin pretty well but would not want to go a liturgy in it. Whenever I hear Benedictines do parts of the hours in Latin they somehow manage to make really well known things like the Lord's Prayer incomprehensible (though, I also don't like Gregorian chanting... Ambrosian is much nicer).

I think particular people sing ecclesiastical chant better than others. Stelios Kontakiotis, Giorgios Spanos, ALL music they sing people like it, no matter what music is, as long as it's from tradition. I have heard good gregorian chanting and I have heard bad gregorian chanting. Ambrosian chanting is sung just as badly by the people who sing gregorian badly, it depends who sings it, how they sing it. I am as bothered and deeply annoyed by "slow meandering mispronounced latin" that seems to fulfill no other purpose but to "fulfill an obligation" as anyone.

Once again, because the issue arrises over and over again, I want to clarify my purpose in starting this thread.
My interest in the use of latin is primarily four areas.

The intention was NOT to dwell specifically on liturgical language, if I somehow suggested that in the first post, I apologize immensely.

#1 MUSIC - traditional chants that have never been adapted into english, I am thinking of "conductus", sequences, tropes and hymns to many saints.

In other words if you have a local orthodox church following the western rite named for St. Augustine of Canterbury, and the hymn for his feast as yet exists only in latin, it ought to be allowed to be sung in latin, until such time as it can be adapted into metrical english, which would warrant its replacing, so long as most parishoners agree. Perhaps all the music the rest of the year may be in entirely english and that is great! that's the way I like it myself ! , but exceptions must be allowed in important circumstances is all i am saying.
If it's a choice between singing 19th century protestant music in english,no music at all, or latin.
Sing the latin music if thats all that exists for the particular proper.

#2 - WESTERN RITE LITURGY IN MISSIONS, especially in spanish speaking communities, which once again I mention I come from one myself.
If there exists very little acceptable liturgical translations or music in the spanish language , one ought to have no reservations about using latin if the people do not mind it, or like it, or NO BETTER OPTION exists.

#3 - EDUCATION OF SEMINARIANS/PRIESTS and even lay people, one can not fully understand the history of the western church without some knowledge of latin.
Not all Latin Church fathers books exist in english translation, just as to learn certain Greek or Aramaic fathers writings, one must learn those particular languages.

#4 - PREJUDICE AGAINST BILINGUAL PRAYER/LITURGICAL BOOOKS - I have made liturgical booklets with latin on one side, and english on the other, simply because this is what I saw in many GREEK Orthodox Churches,
except for them they had greek text on the other side and english on the other. I would hate to think someone felt "threatened" by the latin being written on the page instead of exclusively english. A church can continue using 99% english, even if some papers have latin translations on them, which should be viewed as for educational purposes, liturgical usage should be entirely optional.


I want to emphasize, that I am not intending on encouraging "latin masses" as something to take over the Orthodox western rite churches.

"I" myself, would be the first to say that I DEEPLY LOVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE liturgies.
That being said, I personally enjoy and am fulfilled by LATIN LANGUAGE liturgies as well, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE WORDS IN BOTH LANGUAGES.

All I am trying to do is end prejudice.
Prejudice that leads to poor decisions and ignorance and well...
byzantination and marginalization of the western rite, away from it's proper patrimony.

This is a fight against ignorance you see.
Not some SSPX papal catholic infiltration of the True Church.
ALTHOUGH, it wouldn't hurt some some traditional latin catholics to become orthodox.
They're great people, I know because I talked to them for two hours earlier after Candlemas.
Maybe set in their papal authoritarian ways, and not without problems, but very dedicated and the second closest thing to an Orthodox Christian that there is.

Perhaps my only curse is that I either am not communicating poorly.
Or I am too overly intellectual for this forum, which I know is full of quite number of liberals and "unenlightened" people.

I don't pretend I'm better that anyone, or a scholar, but I do know that the faith of the west originates in latin.
And for histories sake, for a western rite only recently revived, it needs understanding of that to grow properly beyond it.
Into other languages. Nothing more, nothing less.

