'Orthodox Church bans modern Greek in Liturgy' [Archive]

M.C. Steenberg

26-02-2003, 03:14 PM

Dear Donald and Sinjin,

I've enjoyed reading your two posts in this short thread. There is much in what you have said, Donald, with which I would conceptually (on a personal level) agree. It is essential that the faith be living; and in order to live in a person's mind and heart, there must be some level of understanding that comes through language.

But the 'other side' of this issue is rarely addressed. There is such a thing as educating someone into a language, or style of language, that is deliberately different from that to which they are used - a distinct language, a closed vocabulary, that sets the language apart, in some sense, from the vernacular of the every day. We have seen this philosophy come into renewed play in the English language over the past decade: there has been a resurgence of support for translation of the Scriptures that use 'dated' (or at least different) language than modern, every day books, precisely because this language is different from the language of those books, from our casual conversations, and thus can become a sacred language, the sound of which (like the scent of incense) helps propel the mind into a proper spirit of reverence.

As a specific example, translations such as the New King James Version (NKJV) thoroughly updated the translation of the Scriptures (i.e. it is not simply a re-polishing of the KJV, but a whole new translation) to express the text in contemporary idiom and terminology; yet this volume retained the 'Thou/Ye' pronouns and capitalisation of 'Him, He, His', despite the insistence of modern scholarship that this does not reflect any similar capitalisation in the original Hebrew or Greek (which is true enough). Yet it is different from everyday speech, and for this reason has a powerful value. (As an aside, the NKJV also has several problems as a translation; but in this regard is commendable.)

It is a different issue with the question of modern vs. classical/ecclesiastical ('koine') Greek in the Liturgy. Here we have an issue of comprehensibility of the language as a whole, rather than simply of stylistic expression. But the fact of the matter is that simply because the average Greek speaker does not inherently comprehend Koine, this does not mean that the Koine of the Liturgy cannot be taught and learned -- and relatively easily at that. There is something of the 'otherness' of Koine (as with Slavonic to Russian speakers) that is, yes, difficult to understand of one does not make an effort to do so; but which is helpful and useful precisely for its foreignness if one takes the effort to work towards its comprehension.

The Church has a responsibility to help the people understand the words they hear and recite in the services; and it is essential in this regard the printed versions of the texts be made available in the vernacular language (for example, the brilliant facing-page old/modern Greek New Testament available in Greece; the modern Greek translations and commentaries of the Liturgy available in Greece; etc) for study and reflection. But in terms of the services themselves, the Church in this regard perhaps has the duty to educate people into the comprehension of the otherness that an older language represents.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

26-02-2003, 05:30 PM

Sadly, in my observation, Matthew, that duty of which you speak is more often observed in the breach.

Richard Leigh

26-02-2003, 06:05 PM

Since God is about communication (witness the incarnation of the Logos), and that this communication is done out of love, which, according to the Holy Spirit through Saint Paul in 1 Cor 13 does not demand its own way, it stands to reason that if the comnmunication is not understood, it is not communicated, and that if there is a way to make it understood, God will find that way.

OTOH, one needs always be careful of how one treats holy things and holy words, and it would seem appropriate in a church that rightly puts a high premium on "goup conscience" as a "sounding board" of the Holy Spirit in the whole church for decision making that one seek the aid of as many competent individuals as are available in making one's translation. It is also important to note though that if the Lord had waited for all of our services to Him to be perfect before, say, sending the Aposltes to the Gentiles, Greeks among them,it would never have happened. So, we struggle our way through and learn from our mistakes.

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

26-02-2003, 06:08 PM

Owen wrote:

Sadly, in my observation, Matthew, that duty of which you speak is more often observed in the breach.

I entirely agree. This is among the duties of the Church to her people that needs to be the subject of renewed energy and enthusiasm in our day.

INXC, Matthew

Rev. Hieromonk Averky

05-03-2003, 07:48 AM

I have been a priest for twenty years, and in that time I have served all liturgical services in either English or Church Slavonic. My first observation is that given the average person's attention span, after the service progresses, and the brain tires, the priest could be serving in Swahili, and it would not make that much difference as far as comprehension is concerened. For many years I thought that the Russian people, who do not use Slavonic as a daily language have no more idea of what is being read or sung in church than do non-russians, but have found that not to be true; it amazes how much of the services that they do know by heart, can sing along with the choir, and can intelligently discuss the nuances of the meanings of the text.. Many of our converts rely on an english text, but again, in time they begin to absorb what is going on in the services. Years ago, before I entered the monastery, i attended a talk given by a an Archimandrite from Greece by the name of Philotheos. When someone asked him about language in church services, he replied that the most moving spiritual experiences he had had was when he was but a child, for he felt that the Holy Spirit speaks to the soul of one who is truly praying during divine services, and that "He educates the soul and mind with the Truth found in the verses which are being sung. I must admit, that for me personally, church Slavonic flows more readily from the tongue, has a beauty which English cannot capture, but English mst be used for those of us who are of the English-speaking world.

Philip Mathew

08-03-2003, 06:15 PM

Is the Greek that is used in the Liturgy Ancient Greek or Koine (or NT) Greek? I have never gotten the same answer twice. Thanks!

EVAN ALEVISATOS CHRISS

08-03-2003, 07:22 PM

The Greek used in the Divine Liturgey is the Koine Greek. Koine Greek was the market
place Greek ; i.e. the spoken Greek when the Gospels were written. Evan

Fr Averky

09-03-2003, 07:05 AM

Dear All,
The argument for both sides of this question will go on until the end of time, so it seems. Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow has made mention that he attempted to have divine services served in Russian in his diocese of Estonia, but it met with popular resistance. I am told that a proposal for the use of Russian was to be brought up at a meeting of the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate, but failed to even to make it to the agenda. The Serbian Church has started to have divine services in both Slavonic and Serbian, and I hear from Serbs that visited there, that there are many Serbs who will not attend a church that has Serbian in the services. Believe it or not, even parishes of the Church Abroad (to which I belong), are beginning to use some English! In my early days, after joining the Orthodox Church if even the Epistle and the Gospel, one litany, or the Our Father would be said in English, it would be enough to make me feel that I belonged.. The Church Abroad always has seen herself as being in a temporary situation, thus "justifying" her need to preserve Slavonic and Russian culture. However, after 80 years, she sees that many non-Russians have become part of her flock, and she must see to their needs. As long as the Orthodox Churches in this country have strong ties to "Mother" churches in Eastern Europe or in Arab nations, the use of English will always be an issue. In this country, the Antiochean Orthodox Church and the Russian Church Abroad have experienced new growth in recent years from refugees and in the case of the Synod, "new" russians, who fully expect services to be in Slavonic, and the parish to be essentially Russian. It causes a dilemna, but I firmly agree agree with those who maintain that the language of church services should include all worshippers, not excluding those deemed "foreigners." Our Saviour commisssioned the Apostles to baptize all nations, and sometimes people like the Russians forget that it did not stop with them. I love Greek and Slavonic, but English is my native tongue, and I want to be able to pray in that language when I pray to God publicly.

