Topic: Church of Greece scraps readings in modern Greek

[TomS]

Church scraps modern service

The Church of Greece said yesterday that it was abandoning a nine-month pilot scheme to make New Testament readings more accessible by conducting them in Modern Greek, after youngsters showed a decided lack of interest.

Worried that worshippers, especially younger ones, could not understand services, Archbishop Christodoulos instructed priests in Athens to adopt the program last September. Until then, the New Testament had been read in the original Hellenistic “Koine,” or common language — a version of Greek spoken from the late fourth century BC to fifth century AD.

However, Christodoulos admitted yesterday that the scheme had failed since the young rarely attended church anyway, while older generations did not need the Biblical passages to be presented in simpler phraseology since they had already heard them many times.

[Tikhon29605]

How sad! Does His Eminence expect it to automatically produce fruit over night? Christodulous has given this practice LESS THAN A YEAR. And he's cancelling it in the middle of summer, not historically a real high time for church attendence anyway. Seems to me like he has a fatalistic attitude about the whole thing (young people don't attend church anyway, so it doesn't matter.)  Would it be so completely outrageous for the Greek Church to just scrap Koine Greek altogether and worship in a language people could understand? The Romanian Orthodox worship in modern Romanian. The Finnish Orthodox worship in modern Finnish. Many American Orthodox worship in modern English.  I just don't get it.

[GiC]

His Beatitude and the Synod of Athens seems to be coming back to their senses. No need to sacrifice the traditional language of the Church for some protestant evangelism scheme. I pray Greece always continues to worship in the Language of the Fathers. If one wants to read the Scriptures in Modern Greek, there are many translations available, no need to introduce it into the Divine Services.

[choirfiend]

Having the scripture and services in the language of the people has always been the Orthodox priactice, not some protestant evangelization scheme. Doing otherwise is what is abnormal.

[yBeayf]

Having the scripture and services in the language of the people has always been the Orthodox priactice, not some protestant evangelization scheme. Doing otherwise is what is abnormal.

Not quite. Having the scripture and services in an elevated, hard-to-understand version of the language of the people is the Orthodox practice. Even back in Byzantine times, koine greek was rather different from the language of the people, and the Slavic churches have always used Slavonic, which was never even a spoken language, but a version of the common Slavic made for liturgical use.

[choirfiend]

But there are too many other countries and languages to mention that DO use the language of the people. Like, say, Spanish, Aleut, Arabic, anything Slavic (thanks, Cyril and Methody!) as previously stated, Finnish, English, etc.

[TomS]

Not quite. Having the scripture and services in an elevated, hard-to-understand version of the language of the people is the Orthodox practice. Even back in Byzantine times, koine greek was rather different from the language of the people, and the Slavic churches have always used Slavonic, which was never even a spoken language, but a version of the common Slavic made for liturgical use.

Right. IT needs to be seen for what it is - a form of Gnostocism. A way for the church to say - we use the "holy language" Pfft!!

[choirfiend]

while maintaining the need for really good translations and hard work in keeping meaning, you're right on this one, Tom. We're supposed to speak in languages people can understand--why else would the apostles have started speaking in the tongues of everyone present?

[Felipe Ortiz]

Not quite. Having the scripture and services in an elevated, hard-to-understand version of the language of the people is the Orthodox practice. Even back in Byzantine times, koine greek was rather different from the language of the people, and the Slavic churches have always used Slavonic, which was never even a spoken language, but a version of the common Slavic made for liturgical use.

I was told (although I don't know if this is true or not) that Standard Koine was indeed different from the popular language in late Byzantine times, but that was not the case some centuries before, during Apostolic times. The New Testament would have been written in the very language that common Eastern people used and understood then.

I was also told that Latin translations of the Bible like the Vetus Latina and St. Jerome's Vulgata employed a deliberately simple Latin that every Western was able to understand at the time they were made.

Both Church Greek and Church Latin became later elevated standards of their respective languages as time passed and actual popular Greek and Latin have changed (or even collapsed into "daughter-languages", in the case of Latin) while the services language was kept in its original form, but none of them were hard to be understood by their respective listeners when their usage begun.

(Someone please correct me if the statements above are wrong -- I'm not a Classical scholar, just a curious reader, and I'm just reproducing what I've read somewhere.)

[yBeayf]

Like, say, Spanish, Aleut, Arabic, anything Slavic (thanks, Cyril and Methody!) as previously stated, Finnish, English, etc.

