There were several times while he was still posting regularly that he was asked to elaborate on his claims against an English liturgy.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š His main argument was that Istanbul was opposed to using English.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
It is true that the Great Church of Christ discourages the Americanization of the Liturgy, and that should be reason enough to avoid such things as english translations.
As to GiC's points - he still didn't provide any concrete examples of an untranslatable phrase.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Then complains that sutble nuances will be lost (which a good translator can avoid).
Because I am better versed in the theoretical elements of linguistics than the pragmatic elements, thus it is rational that I present my argument from such a perspective. It is unfortunate my Liturgical Greek professor isn't here for this argument, because she can point out elements in every prayer that demonstrate translations are and must be at least slightly different from the original. And if good translators can avoid these problems, I have yet to see a good translator, for example, one who can regularly demonstrate in their translation the differences between the usage of the present and the aorist in moods other than the indicative (continuous vs. one time action).
Yet the absurd part of that is most Greek people don't get the sutble nuances of liturgical Greek and obviously very very few Americans would.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š So option 1 is do liturgy "correctly" in Greek so a handful of people get their nuances and the rest have almost no idea what is going on or option 2 is liturgy in a language in which the meaning is not lost and the people understand.
This is where we differ in opinions, as I have said before I don't believe it to be particularly important for everyone to understand every word said, the liturgy isn't about 'personal meaning and edification.' It is a communal act, and not only with the immediate community but with the Church Past, Present, and Future, in Heaven and on Earth.
Also what is a more egregious attack on the Liturgical life of the Church?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Translating liturgical texts into the language of the land, the language of modern academia and trade, a language understood by people in every nation.... OR the GOA's liturgical abuses: the abolition of vespers, loss of frequent confession, taking much of the Orthros texts out of Sunday Orthros, cutting the litany of the catechumens, shortening the litany after the consecration - don't you think you lost some meaning when you abolished all of that?
See Cleveland's post.
Is that how the Orthodox Christians of Georgia believed at this time?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š What about the pre-schism churches in the West - the British Isles, Gaul, Germany ?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Essentially a footnote to a Church that was Greco-Roman in Essence. The Germans understood this, this is why they tried to associate themselves with the Roman world, many of Charlemagne's reforms were directed towards making German culture more Roman and less German. Furthermore, the failure of the Council of Frankfurt demonstrates how insiginficant the Church in this part of the world was, it didn't even invoke significant concern in the Greco-Roman world, it was simply casually dismissed, it was no threat; in addition, this failure would insure that the pre-schism gremanic Church would never become a significant player in Christianity.
By the time the Empire was collapsing the Church was well established far outside of the Greek world and inculturated in Slavic life. When these Slavs started their own missionary work in the far east (and eventually North America) they didn't preash a Russian or a Hellenic Christianity.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š They preached what Christianity was in its essence - God becoming incarnate and rising from the dead.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š They were able to preach to the Chinese in terms of Taoism - speaking of ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œ rather than the ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â»ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â³ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡.
The slavs adopted what was essentially Greek Christianity, and they understood the role and significance of the Roman Culture in the Church, this is why many of the Customs of the slavic Aristocracy came to mimic the Empire in addition to the Imperial Culture of the Church. It is also why the Russians tried to claim moscow as the Third Rome, somewhat how Charlemagne tried to claim to be a Roman Emperor, they both realized that this Roman Culture was central to Civilization in general and Christianity in particular.
Precisely why it is important to not turn Orthodoxy into an ethnicity or mere cultural identity.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Now such nostalgia for the Byzantine era is hurting Orthodoxy - serving liturgy entirely in Greek in America is not helping Orthodoxy.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Saying that Christianity can only be understood through the lens of Hellenism isn't helping Orthodoxy.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Whether the influence of Hellenism is helping or not is irrelevant, because it is there, like it or not. Christianity after St. Constantine is essentially Greek, all the Oecumenical Synods were Greek in Thought and Culture; any attempt to change or alter this fact can lead to the corruption of our dogmas and heresy. Christianity can only properly be understood in the Context that it was established and defined through the Seven Oecumenical Synods, viewing it from any other perspective does the faith a great disservice.
As a side note - since you believe imperialism is so vital to Orthodoxy you do believe Moscow is the third Rome, right?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Since you believe in Romanity and not just Greek ethnicity, as you have stated.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Imperialism is central to proselytism, regardless of religion, but I never said we needed to be proselytizing. We have enough of a task set out for us in the maintaining of the flock we already have; for us in the GOA, this is a Greek flock and their specific cultural and religious needs should be our greatest priority.
You just explained it right here. These "exceptions" have BECOME the common conscienceness the old Culture of the Empire is just that - OLD and a relic of the past. Why doesn't it occur to you that the way Christ intends for the Church to spread is by baptizing cultures and having the Church present in His creation in whatever culture that is out there. There is nothing particularly holy or superior about the old Culture of the Empire. The Empire WAS and IS no more. Remenisce all you want, but it is not coming back.
We baptize cultures by infusing them with the Culture of the Church, a Culture that happens to be Hellenic/Greek/Roman; it is this infusing with Christian (that is Greek) culture that you for some reason seem to oppose.
While you have a valid point of WHY (historically), it is no excuse for what is going on or should be going on NOW. I would hate to have to make my case before the Lord on the Day of Judgement use Canoncial Process/Perogatives like you do as an excuse to not preach the Gospel to all nations. All of this about the "Empire" is completely besides the point when compared to the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.
It's a simple reason to why we were not as successful at spreading our Religion as the west during the era of discovery and colonization; today no Church is growing as radically as Churches did in those days because they lack the national support that is necessary for mass conversion. Our primary concern today should be to missionize our people and focus on the maintaining of our flock in the difficult situation we find ourselves with governments that are apathetic at best and hostile at worst.