M.C. Steenberg

09-03-2003, 05:54 PM

Philip asked:

Is the Greek that is used in the Liturgy Ancient Greek or Koine (or NT) Greek?

Actually, it is neither, even as it is a little of both. The parlance of the New Testament writings reflects the koine of the era; but overall the language of the services, the correspondence and the theological writings of the Church represents a mixture of this koine with the unique character of Septuagintal Greek of the Old Testament and the philosophical (largely Classical) Greek used in the principal controversies of the first Christian centuries. It is not truly 'classical' (i.e. Attic) Greek; but someone who has only studied the koine will have trouble with much of the Church's writings that still reflect a predominance of classical elements.

INXC, Matthew

George Hawkins

10-03-2003, 12:38 AM

I am a parishoner at the Rocor Church in NZ. Right next door to us, we have a Serbian Church. At the moment we don't have a permenant Priest at the Russian Church. Just recently, our Churches have begun having English Liturgies on Saturdays, and it is a real blessing, as although numbers are small, there are a few of us native English speaking Orthodox, and it is so good to have Liturgy in your own language. The Serbian Church has been doing this for a few weeks now. Previously when we had a permenant Priest at the Russian Church, there was also an English Liturgy. Next week we will be having an English Liturgy at the Russian Church.
In Japan, the liturgy is conducted in Classical Japanese, known as bungakugo, which was used as the written form of the language (but not the spoken) until the end of WW2. It takes a while to get used to as it is quite different from the vernacular, (everyone studies classical Japanese at school though), but as with using an older form of English in Liturgies, the otherness of the liturgical language is a treasure.

Damon Nestor Ploumis

11-03-2003, 01:40 AM

The notion that more people would attend services if the language were to be modernised is belied by the reforms precipitated by Vatican II. In that instance, the liturgical language was entirely replaced by local languages yet attendance has declined precipitously since the reforms.

As a Greek American I often have heard from fellow Chrisitans that they would attend church more often if the services were in English and I do belive in the case of fourth generation Greek Americans,this demand is not wholly unjustifiable. It is one thing to have to make an effort in understanding an archaic form of one's native tongue and another thing to have to learn a totally new language foreign to the country in which one lives.

That being said, most people are willing to make the effort to learn a new language or refine the knowledge of their maternal tongue for the sake of their career prospects but are wholly unwilling to do the same for the sake of their souls. Christ says knock and you shall enter seek and you shall find. The quest for salvation is not passive but rather active. If one attends services and makes an effort to understand, after some time elements of the service become comprehensible in the same manner with an infant who must learn by engaging those around him. In his humble position, a child must piece his language together. The Church is dealing with elevated issues and we must not expect Her to always conform to our needs; rather we must strive to engage ourselves in the salvation scheme offered by the Church.

As to the specifically Greek issue of modernising the language of the sevices, the same priciple applies. As a student in Athens,I lived like a king, teaching English as a second language to those droves of Greeks who saw the necessity of learning it to improve their prospects. If parents were even a tenth so zealous in ensuring that there children learned their own language as well as they do English, there would be no case to Bishop Apostolos' use of demotic Greek during service.

For much of history, the bulk of the faithful, I would hazard to guess, could understand little of the Greek and probably less of the Slavonic, (being that Russian is even more remotely related to Church Slavonic). Yet the Church has always born great fruits of piety for worship is not limited to speech alone. Although one may not understand the language completely, one can still comprehend through humility and patience.

Damon Nestor Ploumis

11-03-2003, 02:41 AM

Apologies for the typos, I am a dreadful typist! DNP

Michael Astley

01-09-2006, 05:49 PM

I wonder why there is such resistance to such a change. I mean, Christian worship in English has traditionally been conducted in either Elizabethan or Stuart English, which is both comprehensible and dignified. However, there are Orthodox churches that use modern English. In fact, there is a joint contribution of the churches under the Oecumenical Patriarchate, Moscow Patriarchate and possibly Antioch as well, which is the Divine Liturgy with the old Greek on one side and the translation in modern English on the facing page. I find it a little odd that there is a willingness to use modern English, which is a complete departure from English Christian tradition, yet there is a refusal to use modern Greek.

Boulos

01-09-2006, 08:29 PM

Personally, i believe that the less we translate scripts and liturgies according to our nowadays wishes, is the more pure we pass them to our future future generations.... Is our responsibility to stick to the Word as it was before, and it is now, and will be later.
This is the main Title of our faith.
Whoever who listens without hearing, won't hear even if we use all languages of the world....

Peter Farrington

15-09-2006, 11:34 PM

I find it difficult that the idea that liturgies should not be translated into English is promoted here.

It is the use of foreign languages which is one of the main reasons why ordinary people are put off Orthodoxy in the UK.

Im my own Church we celebrate in English and for some of the 'ethnic' members it is the first time they have really felt they could understand and participate. I don't know of any members who switch off during the liturgy. Certainly responses are as loud at the end as at the beginning.

I find it incomprehensible that we can confess that God became man in every way like us save sin so that the Word could communicate life to us, yet we resist the need to communicate this life to others in a language they can understand.

No person should have to learn another language to hear about Christ and to worship him. To say otherwise is surely to deny the mission of the Church as far as I can see, which is to make disciples of all peoples and cultures, not to make disciples of Greek or Russian or Coptic culture.

I look forward to the day when the British Orthodox liturgy is celebrated in Cornish, and Welsh, and Scots Gaelic as well as English, rather than the day when Cornish or Welsh learn enough Coptic to pray it in someone else's tongue.

If God desired us to impose alien tongues on folk then why are we not all praying in Aramaic with the Syrian Orthodox?

The main reason I never even considered Greek Orthodoxy was that it insisted I become a Greek to become a Christian. Yet in Christ there is no Greek, nor Russian, nor Copt, nor Arab, nor Syrian, but Christ is for all men in all cultures and languages.

There is no need to produce a bland, populist, easy-reading English or other liturgy. Ours is in good traditional English. But it is definitely English. The Bible is clear that worship must be comprehensible, if it is not then we cannot use anecdotal evidence of people who have been blessed during worship which they cannot understand, to cover the fact that we are not following the New Testament instructions of St Paul.

Peter

Andrew

16-09-2006, 05:54 AM

My spiritual father says that the solution to this problem is putting out two authoritative Orthodox English liturgies - one in heightened, "Classical" language, and one in everyday English. Each parish could pick which one they want to use, or something like that...