Again, Slavonic is not the language of the people, but a much more complex, archaic language that is *not* comprehensible on first listen.

The Arabic churches use classical Arabic, not the various dialects that people actually speak. When the services were translated into Japanese and Chinese, an archaic, elevated form of those languages was used.

Imagine if all our services were in Old English:

    Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
    si þin nama gehalgod
    tobecume þin rice
    gewurþe þin willa
    on eorðan swa swa on heofonum
    urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg
    and forgyf us ure gyltas
    swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
    and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
    ac alys us of yfele soþlice.

Now, us modern English speakers can make out the gist of what's being said here (e.g. the first line is clearly "Father our thou that art in heaven"), but it's by no means the common tongue. The same is true for Slavonic and the various Slavic languages. Russian is probably the closest, but ask some of our Serbian speakers here how close their language is to Slavonic.

[yBeayf]

I was also told that Latin translations of the Bible like the Vetus Latina and St. Jerome's Vulgata employed a deliberately simple Latin that every Western was able to understand at the time they were made.

It was not exceedingly complex Latin, but it was still far from being the language of the common people. The people at that time would have spoken vulgar Latin, which would eventually evolve into the Romance languages. Only the educated still knew Latin proper by that time, and nobody spoke it as their daily tongue.

[choirfiend]

Again, Slavonic is not the language of the people, but a much more complex, archaic language that is *not* comprehensible on first listen.

Now, us modern English speakers can make out the gist of what's being said here (e.g. the first line is clearly "Father our thou that art in heaven"), but it's by no means the common tongue. The same is true for Slavonic and the various Slavic languages. Russian is probably the closest, but ask some of our Serbian speakers here how close their language is to Slavonic.

It is, however, much more related and comprehensible than koine is to modern greek. or modern greek is to english speakers.

[yBeayf]

It is, however, much more related and comprehensible than koine is to modern greek.

Ehhhh, I'd have to dispute that. If you're used to it, then sure, but otherwise, no. It's rather rare to find a Slav who can understand Slavonic perfectly.

[Timos]

I am not completely surprised Christodoulos did this. I am in no place to judge yet I have to wonder...with all the new scandals being brought to light involving him and some of the hierarchy it doesn't seem unlikely that he would say such a thing.

As for the Greek, I beleive the church is making a huge mistake. As someone said earlier, it will take probably years and will have a wonderful affect on the church. Children and youth might actually be interested in something they can comprehend and come back to the church.

But I don't understand something...since Greece had such a strong foundation of Christianity, why suddenly does the church have to slip in the 21st century?? Why don't the parents raise the kids to be church-goers? Sometimes I think that if the turks come back and terrorize Greexe for a few months the churches will be all packed like they used to be. Perhaps this lack of interest is also in trying to be all the more modernly Western European instead of Eastern-minded Mediteraneans. And we all know how Western Europe is today in terms of faith-Empty churches and almsot zero birth rate (says something of the general morale of the people when it comes to marriage).

[Anastasios]

It is, however, much more related and comprehensible than koine is to modern greek. or modern greek is to english speakers.

Actually, linguistically speaking, that is not true.

[Arystarcus]

Sometimes I think that if the turks come back and terrorize Greexe for a few months the churches will be all packed like they used to be.

That might work for a short period of time, but remember here in the US after the terrorist attacks people flooded into churches, but eventually people will just put God on the back burner where He was before any of the bad stuff happened.... ÂÂ

In Christ,
Aaron

[SeanMc]

(Someone please correct me if the statements above are wrong -- I'm not a Classical scholar, just a curious reader, and I'm just reproducing what I've read somewhere.)

Oh! Oh! I'm a Classical Scholar... in traning, so I'm not of much use. 

From what I know, Classical Greek is another language compared to modern Greek (a little similarity though, but a Greek speaker has to start where an English speaker starts when learning Classical Greek). Hellenistic Greek is rather similar to Classical Greek. Assuming that the Greek language has evolved as other languages have, I would say that Hellenistic Greek would be incomprhensible to the modern Greek speaker.

[Edward Yong]

Again, Slavonic is not the language of the people, but a much more complex, archaic language that is *not* comprehensible on first listen.

Not quite. OCS isn't an archaic form of any Slavic language - it's an artificial construct meant to be mutually intelligible to the various Slav tribes.

