You seem to be more excited to use terms like impious and arrogant and "Oecumenical Throne" than actual discussion of any issue. The reality is the ROCOR was doing its best to keep the Russian Church alive in the diaspora, and the MP was trying under near impossible conditions to stay afloat in the USSR. With the exception of a few idealouges on either side, I don't think many believed the other to be un- Orthodox. And now that things have improved in Russia the two sides can meet again. But just ranting about the ROCOR not being in communion with the EP shows that either you have no idea what you are talking about regarding the history of the Russian Church in the 20th century or simply don't care about the people within the Russian Church.
My appologies if I dont see the 20th Century history of the Russian Orthodox Church in like manner. It seems to me that while people like Metropolitan Evlogios in (of?) Paris were trying to preserve the Orthodox Church in the Diaspora, the ROCOR Synod was busy betraying those who had first offered them aid and friendship and ordaining heretic-bishops in Greece.
Many great saints did just fine using the Roman Liturgy in Latin while the West was still united to the Church. Saints Kyril and Mefodii didn't see it as a problem to translate the litrugy. I'm very sorry that you think an English liturgy is hideous. Self hatred is a real psychological problem I guess.ÂÂ
Ah, yes, the reason that I think the Liturgy should not be celebrated in English is because of self-hatred, despite the fact that I have often praised very highly the english language; it couldn't possibly be that the Liturgy was written in Greek and in Greek it has several nuances that are lost in translation, at times even having theological implications, nor could it be that in Greek the Liturgy is carefully constructed verse while in English it is little more than entoned prose. Somethings, like Shakespeare are best read and only fully understandable in English, likewise Virgil is best read in Latin, and Homer should be found in Greek; as our Divine Liturgy is no less in dingity than these Great secular works, why should we not give it the respect and honour due even to these secular works by only celebrating it in the tongue in which it was written, so that the full beauty and meaning that it was intended manifest can be portrayed.
To expect people to have to read many books to grasp the meaning of the liturgy is quite unnatural - it is only recently that the general population has had a high literacy rate, and only since the printing press has books even been affordable to most people. So obviously that is not what the fathers had in mind as the ideal. The liturgical texts were written in such a way as to be easily memorized and quickly become a part of one's daily life. This doesn't happen when the liturgical language is entirely foriegn. The point of Orthodoxy is to fulfill the great commision, not preserve a dead culture.ÂÂ
First off, the Liturgy was not written in a simple form of the language, it was written in an artificially complex form of the Language. Though the spoken language of the time was probably somewhere half way between Classical Greek and Modern Greek, the Liturgy was written in Classical Greek, with extra scholarly complexities added in that would have made it difficult for Fourth Century Athenians to understand. Secondly, since we are blessed with a high literacy rate and a great opportunity to learn and gain information that people of all other ages lacked, it would seem that the vulgar celebration of the Liturgy should be of even less importance.
You would have to be a fool to assert that Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita... is inherently loss elegant than Arma virumque cano, troiae qui primus ab oris... simply because it is the modern language in which Dante wrote.
Well, then I am a fool, especially for the latin language. Plus, I think you could have come up with a better example, Dante vs. Virgil? Come on, there's no contest; when one says 'The Poet' one of two people will come to mind (depending on whether you're a hellenist or latinist), Dante is not one of those two
But what constitutes beauty?
I, for one, view the beauty and efficiency of a language to be directly proportional, high levels of inflection, lack of articles or other understood/non-essential words, interchangability between nouns, adjectives, and verbs, et cetera. Then I would view the great Poet as one who can take this concise and efficient language, and use every linguistic element of it to say what needs said in as many lines as possible, while still keeping the language interesting.
Most of the people that I have seen ranting about greatness of archaic languages do so simply to use archaic words in an attempt to feign intelligence. They seem to miss that every language has highly descriptive adjectives, curious idioms and other complexities that give it character.ÂÂ
I pray you forgive my ignorance on such matters, yet oft I try to seek for beauty even where my comprehension fails. Every languge may have its own unique characteristics, and every language may even have something great unique to it, though I do not know all languages. Yet some are more elegant than others and, though with Indo-European languages the Ancient Tongues are probably preferable to the modern ones, this is not the case in all languages; from what I know of the Finno-Ugric languages, I would probably argue that the opposite is the case, many of these languages seem to actually improve with time, becoming more inflected and more efficient.
I asked you politely not to call GOC bishops heretics on numerous occasions.