Laura

16-09-2006, 09:55 PM

John Charmley

21-09-2006, 12:27 AM

I am preparing to convert to Orthodoxy whilst living in Cyprus. As the service is in Greek and I am an English speaker, I am prepared not to understand the liturgy and I follow along with my book. What I was not prepared for was the priest telling me that most of the people in the church also do not understand the service and that with my book, I probably understand more than most. Many people that I have asked, say that they do not understand the liturgy.

Laura,

This sounds like the pre-Reformation English Church, and may have worked fine in a preliterate society where books were difficult to acquire (although the evidence is that by the C15th it was not fine), but I wonder about its appropriateness now?

Sts. Cyril and Methodius did not preach to the Slavs in old Greek, and they translated the scriptures so they could effectively preach the Gospel of the Lord to those who could not read Greek.

Peter is correct to remind us that had St. Paul taken the attitude you describe, we should have had to speak Aramaic.

We preach the word so that all might come to Christ and be saved in Him. Am I being obtuse in thinking this process would be helped if we understood the words being used?

In Christ,

John

James Albrecht

18-02-2007, 10:02 PM

It seems to me that there are two questions:

1) In what language should we preach the gospel?
2) In what language should we pray our liturgy?

I suppose there is a third question implicit: are the above questions really one and the same?

Certainly, the postings on this thread incline one to believe that the posters are talking about two different things. On the one hand there is the preaching of the word, which, it seems inevitable, must be done in each and every vernacular. St Paul would have it no other way.

But on the other hand, it isn't clear that the liturgy is simply a matter of preaching. In fact, it seems not to be that: I doubt that many converts have come to Christianity because they showed up at a Christian liturgy, regardless of the language.

The liturgical experience, it seems, is largely about providing the faithful with a deeper immersion in the person of Christ. Thus, one cannot discard the importance of the historical tradition (inlcuding linguistic traditions) that link the liturgy to Christ.

That said, I'm not sure how Orthodoxy can embrace multiple liturgical languages without embracing them all.

Peter Farrington

18-02-2007, 10:44 PM

Hi James

I guess we should also throw into the pot the clear teaching of the Scriptures that prayer and worship should be with understanding.

I know that in my own experience a great many folk from a wide variety of Orthodox backgrounds have found it a wonderful experience to worship in our entirely English liturgy and it has made the liturgy come alive for them.

I know that I 'could' worship in a liturgy in any language, but then I am myself and I have been Orthodox 12 years. The new enquirer who was a non-Christian and came to our liturgy last week and is now seeking to become Orthodox after the experience would not, I think, have had the same response if he could understand none of the words we were praying.

I think that for me the main issue is one that has been raised many times. If we are not to celebrate the liturgy in our own languages then why is Greek special, or Church Slavonic, why in fact are we not all praying in Aramaic?

If the Apostles allowed other languages then why should Greeks decide that only their language should be used?

Peter

John Charmley

18-02-2007, 11:54 PM

Dear Peter, Dear James,

I see the distinction James is making, but unless one is going to do a multi-lingual Liturgy, in which the Gospel, Pauline and Catholic Epistles are read in the local language, and the rest of it in Old Church Slavonic or Greek, it is hard to see how the preaching of the word will go far in Church.

As there was no Liturgy today at my usual Church, I took up the kind offer from my Coptic chaplain at the University (now there's a good version of multi-culturalism for you!) to worship with him and his flock. It was enormously moving, and he switched from Coptic to Arabic to English as the mood took him. Not being as familiar with the Liturgy of St. Basil as I am with the Liturgy of St. James, I left my English anxiety about 'following the service' at the door, and went with it. It was certainly a different experience, but when we had the Gospel in Coptic, it did feel a little strange not to be able to follow the words of my Lord as I usually do. Still, three languages in one service of three hours seemed fair enough.

I suspect that to be, as Laura described, and not to understand the words at all, must limit one's sense of what is actually happening. Our Faith is not, after all, a set of magical incantations, and I am mindful of what has been said in another thread about the way in which outside missionaries have been able to impose on the Ethiopian Orthodox because that Church uses a language unintelligible to the masses.

If the shepherds do not speak to the sheep in a way they can understand, others will fill the vacuum. Of course, for those blessed enough to be born into a culture where the language enables them to have the Liturgy in its original language, that is wonderful, and who would ever wish to change that; no one.

It is the oldest missionary tradition of all, as in Acts 15, to preach to the Gentiles in a language they will understand - even older than the Liturgy itself - unless, of course, one takes a certain view on that of St. James.

In Christ,

John

Andreas Moran

19-02-2007, 02:47 AM

I came into the Church via the Greek route. In the churches I went to, the Liturgy was in Church Greek. So, I learned the Greek Liturgy. It is not difficult to do. I'm no linguist, and if I can do it, anybody can. Now that I spend time in Russia, I must learn the Liturgy in Slavonic. All the Greeks and Russians I know do understand the Liturgy in their respective liturgical languages. It's an excuse for laziness to say that the Liturgy should be in modern forms of Greek, Russian or whatever. What is needed is education, not innovation. Language changes, even by the decade. What is normal English, say, now may not be normal in ten years' time. Traditional forms of liturgical language exist outside linguistic flux and so are timeless and not of this world.

As to English, this should be in traditional English liturgical language such as that used in the monastery at Essex. Father Sophrony loved this form of English, and, whilst there are many arguments in favour of such language, the fact that such a luminary of the Church as Father Sophrony prescribed the use of such English is enough for me. The modern English version of the Liturgy published by the Archdiocese of Thyateira is appalling (and wrong) and I would not attend a church where that is used.

John Charmley

19-02-2007, 11:37 AM

Dear Andreas,

Acts 15:5

15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15:19

15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,

I remain unrepentantly on the side of St. James the Just. The argument that 'if I can do it, so can others' seems rather to run against this oldest of traditions, and, in any event, ought we not to be careful about setting ourselves up an exemplars - even in a humble sense?

Laura specifically states that the people she was with did not understand their liturgy; I'm sure it is different in some places, but it does not seem a desirable thing.

When you say
It's an excuse for laziness to say that the Liturgy should be in modern forms of Greek, Russian or whatever I wonder whether this strays towards the judgemental? No doubt this was a line taken by the Judaisers who persuaded St. Peter to be more strict about the Jewish Law, but it was not the one decided upon by the Holy Apostles; and perhaps one might be forgiven for following them rather than any synod since?

There is surely a happy mean to be attained between the loopiness of some Anglican services and intelligibility for the native population? Have not most Churches in the West found something like this?

Moreover, as the initial post here was about the Greeks banning modern Greek, it seems that there the traditionalists have their way; if they are correct, Greece will become more Orthodox and stave off the embrace of western secularism; may it be so.

The inadequacy of the British education system means that fewer of our children speak a foreign language (and fewer of them can read formal English too), and we should not, perhaps, make spreading the Word of God dependent upon cultural and linguistic practices - but rather follow the example of the Apostles?

Just a thought.