The Arabic churches use classical Arabic, not the various dialects that people actually speak. When the services were translated into Japanese and Chinese, an archaic, elevated form of those languages was used.

The reason an archaic form of Chinese was used was because the Chinese mission was under the false impression that it was the only form of Chinese neutral enough to be intelligible between the various Chinese dialects - at this time there was no standardisation between provinces, so only Classical Chinese, used for court missives and old Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist texts. Another reason was that the translations were undertaken by foreigners - to whom the only form of instruction in the Chinese language was the Classical - nobody taught colloquial Chinese at the time.

It was not exceedingly complex Latin, but it was still far from being the language of the common people. The people at that time would have spoken vulgar Latin, which would eventually evolve into the Romance languages. Only the educated still knew Latin proper by that time, and nobody spoke it as their daily tongue.

Nonsense. The Latin of the Gospels is as close to the language of the common people as we can now get (aside from obscenities) - it is vulgar Latin that St Jerome used, and it was understandable by everyone in the West, and Latin was still widely spoken. (I say this as a career Classicist)

[CRCulver]

Old Chuch Slavonic, the language of the first two hundred years of Slavic Christianity, was a real language of the people. Sts Cyril and Methodius used the dialect of the Slavs of Thessaloniki (which at this time was a Slavonic-speaking city, see the comment of Emperor Michael III in the "Vita Metodii") when they evangelised in Moravia, but back then there was considerable Slavonic linguistic unity so the Moravians and later the Bulgarians and Russians could understand without effort. Only later, around the  twelfth century, did the Slavic Churches get off track and start using Church Slavonic, which is something of an artificial language like Esperanto.

So anyway, it's ironic that the same Church which sent Sts Cyril and Methodius to the court of Rastislav so that the Moravian Slavs could enjoy the Liturgy in their everday language now suppresses the same attempt in Greece.

And Koine Greek *was* the language of the people, that is why it is called Koine ("common").

[yBeayf]

Not quite. OCS isn't an archaic form of any Slavic language - it's an artificial construct meant to be mutually intelligible to the various Slav tribes.

But the Russian church uses not OCS, but Church Slavonic, which is quite definitely archaic, even if not necessarily an archaic form of any particular Slavic language. It maintains many points of grammar and structure that aren't found in any existing Slavic language.

The Latin of the Gospels is as close to the language of the common people as we can now get (aside from obscenities) - it is vulgar Latin that St Jerome used, and it was understandable by everyone in the West, and Latin was still widely spoken.

St. Jerome did *not* write the Vulgate in Vulgar Latin, but in a simple version of late Latin. The Vulgate may be in the language of the educated people, but it was not in the language of the people in general, and it is patently false to say it was in Vulgar Latin -- if it were in VL, where are the articles? Why does it use classical verb conjugations? Where are the distinctive sound changes that VL underwent? How come it uses classical vocabulary and not the VL replacements and slang terms?

[yBeayf]

And Koine Greek *was* the language of the people, that is why it is called Koine ("common").

It was the language of the people in 1st-century times, but spoken languages change, while Koine remained largely static, so if you fast-forward a few hundred years, the two have begun diverging, which divergence only increases as time goes by.

[Edward Yong]

St. Jerome did *not* write the Vulgate in Vulgar Latin, but in a simple version of late Latin. The Vulgate may be in the language of the educated people, but it was not in the language of the people in general, and it is patently false to say it was in Vulgar Latin -- if it were in VL, where are the articles? Why does it use classical verb conjugations? Where are the distinctive sound changes that VL underwent? How come it uses classical vocabulary and not the VL replacements and slang terms?

The Vulgate is certainly *not* in the language of the educated people - anyone who knows Latin can tell the difference between the Latin of St Jerome and that of Horace or Vergil (which continued to be used in the upper classes).

Articles don't begin to appear until about the 7th Century - well after the time of St Jerome. Classical verb conjugations? Are you quite sure about this? It wasn't for no reason that the Latin of the Vulgate was considered barbarous at the time.

The 'distinctive sound changes that VL underwent' again only begin to appear about the 7th Century.

The Vulgate most certainly does not use classical vocabulary - it's full of what you call VL replacements.

I'm beginning to suspect your understanding of VL is rather different from the scholarly definition 

[sin_vladimirov]

Just one point on Slavic languages.