English is not the only exclusive language of the western rite.
Latin is not the only exclusive language of the western rite.
Nor Greek.

I support FREEDOM FOR ALL LANGUAGES 100% in liturgy, as long as they are not "everyday" monster truck rally slogan/dirty sailors language.


I believe that the belief that the divine can only be expressed in certain special languages is heresy.
(That is we are defining "special language"  in a broad sense, examples: that the liturgy can not be in tagalog (philipines), urdu (pakistan), iroquois (native north american)

If one defines "special language" as in that it must be "simple language that an illiterate farmer can understand like how shepherds tell dirty jokes, I would disagree.
It must be poetic using an older educated persons form of the language, one that is not coarse but elaborate and beautiful.)

 I believe that the point of view that the language used must be identical to that which is spoken by the masses (of illiterate farmers) is a heresy.

The Orthodox Church liturgy is not after all a monster truck rally,
neither is the Orthodox Church an academic research institute for linguists.
 
So, yes I as well would commend the condemnation of the Trilingual Heresy, which was condemned by several popes did in the past, when frankish and venetian bishops who attempted to crush slavonic western rites into oblivion.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 03:15:43 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #102 on: March 01, 2012, 09:10:02 PM »

Someone had stated that in Western Europe, originally, liturgy was held in various vernacular languages, but later on in time, Latin prevailed and everybody had to start using Latin.

That's factually untrue. Throughout Western Europe, the only known language was always Latin, and that in countries like Ireland and Saxony and Scotland and Brittany, where the vernacular was not even in the same linguistic branch as Latin.

And it never bothered them. They knew that to pray in church, you learn Latin.

To pray at home, you repeat the Lord's Prayer hundreds of times.

They produced a lot of Saints and would be surprised by this modern fad about liturgy having to be in the vernacular. It really is a fad, and was come up with only very recently in history.

St. Cyril and St. Methodius did invent a language, one could say, in that they created lots of previously-non-existing words borrowed from Greek so that the ecclesiastical terminology would be very exact and Orthodox. They also created some grammatical forms so that they could relay the aorist from Greek. It would have sounded not exactly foreign, but very high-brow and high-falutin', to those who spoke the Slavic vernacular at that time.

Surely the point of all this is that we should be very tolerant of whatever language we see used in church.
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #103 on: March 01, 2012, 09:24:26 PM »

latin is rather easy to learn.  learning it surely helps you in many ways.  spanish, italian, french, porteguese, romanian, much easier to read if you know latin.  Latin isn't exactly hard.
Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #104 on: December 12, 2012, 08:25:06 PM »

Oops, just responded to a post from page 1, which was probably eons ago. Modifying by replacing comment with a completely different comment.

Latin has also been demonstrated to have a very high correlation with improved academic performance, even in math. The only language to have a higher academics-performance correlation, is Hebrew. Hebrew is just above Latin. Lower down on the "totem pole" are German, then French, then Spanish, which seems to give only a mild "boost" to academic and testing performance.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 08:28:20 PM by Fr.Aidan » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #105 on: December 13, 2012, 06:54:58 AM »

Latin has also been demonstrated to have a very high correlation with improved academic performance, even in math. The only language to have a higher academics-performance correlation, is Hebrew. Hebrew is just above Latin. Lower down on the "totem pole" are German, then French, then Spanish, which seems to give only a mild "boost" to academic and testing performance.

Magic.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #106 on: December 13, 2012, 09:27:24 PM »

Cryptic.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #107 on: December 13, 2012, 10:15:25 PM »

Latin has also been demonstrated to have a very high correlation with improved academic performance, even in math. The only language to have a higher academics-performance correlation, is Hebrew. Hebrew is just above Latin. Lower down on the "totem pole" are German, then French, then Spanish, which seems to give only a mild "boost" to academic and testing performance.

Magic.

I am not sure if Fr. Aidan took Latin or how well he scored in academics, particularly critical thinking, but the above is rife with fallacies.

I'll let PtA count them.

Now since I excelled in all things academic, I can assure you Latin does nothing to impact academic achievement save perhaps showing why people have strange reasons for thinking English grammar ought to be the way they think it is.