In Christ,

John

James Albrecht

19-02-2007, 03:51 PM

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your interesting points. I find the question of liturgical language to be a difficult crossroads of evangelism and sacramental tradition. I suppose my personal preference would be for a dual language liturgy. Greek for the canon/epiclesis, most of the rest in the vernacular. This would achieve three things.

1) It would achieve the goals of preaching the gospel in the native tongue.
2) It would highlight that in the eucharist we are repeating a ritual act that Christ himself ordained (not in Greek, of course, but the language would be an homage to a traditional roots of the sacrament, not an assertion of Greek necessity).
3) Anyone would be able to quickly grasp, by sheer repetition, the minimal vocabulary required by a limited use of Greek in the liturgy. And even a slight familiarity with Greek would enable the faithful to more readily grasp certain theological terms of art. This vocabulary would open up the participants to a world of theological inquiry that might be lost if the traditional language were abandoned entirely.

Best regards,

James

Andreas Moran

19-02-2007, 05:23 PM

Dear John,

I'm sorry if my post seemed a bit impatient. Over quite a number of years, when I used to go to parishes, the language question was constantly debated and I got a bit weary of it.

In English-speaking countries, there are two aspects: first, are the faithful and prospective Orthodox faithful put off by the use of Church Greek or Slavonic; secondly, when English is used, what sort of English should it be? This post deals only with the first question.

To say that services should now be in modern Greek or Russian (or whatever) is clearly an attractive argument. On the face of it, it makes sense. But no one needs telling that there is more to the Liturgy than making sense. In Church Greek and Slavonic, there is a mystical sense of connection with the Church outside of time and space. We feel connected with the saints and other faithful of other times. (Indeed, is it not the case that angels and saints are present at the Liturgy?) There is, in these two languages, something special and spiritual which, whether we understand the words or not, creates and instils a kind of spiritual energy which other forms language cannot do. In short, these languages are a medium of grace.

As to learning one or other of these languages, all you need is a tape/CD of the Liturgy and a book with the liturgical language on one side and the translation on the facing page. After a few weeks listening and following the text, you can get most of it. As James says, there is much repetition so these parts are quickly learned. There is nothing wrong with repeating the Epistle and Gospel readings in English - they do this at the monastery in Essex when the Liturgy is in Greek. There is far more to the Liturgy than understanding the words: we feel and live the Liturgy. There is also the question which I raised before. Vernacular languages are always in a state of flux. Once you go down the route of modernising the language you have to ask, 'exactly what wording shall we use?' You then have disagreements about that, and you have committees which fiddle about with the words and the services on a regular basis. This is just what your former Church did, and where did that get it? Does it fill the pews you have just vacated? And there is the wider danger that once you change the language, people start thinking of other things to change. As someone very wisely said somewhere on this site some time ago, the Church which changes its Liturgy loses its faith, and I'm sure that includes its language.

Forgive the way I put this, but I can't believe there are cohorts of young people and prospective Orthodox converts hanging around waiting for the Liturgy to be in modern English, and who, on hearing that the Liturgy will be in modern English, would suddenly shout, 'Hey, guys, the Liturgy's in modern English! Forget Tescos and the soccer match - we're off to church!'

And if we were to change the language for our generation, what about the generations to come after? Have we forced something on them they might not want?

You mention 'most Churches in the West' - who wants to be like any of them? The whole point about the Orthodox Church is that it hasn't gone down such routes as have various denominations which have failed to a greater or lesser extent to 'guard the deposit'. We maintain the Holy Tradition of the Church which includes the Liturgy in the form in which it has been used for some 1,700 years.

I will struggle (and you don't know the extent of my incompetence at foreign languages!) to try to learn Church Slavonic.

In Christ,

Andreas.

Owen Jones

19-02-2007, 05:36 PM

I agree that the liturgy, most of it anyway, ought to be in the venacular. However, this lack is not what is driving young people away. The problem is a lack of intensity and the lack of an urgent call to repentance and conversion. Everyone needs daily conversion, and it needs to be understood and felt as a life and death decision, daily. So young people will naturally turn to more intense experiences. The fear of course is that we will alienate, but the Gospel message is more than willing to alienate people in order to save those who are ready and willing. The higher the demands placed on people will, in fact, draw more. This is why protestant churches that are calling for a pledge of pre-marital chastity are growing at a high rate. These churches also call for tithing, and a large percentage of their budgets go to missionary work. In my parish, there are ZERO dollars for any missionary work that I am aware of. Our missionary work could easily be met by giving to monasteries, and supporting some of the work being done to help Christians being persecuted in Muslim societies.

John Charmley

19-02-2007, 07:27 PM

Dear Andreas,

There is no need to apologise - this question can be a trial to those of us who are veterans of it elsewhere. But it is, I hope and trust, useful even to such people, to engage in a constructive discussion, and so I am grateful to you, and to James, for putting the arguments and possible syntheses; if I may, I shall come back to Owen Jones' bigger picture point later, because it requires an answer in its own right.

When you write:

In Church Greek and Slavonic, there is a mystical sense of connection with the Church outside of time and space.
I know what you mean; the same is true with Coptic - but I see nothing wrong with trying to attain the same sense in Spanish or English - neither language lacks a literary language for conveying mysticism and timelessness. I can see the arguments for what James proposes, and find no problem - as long as it does not lead to these parts of the Liturgy being thought of as in some way 'exotic'. It is not entirely unknown for westerners to be attracted to the 'exotic' in Orthodoxy, and it sometimes leaves me feeling a little uneasy, lest that take up too much of their time and attention.

Tapes, CDs, time, all available here in the west, but are we really wanting a western model of mission? Why not follow the Apostles?

Of course you are right (as all Anglicans and ex-Anglicans know only too well) that a commitment to the vernacular guarantees nothing by way of stability, but we need to watch for the 'Church as museum' tendency too. My own BOC uses a good literary English translation of the Liturgy of St. James, which certainly catches a sense of mysticism and one of the Saints and Angels being with us; and it ought to be perfectly possible to do this elsewhere. Indeed, when I referred to 'Churches in the West' I did so meaning Orthodox Churches in the West; in other words, I think many Orthodox people have come to an entirely satisfactory local solution; one size never fits all in these things, I suspect.

Forgive the way I put this, but I can't believe there are cohorts of young people and prospective Orthodox converts hanging around waiting for the Liturgy to be in modern English, and who, on hearing that the Liturgy will be in modern English, would suddenly shout, 'Hey, guys, the Liturgy's in modern English! Forget Tescos and the soccer match - we're off to church!'
You made me laugh with this! Of course not, but they aren't going to do so saying 'hey, its in Old Church Slavonic - cool' either. It is more, surely, a matter of mission tools. Pondering the idea of working more closely with our Coptic brothers and sisters, one of the things I need to work out is what the effect of doing what I did yesterday would be on enquirers?