It is not a secret that communist authorities have on purpose attempted to change languages of the nations. So, for example, Serbian today is so different from Serbian in 1930. We are as Serbs taught that the way our grandparents spoke was a language of illiterate and uneducated as well as those who enjoyed the opium for the masses (religion). There was a well defined wish to separate people from their roots (with majority Slavs those roots are very much mixed with the Orthodox Church, the others with RCC). So nowdays, the difference between Church Slavonic and Secular Slavonic Languages to this extent is present but not natural. Slowly, people are figuring that out.

[yBeayf]

I'm beginning to suspect your understanding of VL is rather different from the scholarly definition

That may be; I certainly am not an official student of Romance linguistics the way I am of Slavic. I would be interested in seeing a cite for your claim that the Vulgar is in VL, though, as it goes against everything I have learned about that language.

[admiralnick]

Being from a Carpatho-Russian Church (Albeit in America), I believe I can help to shed some light on this instance.

First, I'd like to start off by saying that if we are talking about the Church in America and the Church in Greece, Serbia, Russia, Romania, etc., we are talking about 2 different things. Now that I've said that, If you go to the Churches in the European "Slavic" (I use this as a term to denote the area of Cyril and Methodius' teachings) like: Ukraine, Czechoslovokia, Austria, Hungary, Poland, etc. you will find that they all hold services in their native languages. All of these languages have many common roots, stems, conjugations, verb tenses, and other nuiances of grammer in common. For example, the various ways of pronouncing Pierogi vs. Pirohi vs. Perogi (somewhat americanized :-P ) The point is that all of the languages of these churches all share a common syntax, they mostly place the accent of the words on a different place in the pronounciation (This is not necessarily the case tho). So if you can speak either Polish, Slavonic, Austrian, Ukrainian, Church Slavonic, etc. you can pretty much figure out words in any of the other languages. My grandmother whose parents came here before she was born and taught her the language could speak and understand fluently Polish, Ukrainian, Slavonic and Church Slavonic even though she only learned Slavonic as spoken in the villages. With Greek, I would imagine this isn't the case, although I'm not adept enough at Etomology to even attempt to comment on that topic.

To summarize this long and boring post, The services, in my opinion, should be completed in a language understood by the the people attending, usually in the official language of the nation at the time the service is being held. And if anyone asks, no, I don't know much Slavonic... Church or otherwise, I'm all english LOL.

Nick

[jmbejdl]

admiralnick,

Whilst I generally agree with your post, I would just like to point out that whilst all the Slavic languages are indeed fairly mutually comprehensible (my grandmother apparently only had difficulties with Russian), that's a far cry from saying all the languages in the area are. Romanian is, barring a very small amount of vocabulary, completely different as it's closely related to Italian. This is so marked, in fact, that the verb a boscorodi (to mumble) was used specifically with reference to priests to describe their making the Romanian they used in the liturgy sound like the Slavonic they were officially supposed to be using (though Slavonic has not been used by the Romanian church for a very long time now).

Another thing I'd like to point out is that there's no such language as Austrian. Austrians speak German and I can guarantee you that speaking German will not enable you to understand any Slavic language at all. I should know, I was brought up speaking German and found learning Czech (my grandmother's first language) incredibly difficult.

James

[Tikhon29605]

Yeah, I was wondering what language "Austrian" was myself, since I have visited Austria and they all spoke GERMAN.   

[admiralnick]

Whatever, That was at 6am with no coffee in my system. Alot of crazy things get typed that early in the morning  ;DÂÂ  Thanks for the point out tho, I guess I should either wake up later or make coffee earlier, or some combination of the 2.

[Fr. George]

As for the Greek, I beleive the church is making a huge mistake. As someone said earlier, it will take probably years and will have a wonderful affect on the church. Children and youth might actually be interested in something they can comprehend and come back to the church.

But I don't understand something...since Greece had such a strong foundation of Christianity, why suddenly does the church have to slip in the 21st century?? Why don't the parents raise the kids to be church-goers? Sometimes I think that if the turks come back and terrorize Greexe for a few months the churches will be all packed like they used to be. Perhaps this lack of interest is also in trying to be all the more modernly Western European instead of Eastern-minded Mediteraneans. And we all know how Western Europe is today in terms of faith-Empty churches and almsot zero birth rate (says something of the general morale of the people when it comes to marriage).