It might have accounted in part for the fact that only one other person on the board bested me on the vocabulary test. (Although I would bet many here have had a higher quality Latin education than I did, as I taught myself with Wheelock's to pass a sitting exam.)

The fact that Hebrew is "above" Latin in the Father's post might suggest what is more at play in the relationship between Latin and academic success.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 10:16:44 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #108 on: December 13, 2012, 10:43:43 PM »

Latin has also been demonstrated to have a very high correlation with improved academic performance, even in math. The only language to have a higher academics-performance correlation, is Hebrew. Hebrew is just above Latin. Lower down on the "totem pole" are German, then French, then Spanish, which seems to give only a mild "boost" to academic and testing performance.

Magic.

I am not sure if Fr. Aidan took Latin or how well he scored in academics, particularly critical thinking, but the above is rife with fallacies.

I'll let PtA count them.

Now since I excelled in all things academic, I can assure you Latin does nothing to impact academic achievement save perhaps showing why people have strange reasons for thinking English grammar ought to be the way they think it is.

It might have accounted in part for the fact that only one other person on the board bested me on the vocabulary test. (Although I would bet many here have had a higher quality Latin education than I did, as I taught myself with Wheelock's to pass a sitting exam.)

The fact that Hebrew is "above" Latin in the Father's post might suggest what is more at play in the relationship between Latin and academic success.
Oh? And what would that be?

Are you claiming the studies are "rife with fallacies"?  Because the paragraph you quote is not.

Not a terribly scientific study, but I did once do a project for our records department in HS when I was a wee lad, correlating ACT scores with those who took two years of foreign language compared to those who did not.  Didn't isolate the all the variables, but it did show something like 5 points higher on the ACT (or something like that), whatever that means, for those who took the language.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 10:46:59 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2012, 09:30:42 PM »

Please observe that I said absolutely nothing about Latin impacting academic performance. That would have to involve some statement about cause and effect.

No fallacies were put forward.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 09:34:59 PM by Fr.Aidan » Logged
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #110 on: January 10, 2013, 04:24:53 PM »

My problem with the Western Rite is that it removes some of the Liturgical unity that I believe is important.  However, that is a personal opinion, and the calendar issue has already pretty much done that.  So, since we have a Western Rite, I am not all that particular with what language they want to use.  All of the WR people that I know came out of the Anglican Communion.  Latin is not thier language of choice, but rather English.  I guess that if a boat load of Old Catholics came on board, I would not object to them using Latin - even if I did actually have anything to say about it.  Now, if I could attend one of the old Liturgies from Venice during the time of Geovanni Gabrielli, I could easily be converted to the Western Rite.

Well, hopefully the only thing some converts to is Orthodoxy, not a ritual expression Wink

However, I would like to point out that when the Apostolic Catholic Church was at its closest unity, it was most diverse in its expression. True, as we saw in the East, liturgical uniformity can be important when its the only thing uniting people under great persecution and limited freedom, but that's not the situation under which those parts of the world where Western Orthodoxy makes sense finds itself. If history shows us anything, in fact, it would actually be that unity is brought about when individual cultures express and incarnate the Apostolic Faith in their own peculiar ways.

I agree with Punch on this point.

What troubles me most about the Western Rite is that it seems every parish has its own very distinct way of doing things. I realize this is true in the Eastern Rite as well, but the differences are with musical settings and things, not so much in the "meat" of the liturgy. It troubles me that, essentially, the divine services are conducted according to the liturgical interests of the priest. I know a WR priest and it seems that a lot of his material is the result of his own personal liturgical archaeology, and I get the sense that is true elsewhere too.

This is not the same as the liturgical diversity of old, because the bishops still were intimately involved in those matters. Early on, the Churches were few and far-between, so bishops were personally present in many of the parish communities. But today, there are no Western Rite bishops. Our bishops—God bless them—in general have neither the time nor the knowledge to supervise these things. Their forte is the Eastern Orthodox ways as they have always been.