We have many who are 'interested' in 'exploring Orthodoxy'. If they get to a BOC service they can experience the Liturgy in an elevated form of their own language; if they go straight Coptic they might be quite taken with what they might find 'exotic' bits, but they might also wonder what was going on for most of the time.

May be that's OK, but I was simply going with those oldest of fuddie-duddies, the Apostles, because it seemed to me they had got it so right first time!

To Owen's post later.

In Christ,

John

John Charmley

19-02-2007, 08:51 PM

Dear Mr. Jones,

I agree that the liturgy, most of it anyway, ought to be in the vernacular. However, this lack is not what is driving young people away. The problem is a lack of intensity and the lack of an urgent call to repentance and conversion.

A hearty 'yes' to that.

Young people are not noted for their reluctance to commit to absolutes, and there is nothing more absolute than the call to repent and follow the Lord's way.

I do not presume to know the situation in most Orthodox Churches, but as a life long Anglican with missionaries in the family I do know a little about mission. The Anglicans have not been as poor at recruitment as some of the media would have you believe; programmes such as the 'Alpha' course, have been pretty successful, and whether some of us like it or not, some of the vernacular stuff has helped reach out to those who do not know the Word.

That credit given (as it often is not), it must be admitted that the tale in the UK is a sad one on the whole. Swathes of children grow up with little or no knowledge of the Christianity that helped shape their history and culture; and I am not just speaking about those from deprived backgrounds. With a Church in just about every village and thousands of people wanting a 'Church wedding' or baptism, we missed so many opportunities for mission.

My sister, who had lapsed (yes, I know all the jokes about how can you tell a lapsed Anglican - answer - you can tell them anything and they'll agree) went along to have her first child baptised. The local minister talked to her about the commitment she would be making, and although initially she felt cross, she came to see that she was risking making a mock of something of vital importance. That got her thinking, and she is now a pillar of her local Church (a very elegant one, I must add!).

Too many nominal Christians are the equivalent of flying-buttresses - they support the Church from without. What are we doing to bring them in?

One reason I always read what Peter Farrington of this cyber-parish has to say on this is because he has been running the mission for the British Orthodox Church for years, and his energy on the mission front is phenomenal: publications, websites, e mails, education classes, you name it and he's into it. I don't say this to bring a blush to his cheek, but to explain why his views on mission are worth heeding. None of us get it right all the time, but those who are ploughing the furrow have earned the right to comment on its straightness; we amateur ploughmen talk a good contest sometimes.

I am always mindful that there was a time when all the Christians in the world could be gathered into an upper room in Jerusalem; great quality, of course (bar one), but we wouldn't want to head back in that direction in terms of numbers.

So, can we help stop the number of Christians in the Holy Land getting back to that number? As we fast and pray during Great Lent, let us seek guidance from Him about what it is we can each do to spread the Best News in this or any other world.

In Christ,

John

Kosta

20-02-2007, 06:53 AM

The Church of Greece is right, on this one.

The Church of Greece has already attempted to make an official modern greek translation which only resulted in the laity rioting in the streets. The greek youth do not care what language is used, its not as if the youth are being attracted to different denominations. They dont attend church because there too busy partying on Saturday nights.

Protestantism in greece is dead, no takers, . If a vote was given to the youth or to the laity regardless of age the overwhelming majority will vote to keep the byzantine greek. And if the church unilaterally changes the liturgy into modern greek, you wont need a vote, because once again ,the people will take it to the streets in protest (as is customary in greece).

The best thing to do which is basically common sense is to offer liturgy books with the original on one side, and a modern greek translation on the other. If one wants isnt understanding whats said he can take a quick glance on the opposite page. Such a book should also be taught and given out in any catechism class offered whether to the youth or to the older generation.

Andreas Moran

20-02-2007, 10:51 AM

Well said, Kosta - such also is the situation in Russia (though they don't take to the streets as readily as the Greeks!).

Effie Ganatsios

02-04-2007, 07:28 AM

As a Greek can I say something concerning the language of the liturgy?

From the first message on this thread :

“The majority of people do not understand the language of the Liturgy. They don't understand one word,"

This simply is not true. Even I understand the liturgy – without having any formal education in the Greek language. I taught myself Greek – I could barely read the 1st grade reader when I came here and the fact that I could read it was only because my poor husband was forced to tutor me for months before our arrival here.

The liturgy is in Katharevousa – which is formal Greek - a neo-hellenic form of Greek based on ancient Greek. Demotic greek is the language that people speak today. Sort of like High German and Low German. Of course, Ancient Greek is something else altogether. What you have to understand is that it is all one language and although today’s children need to be taught Ancient Greek there are many common words. Ancient Greek is beyond my ability (unless I decide to seriously study it) but not Katharevousa.

To give you an idea of what I mean think of Chaucer’s English and to a lesser degree Shakespeare’s. If English is your first language you might need a translation of some of the words in The Canterbury Tales but most of it would be understandable. For Greeks, Katharevousa is a lot easier to understand than Chaucer ‘s English would be for you.

The situation in Greece is completely different to that in Australia or America. Children who are born in these countries cannot be expected to understand something in Greek as well as they do in English. To them Greek is a foreign language. I believe that our faith is something so personal that we should have the right to attend services in our own language.

The need to fully understand what is being said during the service is vital, in my opinion.

My copy of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Chrysostom has been published by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. I have the English and Greek texts side by side and this has helped me tremendously – not to understand the language itself but to “feel” the service within me . I don’t think it’s enough to merely understand a language.

From buzuxi ‘s message on 20.2.2007

“The best thing to do which is basically common sense is to offer liturgy books with the original on one side, and a modern greek translation on the other”.

The “original” what – ancient Greek or Katharevousa? Greeks – even young people – have no trouble understanding Katharevousa. My husband’s copy of the New Testament has ancient Greek on one side and katharevousa on the other – but this is just to ensure the reader that the translation of today’s liturgy is a faithful copy of the ancient text.

The problem with Greek youth and the Church has nothing to do with the language in my opinion. The problem is that the Church has lost its credibility because of greed.

Mathew 6:24 “You cannot serve God and mammon”.

Effie

Paul Cowan

03-04-2007, 04:59 AM

Dear Effie:
Thank you for posting. It does help everyone when someone with first hand knowledge not just book knowledge speaks of what they personally experienced. It gives credibility to the topic. (that is not a "dig" at our resident scholars!)

You said:

To them Greek is a foreign language.

I chuckled at this as I am sure most others will. Here in America, if someone does not understand something you said, they say "That sounds Greek to me".

It just tickled me. Thanks for posting.

Paul

Dimitris

03-04-2007, 04:57 PM

Hallo Effie!

I agree with you that those who are interested won't have any problems in understanding the Liturgy through the one or the other way. To complete the picture, I just wanted to note that the Greek language used in Church is not exactly Katharevousa, but Kiní (Koine), which is somehow in between Ancient Greek and Katharevousa.