Bingo.  You could put the Liturgy to modern slang and rap beats, but if the faith is not alive the other 6 1/2 days of the week, it's worthless.  This is what I see - that many of the Greeks (I won't make assertions that they are the majority or the totality, just a plurality) aren't interested in a faith of self-sacrifices and obedience.  What I have seen when I've gone is the Western European mentality, which is alive and thriving in the heart of one of the staunchest Orthodox nations in history.  Christodoulos did pull the plug prematurely (way too early) which shows a lack of maturity, patience, and love in his heart, but the biggest thing that needs to be done now is for him to witness and teach about the true Christian life - the life of service and love that is lived for 6 1/2 days that will heighten the worship experience by allowing one to be closer to God for an entire week with the Liturgy as the jewel of the crown, instead of the modern approach of abandoning God for non-Sundays and then using the morning Liturgy to repair the relationship.  ("Hi.  I know it's been a long time since we've talked.")

Sorry, I'm ranting again.  I should be better at staying on topic.

[macedonia74]

So then, what language should the Orthodox Church of America use? How about the Ethnic Churches in North America, what happens when the younger generations growing up in North America no longer understand their mother tongue?

[choirfiend]

So then, what language should the Orthodox Church of America use? How about the Ethnic Churches in North America, what happens when the younger generations growing up in North America no longer understand their mother tongue?

Well, that's basically happened with about 80% of all Americans at some time in the past, and they seem to have survived it. Each parish should use the language of the people they serve. If there's a parish in CA that is all Russian imigrants, let them worship in the language they understand! If there is a parish in NJ that has a nearly all greek population, 15% of whom speak greek(and by teh majority also speak English), let them use English with some Greek so no one is listening to what is for them complete gibberish.

[Veniamin]

Well, that's basically happened with about 80% of all Americans at some time in the past, and they seem to have survived it. Each parish should use the language of the people they serve. If there's a parish in CA that is all Russian imigrants, let them worship in the language they understand! If there is a parish in NJ that has a nearly all greek population, 15% of whom speak greek(and by teh majority also speak English), let them use English with some Greek so no one is listening to what is for them complete gibberish.

Exactly.  A parish using all English when none of the immigrants there speak it is just as unprofitable as when a parish uses the mother tongue and none of the fourth and fifth generation members speak it.

[GiC]

Exactly.ÂÂ  A parish using all English when none of the immigrants there speak it is just as unprofitable as when a parish uses the mother tongue and none of the fourth and fifth generation members speak it.

Unprofitable? Is that the word we use for the Holy Eucharist and other Sacraments of the Church when they are not presented in a manner that falls within the purview of Your intellectual abilities?

[Silouan]

Shocking as it may sound I agree with GiC here.  We believe grace is bestowed through the Mysteria - not that grace comes from comprehension.  Otherwise we would stop communing infants. 

That being said, I am all for English (and real English, none of this sappy modern stuff) as the liturgical language the UK, USA, Canada and Australia.  But I think it is should be a natural process and not forced.  It is kind of ironic that I love the idea of English language missions so much yet read the epistle in Greek every Sunday at my parish... 

[Veniamin]

Unprofitable? Is that the word we use for the Holy Eucharist and other Sacraments of the Church when they are not presented in a manner that falls within the purview of Your intellectual abilities?

The Liturgy consists of more than just the Eucharist; you should know that, being at Holy Cross and all.  If it was the Eucharist and nothing more, why not dispense with the litanies, and the antiphons, and the readings, and the sermon, and, well, you get my point.  We could start at the anaphora, have a thirty minute service (or shorter) and get to coffee hour that much earlier.  Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how people praying things they don't comprehend, hearing readings that they don't understand, and listening to sermons that they don't grasp, all because of the language they're given in is profitable.  It's far more likely that they'll tune out the service entirely, chitchat in the back, or even leave for Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, denying themselves any benefit of the Liturgy.  How profitable is that, may I ask?  The Mysteries are certainly the central part of the Orthodox life, and the Eucharist is certainly the central part of the Mysteries, but they and it are by no means the totality of it, which you certainly seem to be suggesting.

And while I'm at it, please remove implications from my mouth.  I nowhere stated that Liturgy in a language foreign to the people is completely unprofitable; I merely indicated a degree of unprofitability.  As Silouan pointed out, we commune infants even though they receive without comprehension.  However, the fact that grace is conveyed regardless of whether or not the recipient understands is a poor excuse for denying them any benefit from the rest of the Liturgy.