I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was a dedicated WR bishop(s) in the Churches that have WR parishes. But for now, it seems like the WR is a group of priests, to a large extent unsupervised, who are conducting liturgical experiments in their own little laboratories. Such things need to be done I suppose, and it was done in the past, but it should then be intimately overseen by bishops, whose Orthodoxy is thoroughly ingrained and above reproach.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is simply ignorant. I can only speak for the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, but there we do have our own bishops (the Western Rite Vicar, hence, you know, the Vicariate). Jurisdictionally, we are under the same bishop as the ER parishes in our area, but there is also the Western Rite Vicar who oversees all of the Western Rite parishes and priests. What's more, they don't get to make things up as they go along. On the contrary, the AWRV publishes an Ordo every year laying out the rubrics for the services.

I would also encourage everyone to read A Short History of the Western Rite Vicariate. It provides a wonderful explanation of and apology for the Western Rite. As others have pointed out, you don't have to Greek, Russian, or Byzantine to be Orthodox. You don't have to change your culture to hold the Apostolic faith. On the contrary, the Church baptizes culture. As my priest likes to point out, for him becoming Western Rite was the most Orthodox thing he could do. I'm glad, too, that others have pointed out that liturgical diversity is actually the historical precedent of the Church. Uniformity was the later innovation.

I also want to echo the related point about Chrysostom's liturgy not having just been dropped out of the sky. It developed over centuries. This is a good reminder that complaints about "liturgical archaeology" are, pardon my French, a bunch of BS. The validity of a liturgy hangs on its Orthodoxy, on its mirroring the heavenly worship, and on its Eucharistic integrity, not on some test of historical purity or pedigree or a quixotic quest ad fontes. A lot of the complaints against WRO truly border on liturgical idolatry. I know I've put that rather severely, but I think it's true. And for that reason, I think the Western Rite is a necessary witness both to those outside the Orthodox Church as well as to those within.
Logged
phronesis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AWRV
Posts: 46


St. Mark, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for me.


« Reply #111 on: January 10, 2013, 04:36:08 PM »

Still catching up with this thread - sorry I just posted stuff that had already been said. Didn't mean to dig up stuff that had already been settled.

Also, I wanted to add, as I'm reading through these posts I'm seeing a lot of anecdotal complaints about specific WRO priests/parishes. I think the objections in principle to WRO are pretty easily refuted. The specific examples of problems don't refute the goodness or validity of WRO, but rather indicate a need for better enforcement of the existing rules and standards. I.e., it doesn't make sense to say X is bad because such-and-such person practiced X poorly. It does, perhaps, justify saying, "X should be better run."
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #112 on: January 10, 2013, 05:15:42 PM »

Oops, just responded to a post from page 1, which was probably eons ago. Modifying by replacing comment with a completely different comment.

Latin has also been demonstrated to have a very high correlation with improved academic performance, even in math. The only language to have a higher academics-performance correlation, is Hebrew. Hebrew is just above Latin. Lower down on the "totem pole" are German, then French, then Spanish, which seems to give only a mild "boost" to academic and testing performance.
What about Greek?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #113 on: January 10, 2013, 06:41:46 PM »

Regarding Greek, it was not part of the study. The only languages I recall being in the correlation study were Spanish, French, German, Latin, and Hebrew.

There was another study, done over a ten-year period (if I recall) in Philadelphia, involving a very large number of students of all backgrounds and academic levels. They taught a little bit of Latin to a comparison group of students. The students taking Latin would get higher scores than the control group in various academic subjects, including math. Their academics got significant improvement, with the only apparent difference between the groups being the Latin instruction.

Latin instruction is on the rise everywhere across the nation. It can be found now in the tiniest little rural school districts - something unimaginable just 20 or 30 years ago. I guess the data were hard to argue with...

Looking back, I see that I did imply more than a correlation (between Latin and higher academic performance) in the earlier post, because I mentioned "improved" rather than "elevated" or "higher" academic achievement. The word "improved" does imply that things went from better to worse. And I don't know if that is borne out in the (first) study. Whew.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 06:52:37 PM by Fr.Aidan » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.387 seconds with 141 queries.