Dimitris

Effie Ganatsios

03-04-2007, 07:00 PM

Thanks Dimitri for that information, although I had the impression that Koine was a form of Ancient Greek. I know the word koine means common - a common language but the word itself was used to describe the language from which modern greek is descended. I'm no language expert though.

Perhaps it's like the word asbestos - same word exactly but a completely different meaning in English and in Greek.

Whatever the proper name for the language the liturgy is in, it's easily understandable and that's the main point.

Effie

Luke

24-12-2008, 05:17 AM

I have not yet seen a reply to Peter Farrington's points about how utterly contradictory it can be to the church's mission not to utilize the language that common people understand.

I'll admit that I feel strongly about this as well, and find it extremely disheartening to hear so many Orthodox people deny common sense on one hand, and something akin to canon law on another. The adherence to a language that very few, if any, understand ---especially in a particular place attested to by a bishop of the church --- is borderline idolatry. The "otherness" that I have seen written in this thread, and the hinting at a special feeling that one may come in contact with the ancient language gets at my very point. The teachings and undergoings of the liturgy to be understood by the laypeople, in a language they understand, are the crux of what is special and attractive. They lead us towards knowing the one true God, not deluding us in some mystical way that they are special.

Looking at the dialogue logically, what is the difference between a foreigner desiring to become Orthodox and hearing it in his own language and the Greek who doesn't understand liturgical Greek but wants it in his common usage? The Greek has a vesitigial language and thus more is required of him? Should not we all in western countries learn Greek, then, because "if we are serious about the faith" then we would just learn koine Greek too, right?

The hypocrisy is glaring here to me, because carried out, none of the arguments I've seen here make sense. We owe it to the people to give them the fair shake at hearing the words and liking/accepting/living by them and not proposing or assuming that "if they are serious about it anyway" then they will learn a new language.

I am not encouraging throwing away anything. But to act as though everyone has a scholar's viewpoint on this (like many on this message board --- to their credit btw) is detrimentally demanding. You can go all over the place and ask the Orthodox laity (from coptic to ethiopian to greek to slavonic to any other dead language used) how little they get. It is our job to be smart and use common sense. The teachings of Jesus Christ that are understood and acted on are what is of value. Thinking they are "mystical" and "other" is self deception. They are already that when you contemplate them, after having understood them properly, in a language the facilitates this.

Vasiliki D.

24-12-2008, 07:32 AM

This is an interesting debate and one I would not dare form an opinion either way lest I disappoint our Holy Triune Lord ... go one way ... pros and cons ... go the other ... pros and consts.

So, all I want to do is put a question forward and see what responses come out of it (bearing in mind that the primary audience IS Anglo) .... If Revelation is the living Holy Liturgy (if anyone is not familiar with this teaching let me know) then I wonder how Revelation 22:18-19 can be understood ... ?

Robert Hegwood

24-12-2008, 04:23 PM

Vasiliki D.

25-12-2008, 01:49 AM

Then Sts. Basil and St. John Chrysostom have some "splaining" to do since both of them redacted extant liturgies to give us those that bear their names. Then there are the questions relating to the liturgy in other languages such as Slavonic or Aramaic...there are certainly differences of language as well as some other small cultural differences in the celebration of those. Also, various saints and Fathers say that the language of heaven is silence...so is speaking audibly at all somehow a violation of that in the celebration of the Liturgy? Moreover how do we know the first liturgy was in Greek? There are some portions of the liturgy that only make complete sense if rendered back in to a semitic tongue (a mercy of peace) which indicates an aramaic precident to the Greek, which would make sense given the origins of the Church. Was there loss or addition then when the Liturgy was first fully rendered in Greek?

Basically what I'm saying is taking away and adding should not be conflated with serving the liturgy in local languages. After all did not the Holy Spirit quite specifically use several languages on the day of Pentecost to share the Gospel? If He did it then how is the liturgy in a local tongue an adding or a taking away from anything so long as it is the Holy Spirit guiding the development and establishment of the faith in any given people. The prayers and conduct of the Liturgy so far as I understand it is a great icon or at least very iconic in nature...drawing us towards the one heavenly liturgy and enabling us to participate in it.

And looking at it iconically to me suggests a sufficient paradigm, for an icon of Christ is an icon of Christ regardless of whether the inscription is in Greek, Arabic, English, Old Church Slavonic or Chinese.

Hey, Ho! Merry Christmas ... yes, Basil and Chrysostom has splaining to do ... relax :) They have no explaining because BOTH of them ONLY changed the liturgy after a REVELATION from the Lord himself that He approved of the change ... it is said that St. Basil and the ENTIRE congregation witnessed the angels during the liturgy and so on and so forth ....

My point on this and on other threads is ... we must never do anything (regardless of how logical it might sound) without the absolute approval of God .. this requires faith and patience and a SURE sign from Him ... We can discuss and discuss but if we change things just because we want to .... we may not actually be doing the church a service - this IS orthodox thinking ... sorry mate .... this IS the thinking that kept the HIDDEN PEARL hidden for 2,000 years - yo'áll here that "those" yucky Greeks (we all love to hate) did us a service ... they kept Orthodoxy alive ... they did it with their blood, they did it with a lack of education and so on and so forth ...

Show some respect. All of early Christianity was involved in Greek literature ... and the epistles are for Greeks ... let us not try to change history because today (for some reason) there is a constant ATTACK on the Greek people and the Greek language ...

God himself loved it .. you should too.

Full Stop.

Andreas Moran

25-12-2008, 02:27 AM

It's worth bearing in mind that this issue is not confined to Greek. Church Slavonic is the only usage allowed in the Orthodox Slav countries. I know no one in the Russian Church who thinks the services ought to be in modern Russian. And remember that in the 20th century, the faithful in the Slav countries did not experience Church Slavonic as part of their culture in the way that Greeks had Church Greek as part of their culture during the 20th century.

Effie Ganatsios

25-12-2008, 10:17 AM

There is something that needs to be emphasized once again.

All Greeks understand the Greek that is used in church. It is not a foreign language, it is not something that needs to be taught to them as a second language, it is not Ancient Greek that is difficult and needs to be learnt but is still understandable (vaguely in my case....)

Our language is one. The incredible beauty of the Greek used in our Church should be exchanged with what? A language that changes every few years as all languages do. Just think of English and the way it was spoken 50 years ago and the way it is spoken now. Is this the type of language that you would want in your churches. A language that constantly changes, as all spoken languages do.

To me this is a subject that really has no merit. Why change something that works perfectly, that people are comfortable with, that brings such beauty into our lives.

I am 100% certain that if you were to ask Greeks if they desired to change the liturgical Greek in any way whatsoever they would be astounded. To them, to me, this is not even an issue.