[sarcasm]Of course, not that any of what I have to say could possibly come anywhere close to being near the mark, since I'm not subject to the Ecumenical Throne, not part of the GOA, am part of the Russian tradition, and (more to the point) disagree with you.  All of that naturally means I can't possibly really be Orthodox.  After all, Russians, Slavs, Arabs, or anyone non-Greek isn't a real Orthodox Christian, as your name so eloquently reminds all of us.[/sarcasm]

[Silouan]

However, the fact that grace is conveyed regardless of whether or not the recipient understands is a poor excuse for denying them any benefit from the rest of the Liturgy.

Of course the language best suited to the pastoral situation is what should be used.  But especially in the diaspora you can't please everyone at once.  There is still a point to being present even if the language is not readily understood.

[admiralnick]

The Liturgy consists of more than just the Eucharist; you should know that, being at Holy Cross and all.  If it was the Eucharist and nothing more, why not dispense with the litanies, and the antiphons, and the readings, and the sermon, and, well, you get my point.  We could start at the anaphora, have a thirty minute service (or shorter) and get to coffee hour that much earlier.  Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how people praying things they don't comprehend, hearing readings that they don't understand, and listening to sermons that they don't grasp, all because of the language they're given in is profitable.  It's far more likely that they'll tune out the service entirely, chitchat in the back, or even leave for Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, denying themselves any benefit of the Liturgy.  How profitable is that, may I ask?  The Mysteries are certainly the central part of the Orthodox life, and the Eucharist is certainly the central part of the Mysteries, but they and it are by no means the totality of it, which you certainly seem to be suggesting.

And while I'm at it, please remove implications from my mouth.  I nowhere stated that Liturgy in a language foreign to the people is completely unprofitable; I merely indicated a degree of unprofitability.  As Silouan pointed out, we commune infants even though they receive without comprehension.  However, the fact that grace is conveyed regardless of whether or not the recipient understands is a poor excuse for denying them any benefit from the rest of the Liturgy.

[sarcasm]Of course, not that any of what I have to say could possibly come anywhere close to being near the mark, since I'm not subject to the Ecumenical Throne, not part of the GOA, am part of the Russian tradition, and (more to the point) disagree with you.  All of that naturally means I can't possibly really be Orthodox.  After all, Russians, Slavs, Arabs, or anyone non-Greek isn't a real Orthodox Christian, as your name so eloquently reminds all of us.[/sarcasm]

I think the problem here was mostly the use of the word profit. I think GisC was refering to Profit as in monetary wealth and I think that  Veniamin was refering to profit as in of benefit to the person on a spiritual level. If we look at it as a spiritual benefit, then i would say that profit would be a proper term.

[admiralnick]

I will continue to write this opinion until I am blue in the face: The language of the service should be the same as the official language of the country where the service is being held. Let me ask you this. If I moved lets say to China and I went to an Orthodox Church there, would I expect to find the liturgy in English? NO! I would find it in Chinese and I would have to learn Chinese to make out the words being said during the service even though the service is structurally the same. So if you move to the US, you should expect to find the liturgy in English, not in whatever your native tongue is.

Nick

[jmbejdl]

I will continue to write this opinion until I am blue in the face: The language of the service should be the same as the official language of the country where the service is being held. Let me ask you this. If I moved lets say to China and I went to an Orthodox Church there, would I expect to find the liturgy in English? NO! I would find it in Chinese and I would have to learn Chinese to make out the words being said during the service even though the service is structurally the same. So if you move to the US, you should expect to find the liturgy in English, not in whatever your native tongue is.

Nick

But what about if the Church were set up by a bunch of English-speaking ex-pats to cater for a community of entirely English-speaking people without one single Chinese member and where the local population has absolutely no Orthodox adherents? Would you still expect the Liturgy in Chinese? That's closer to the original situation of the diaspora churches than your original example. I agree (having worshipped in  a Greek church where neither the youngsters nor the converts could speak Greek) that this should now begin to change, but the Liturgy should be in the vernacular of the parishioners, not necessarily that of the native population.

James

[Αριστοκλής]

Yep, the Church of Greece probably pulled the plug too early on this. I wonder why they can't do for themselves what they have been doing for the GOAA for decades... provide bi-language pew copies of the Divine Liturgy with modern and Kione/Liturgical Greek both? Or maybe they do this already?

[Fr. David]

Ooh, this'll be long...I love cut and paste...

