Author Topic: Russian Orthodox Church prepares to review Slavonic terminology in liturgy  (Read 1173 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,143
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
The Russian Orthodox Church is getting ready to review the phrasing of some Slavonic terms in its liturgical practice.

From the article:
Quote
"Church Slavonic is a very important means to keep unity and traditions inside the Church. But on the other hand, understanding of liturgical texts written in Church Slavonic may be simplified," a senior Church official, Archimandrite Kirill, said on Monday.
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,652
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.
My thoughts exactly. The enterprise has something surreal about it ;)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.
I would rather than they move to Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian myself. However, I am not Russian, Ukrainian nor Belarussian.  There are those who wish to remain in one Church, and they, not suprisingly, prefer the Slavonic, as they all have that in common.  It's not the first revision, btw. The last revision by the Russian Church of its texts was in 1915.
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

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.
I would rather than they move to Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian myself. However, I am not Russian, Ukrainian nor Belarussian.  There are those who wish to remain in one Church, and they, not suprisingly, prefer the Slavonic, as they all have that in common.  It's not the first revision, btw. The last revision by the Russian Church of its texts was in 1915.

Hopefully what Archimandrite Kirill means is that they are looking into introducing a kind of liturgical Russian.  I am told by some that Russian "straight up" without any modifications to take off the rough-sounding edges would simply sound too harsh to Slavic ears in a liturgical setting.
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.
I would rather than they move to Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian myself. However, I am not Russian, Ukrainian nor Belarussian.  There are those who wish to remain in one Church, and they, not suprisingly, prefer the Slavonic, as they all have that in common.  It's not the first revision, btw. The last revision by the Russian Church of its texts was in 1915.

Hopefully what Archimandrite Kirill means is that they are looking into introducing a kind of liturgical Russian.  I am told by some that Russian "straight up" without any modifications to take off the rough-sounding edges would simply sound too harsh to Slavic ears in a liturgical setting.

Perhaps his intent was lost in translation?  LOL  ;D

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,252
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.
I would rather than they move to Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian myself. However, I am not Russian, Ukrainian nor Belarussian.  There are those who wish to remain in one Church, and they, not suprisingly, prefer the Slavonic, as they all have that in common.  It's not the first revision, btw. The last revision by the Russian Church of its texts was in 1915.


I get that in terms of those who adore Slavophilism and the works of the Russophiles. However, that seems simply inconsistent with his words stating that his goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable..."

This would be as if the Vatican Curia circa 1966 had decided to update liturgical Latin into some sort of common 'romance' themed language for use by Spaniards, French, Italians etc.....

Makes no sense to me outside of the geopolitical realm.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 11:31:53 AM by podkarpatska »

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,636
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch

This would be as if the Vatican Curia circa 1966 had decided to update liturgical Latin into some sort of common 'romance' themed language for use by Spaniards, French, Italians etc.....

Makes no sense to me outside of the geopolitical realm.
You might then be interested in Latino sine flexione.

It will be interesting to watch these developments to see if there are any principles that will help us find consensus on a suitably Orthodox liturgical English.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,753
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.
I would rather than they move to Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian myself. However, I am not Russian, Ukrainian nor Belarussian.  There are those who wish to remain in one Church, and they, not suprisingly, prefer the Slavonic, as they all have that in common.  It's not the first revision, btw. The last revision by the Russian Church of its texts was in 1915.


I get that in terms of those who adore Slavophilism and the works of the Russophiles. However, that seems simply inconsistent with his words stating that his goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable..."

This would be as if the Vatican Curia circa 1966 had decided to update liturgical Latin into some sort of common 'romance' themed language for use by Spaniards, French, Italians etc.....

Makes no sense to me outside of the geopolitical realm.
This is a little dated:
Quote
Is there a possibility for reforming the liturgical Old Slavonic language, which the Orthodox Church uses? Can the Church in her liturgical life switch to the modern Russian language? If no, why Old Slavonic is so essential?

First of all I would like to specify: the language the Russian Orthodox Church uses in her liturgical practice today cannot be called Old Slavonic in a strict philological sense. The Old Slavonic language is the language in which our forefathers spoke in old Russia. The liturgical language used today is Church Slavonic, which has seriously evolved since old Russia adopted Christianity. I would like to note that the conversational and liturgical forms of the Slavonic language differed notably already in Old Russia. The liturgical language was filled with theological and moral notions, which were unknown till the adoption of Christianity and were not used therefore in spoken language. Many grammar constructions were borrowed from the Greek language. That is why from the very beginning the Church Slavonic language had certain conceptual and grammatical autonomy from the spoken language.

On the whole I think it is wrong to speak about a reform in the liturgical language. It is wrong because any reform is revolutionary in character. And a revolution always divides people into its supporter and opponents. The use of any language during a divine service does not concern dogmatics and should not therefore become a cause of any division in the Church. The history of the church reforms in the 17th century showed us what tragic consequences this may result in.

It is quite another matter when we speak about intensifying the work to develop the Church Slavonic language that has never stopped in the Church. I mean the adaptation of particular words and grammar constructions to the modern literary language. For example, let us take up the phrase from Psalm 90: "my sin is ever (vynu - Slavonic) before me.” Now even if a person knows the meaning of Slavonic vynu corresponding to the Russian "ever", he would voluntary or involuntary associate it with the verb vynut (which in English means 'take out'). In such cases I suppose substitution is possible. However, it should not be done with respect to popular prayers known to most of us. The matter is much easier with the use of the literary language for reading Holy Scriptures in churches. After all, an overwhelming majority of people read the Bible in Russian, not in Church Slavonic.

From my point of view, today we voluntary or involuntary substitute another, more serious problem for the problem of Church Slavonic at divine services. I would call it a misunderstanding of the language of Christianity. Indeed, such words as "love" and "humility", to which we are accustomed and which are perfectly clear linguistically, have quite a different meaning in Christian understanding from what they mean in the secular world. That is why it is so essential to intensify catechetical work among the faithful.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/51.aspx#6
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

Offline Ad Orientem

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • Ad Orientem
This is quite interesting.  I received an email from a frequent correspondent who happens to be Trad Roman Catholic with links to two articles on this subject.  Both however are in Russian and efforts to use online translation sites were unsatisfactory.  On the off chance that someone here is fluent in Russian and has some free time for translating them (they aren't terribly long) here are the links.

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1542490.html

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1542499.html

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Well, to me that takes the cake for the dumbest position taken by any Orthodox for the year 2011. If your goal "is to make the message that the Church is carrying to modern society more transparent and understandable...",  how about using, say Russian instead of simplified Church Slavonic? Geez, the Romans could have saved a whole lot of trouble and switched to say, pig Latin in the 1960's. Boze moi.
I would rather than they move to Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian myself. However, I am not Russian, Ukrainian nor Belarussian.  There are those who wish to remain in one Church, and they, not suprisingly, prefer the Slavonic, as they all have that in common.  It's not the first revision, btw. The last revision by the Russian Church of its texts was in 1915.

Hopefully what Archimandrite Kirill means is that they are looking into introducing a kind of liturgical Russian.  I am told by some that Russian "straight up" without any modifications to take off the rough-sounding edges would simply sound too harsh to Slavic ears in a liturgical setting.

Perhaps his intent was lost in translation?  LOL  ;D

Good one!   ;)
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.