Effie

Merry Christmas to all. Our church was packed solid this morning and still the beauty and wonder of the service touched my heart. Everyone else is asleep after enjoying our traditional Christmas breakfast which is "indulged" in after the early morning Christmas Liturgia. In fact friends and relatives blessed each other after church with the words - Chronia Polla kai Kaloi Orechsi. Which means Many Years (many happy returns ) and Good Appetite (bon appetit). I doubt that everyone fasted for 40 days but at least the blessing has remained the same as in the old days.

Vasiliki D.

25-12-2008, 11:42 AM

Dear Effie, you said it perfectly! I WANT Greek in the Liturgy not because I am Greek but because THIS IS the way the CHURCH has celebrated it from the start ... it doesnt change like you say.

Another thing is ... people think that by changing the Greek into English this will automatically bring in heaps of people back into Orthodoxy ... this is wrong thinking. If someone doesnt want to know God ... he/she will not bother whether the service is Greek, English or even served on a platter to them with red carpet treatment in their own homes!!!

We humans have the same phsycology for over 7,500 thousand years and that is why the devil knows how to play us ....

Luke

25-12-2008, 09:15 PM

Amen, Robert.

Effie and Vasiliki, the point here is not to even hint at schismatic ideology, nor communicate in a manner unbefitting of proper discussion. The issue is with statements like,

"All Greeks understand the Greek that is used in church"

"... people think that by changing the Greek into English this will automatically bring in heaps of people back into Orthodoxy"

We all have proper respect for the fact that the holy fathers are Greek speakers and love them for their teachings. We have respect for the Byzantine Church. I reject the notion that this is a sort of hatred of Greeks or some pissing contest between different archdioceses. I am a "Greek" but I am a proponent of Eastern Orthodoxy, first. What's more, I'm American first, then Greek, because that is who we are in America, and English is our first language. It hasn't been long since an overwhelming majority of those entering Greek Orthodox churches have been asked as a first question, "Are you Greek?" Do you speak Greek? Many of these inquirers were turned off having thought that the church was supposed to be for all people. Keep in mind that this certainly hasn't happened strictly in Greek Orthodox churches, but there is a certain air and pride of the Greeks that we are all aware of. Let us be honest here.

If all Greeks understand Greek, then why are the youth dwindling in the Greek Orthodox church? Why are all the converts to the Antiochian Archdiocese, who has adopted English primarily, but has no designs on doing away with our historical roots?

Assuredly, because language is introduced or not, this will not guarantee pious believers, as you state correctly. However, do we want to be a church and adhere to Canon law, common sense, and practicality, where our children can learn about God in their native language? Or do we want to be known as a divisive ethno-national church that seems to discriminate against those who seek the Lord in spirit and truth?

Our unity and communion should not be impacted by historical and/ or (vestigial) ethnic remnants. It should be about teachings, not language. In our teaching, we can mention many linguistic things, to be certain. As Christ said, we shall not forget the spirit of the Church, and thus we shall remember the WEIGHTIER things. We won't abolish anything, just place importance on what is key and essential to spiritual learning, the teachings inside, and as adjuncts, to the liturgy.

As a final point, I take the example of the Greeks in Greece changing as a minor point which I can see your side of. There definitely are other reasons why the nation of Greece is increasingly faithless. But if you are saying that liturgies in the USA should be in Greek, I cannot disagree more; in fact, I see it as an ethnic legalism akin to what the Christians preached against the Jews. Having said all of this, I am extremely greatful for all of the people (ethnicities/languages,etc.) who paved the way so that I may learn the truth about God. Matheteusate panta ta ethne

Of all nations.

Paul Cowan

25-12-2008, 11:01 PM

Dear Effie, you said it perfectly! I WANT Greek in the Liturgy not because I am Greek but because THIS IS the way the CHURCH has celebrated it from the start ... it doesnt change like you say. ....

Ummm, just a point of clarification. There were 5 Patriarchial heads of the Church not one. They did not hold their Liturgies all in Greek. There were 12 apostles, not one. They all were charged with taking the message to the people in their OWN language. That is what Pentecost was all about.

Another thing is ... people think that by changing the Greek into English this will automatically bring in heaps of people back into Orthodoxy ... this is wrong thinking. If someone doesnt want to know God ... he/she will not bother whether the service is Greek, English or even served on a platter to them with red carpet treatment in their own homes!!!

For those that speak multiple languages, this may be the case. I don't! Most people don't. So saying this is rather arrogant. Orthodox raised countries don't have to contend with the local PC around every corner. "Orthodoxy?" "Are you Jewish?" that is the mindset here. Orthodoxy is an extreme minority outside Europe and I promise, NOT understood here in the States. I am Orthodox and I can't even relate it to my own family who are PC. My parish is growing by leaps and bounds since I joined in 2001. It is 100% English. Red carpet? no! The ability to be understood? yes. I don't attend the local Greek, Serbian, Coptic, Armenian, Russian churches, because I don't speak those languages.

I had never heard of it until my wife had me go to a service. Even that group was a cult. (pretending to be Orthodox). Since finding about Orthodoxy and the Real faith, I still would NOT attend an ethnic service as I can't worship (remember worship in Orthodoxy is active participation) there.

People in general are lazy. If they have been brought up in a certain way, they may want to better themselves and seek out that which is better. Even if they find the ultimate best (Orthodoxy) but can't understand any of it because it is not in their native language they won't go back. It will leave such a disappointment in thier mouths they won't seek out other alternatives either especially if their community has no alternatives. The mindset will be, "well if that is Orthodoxy then I can never be a part of it."

I know of very few people who will drive an extra 20, 50, 100 miles to attend church when they do not feel welcome or a part of their local church. Heck, most people won't drive that far to work. I think people DO want to know God. But if their first or second exposure to Ortho-Doxia is uncomprehensible, what good is it?

We humans have the same phsycology for over 7,500 thousand years and that is why the devil knows how to play us

I whole heartedly agree though its only been 7500 years. not 7,500,000 years. :p

In the extreme opposite direction though, we don't want Eubonics (http://www.ebonics-translator.com/ebonics_dictionary.php) in our Liturgy. I will agree English has poor translatable words from Greek or Latin. It does not mean though we can't understand the original meaning even if we have to add a few more descriptive words to relate to the original meaning.

An example would be the word "until". He did not know her until... In english this means he did know her after. But we all know this means he kept on not knowing her after. Such things are easily remedied. So yes, I agree modern language usage should be discouraged, but not to the point that people turn away from the faith. There has to be a common reference point or Orthodoxy will stay in Europe.

Paul

Father David Moser

25-12-2008, 11:24 PM

Our unity and communion should not be impacted by historical and/ or (vestigial) ethnic remnants. It should be about teachings, not language. In our teaching, we can mention many linguistic things, to be certain.