[missions-minded rant]

It was the language of the people in 1st-century times, but spoken languages change, while Koine remained largely static, so if you fast-forward a few hundred years, the two have begun diverging, which divergence only increases as time goes by.

So, logically, I would think, if the first liturgies/sacred texts were written in the language of the people (and not just the elite), then the Church should follow suit as languages develop.

So then, what language should the Orthodox Church of America use? How about the Ethnic Churches in North America, what happens when the younger generations growing up in North America no longer understand their mother tongue?

Standard American English in the US.  And, if they're in Latin America, the Spanish that is used in that particular region.  And, if in French-speaking Quebec, Canadian French.

Each parish should use the language of the people they serve. If there's a parish in CA that is all Russian imigrants, let them worship in the language they understand! If there is a parish in NJ that has a nearly all greek population, 15% of whom speak greek(and by teh majority also speak English), let them use English with some Greek so no one is listening to what is for them complete gibberish.

Amen, CF!  Allowances can be made for substantial percentages of foreign-language-speakers (who, ideally, will be trying to learn English themselves), but the effort should constantly be to move towards a more broadly-accessible language setup.

Unprofitable? Is that the word we use for the Holy Eucharist and other Sacraments of the Church when they are not presented in a manner that falls within the purview of Your intellectual abilities?

Veniamin, I just want to give you kudos for the wonderful job you did of responding to this.  To say that we can just show up, receive the Eucharist while understanding nothing, and come away completely edified is just ludicrous.  I would be so bold to say that the words of the homily and liturgy are just as important (though not more so) as the Eucharist itself.  St. Paul told the Corinthians he would rather speak a few words and be understood than speak many unintelligible words.  We'd do well to follow suit.

Shocking as it may sound I agree with GiC here.  We believe grace is bestowed through the Mysteria - not that grace comes from comprehension.  Otherwise we would stop communing infants.

This is the kind of statement I don't like...and I know, Silouan, you weren't saying here that grace can't come through comprehension of the spoken word, just that the action of partaking of the Eucharist doesn't have to be comprehended to derive benefit therefrom...but I have heard some say that grace is bestowed through the Mysteria, so we don't need to have it bestowed through comprehension of the divine services, and this is just plain wrong, imo.  True, infants will receive the grace through the Mysteria of the Eucharist and baptism (my newborn daughter will receive both on Sunday), but as they grow in grace they have (or should have) the added benefit of hearing and understanding, so that faith truly can come by hearing the Word of God, not only tasting and seeing.

I will continue to write this opinion until I am blue in the face: The language of the service should be the same as the official language of the country where the service is being held.

I'm with ya', Nick.  I like your evaluation of your own "what if" situation here:

Let me ask you this. If I moved lets say to China and I went to an Orthodox Church there, would I expect to find the liturgy in English? NO! I would find it in Chinese and I would have to learn Chinese to make out the words being said during the service even though the service is structurally the same. So if you move to the US, you should expect to find the liturgy in English, not in whatever your native tongue is.

But as for jmbejdl's response:

But what about if the Church were set up by a bunch of English-speaking ex-pats to cater for a community of entirely English-speaking people without one single Chinese member and where the local population has absolutely no Orthodox adherents? Would you still expect the Liturgy in Chinese? That's closer to the original situation of the diaspora churches than your original example.

I would say that it would not be unreasonable to, at first, have services in your native language, because you have only just started a missionary presence in this new country.  What I have seen through personal experience is an immediate effort on the part of the recently-arrived parishioners to learn the native language of the country they have just arrived in and to adapt worship services to this country.  The fact that we STILL have groups in the States who exist simply to cater (good word, jmbejdl) to a particular nationality and language is just sad, and shows how many Orthodox have lost the desire to share their faith with others.

I agree (having worshipped in  a Greek church where neither the youngsters nor the converts could speak Greek) that this should now begin to change, but the Liturgy should be in the vernacular of the parishioners, not necessarily that of the native population.

Like I said, I agree that this could be allowed at first, but if the parishioners are not themselves making an effort to learn the language of their new country, then they are not giving precendence to making themselves linguistically accessible to others, almost all of whom speak the language of the country.

(Yes, I do think that accessibility of language is ONE (of very few things) we should do to make ourselves more "seeker-friendly" to others...heck, forget "seeker-friendly"; this would just make it "seeker-possible"!)

OK...[/missions-minded rant]...done.