This, I think, is a bit off center. Our union and communion with one another is based on our union and communion with Christ. This union is not based on "teachings" but rather on prayer - and prayer is deeply impacted by language. We may use a common language to communicate teaching, but we pray with the language of our heart. For Russians this is Slavonic - for Greeks it is Greek - for Americans it is (usually) English. No matter how many other languages we may speak, we will always pray with the language of the heart.

No matter what the language of the liturgy - whether Greek or Russian or English or Arabic (and if you think the Antiochian Archdiocese has abandoned Arabic, you are sorely mistaken) - we all pray in the language of our heart. Thus, if the people in the parish pray in Slavonic, or Greek, or English then the language of the liturgy should be the same. To force Greek pray-ers or Slavonic pray-ers to pray in English is to lose them completely.

I have in my parish a healthy mix of Americans and Russians. The Russians almost without exception speak English - but they pray in Slavonic. Thus I make sure there is always a mix of languages in the service. Although the Sunday liturgy is predominantly English, I also serve a predominantly Slavonic liturgy during the week - because it meets the needs of the people. When my Russian teacher says to me, "Father, I just can't pray in the service because of the English (and she speaks almost flawlessly) - I miss the Slavonic" then I know that we have to continue the Slavonic services. When one of the 2nd generation Russians (who didn't go to Church for years because it was in Slavonic) stops me after the Slavonic liturgy and thanks me for having the Slavonic service, I know that to pray in the language of the heart is necessary. I understand and can read Slavonic enough to say the prayers in Slavonic, but when I serve the Slavonic liturgy - I still pray in English, because that is the language of my heart, the language in which my heart learned to pray.

In my experience it is the Russians (I serve in the Russian Church and therefore have less contact in this context with Greeks) who are most polite and tolerant of a language other than their own for prayer. It is more often than not (in my experience) the Americans who are demanding and intolerant.

If we wish to enhance our union and communion with Christ and with one another, it is not "teachings" that will do this but prayer. So let us pray together, regardless of the language of the service, setting aside our own prejudices and accepting each one as he is, just as our Lord accepts us as we are.

Fr David Moser

Vasiliki D.

26-12-2008, 12:42 AM

Fr. David Moser - I agree wholeheartedly that the No 1 thing is prayer ...

In my tradition, we have guarded the authentic form of Orthodoxy for thousands of years ... the Apostles and Christ himself spoke in Greek - we do not hang on to Greek for the sake of being nationalistic (although some do) we hang onto the Greek because this is how the Apostles gave it to us ....

Now, all you academics out there can argue till the cows come home that its not the case but it was ... u just have to read your bible to know how much love the Apostles had for the Greek LANGUAGE ...

So, when we debate ... we want to hang on to the Greek language because it has the ULTIMATE connection to God ... that does not mean it is bad to celebrate in any other language ... but lose the Greek ... you will lose the identity of the authentic WORDS ....

There is a prophecy that has been around for hundreds of years and we know it ... that is why we fight to keep it from happening ... when the Greek is lost from the church ... then the church will be in the end times ...

Not everything is black and white in Orthodoxy ... ultimately it IS about prayer but many of us know how important it it to also protect it from óther things ...

Father David Moser

26-12-2008, 02:02 AM

Fr. David Moser - I agree wholeheartedly that the No 1 thing is prayer ...

In my tradition, we have guarded the authentic form of Orthodoxy for thousands of years ... the Apostles and Christ himself spoke in Greek

While Greek was the lingua franca of the empire, it was not universally spoken - only by the educated. Jesus and the apostles more probably spoke aramaic. The Holy Apostle Paul was of course educated and a Greek speaker as most likely was the Apostle and Evangelist John. Luke and Mark wrote in Greek, but Matthew's Gospel was written originally in Hebrew.

The Greek language and its universal spread at that time throughout the known civilized world is a gift from God - however we cannot deify the language for in the end prayer knows no words, only the worldless expression of the heart.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

26-12-2008, 02:34 AM

Whether I go to the liturgy in England, Russia, Greece or Cyprus, I am happy. I don't know Church Slavonic, but I did learn the liturgy in Greek (which isn't hard to do) but wherever I am I don't wish the liturgy to be in any other language than it is. For the next two weeks I'll be in Moscow and I know I'll be deeply moved by the services. The liturgy operates at deeper levels than the dictionary meanings of words.

Luke

26-12-2008, 06:23 AM

Fr. David, A few things to clarify.

This, I think, is a bit off center. Our union and communion with one another is based on our union and communion with Christ. This union is not based on "teachings" but rather on prayer - and prayer is deeply impacted by language. We may use a common language to communicate teaching, but we pray with the language of our heart.

Of course I don't disagree with this, but it gets at what I was saying on one hand. A grand part of our union and communion with Christ is understanding who He is (herego my usage of "teachings"). We have to learn about Christ [on some level] to commune with Him and understand for what purpose we are made. Is not the "language of our heart" silence/stillness? Hesychia?

No matter what the language of the liturgy - whether Greek or Russian or English or Arabic (and if you think the Antiochian Archdiocese has abandoned Arabic, you are sorely mistaken) - we all pray in the language of our heart.

Never did I even hint that the Antiochian Archdiocese abandoned Arabic. I'm still confused about the language of our heart distinction.

In my experience it is the Russians (I serve in the Russian Church and therefore have less contact in this context with Greeks) who are most polite and tolerant of a language other than their own for prayer. It is more often than not (in my experience) the Americans who are demanding and intolerant.

I'll spell out more clearly what I'm trying to say. I would not dare go to an Orthodox church in any other nation and demand that the language be in English or even suggest it. Similarly, I don't think that people should come to the United States and do such. I have never implied forcing anyone to do anything. Nor am I setting up a confrontational scenario in any fashion. My desire is that Orthodoxy be as prominent as possible in America. Is that not our purpose? Why should we, then, as friend Paul Cowan intimates, confuse other people, contribute to misunderstandings about Orthodoxy, and let on to a lack of communion in a country that speaks majority English, overwhelmingly. We are not to confine ourselves as immigrants who happen to speak old world languages. In a couple generations these languages vanish and we are left with our native tongue (English) and our children that speak it, not the other languages. Primary importance should be on the language of the country due to numerous reasons including our understanding, others' understanding, mission work, and future generations.

Furthermore, I think your comparison is unfair to Americans.

Nina

26-12-2008, 06:53 AM

This, I think, is a bit off center. Our union and communion with one another is based on our union and communion with Christ. This union is not based on "teachings" but rather on prayer - and prayer is deeply impacted by language. We may use a common language to communicate teaching, but we pray with the language of our heart. For Russians this is Slavonic - for Greeks it is Greek - for Americans it is (usually) English. No matter how many other languages we may speak, we will always pray with the language of the heart.

Fr David Moser

What about me that I start a prayer in another language and in the middle switch to another language and end it in another? Sometime I do this also with the shortest prayer, the Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner!) Although most of the time I just try to stick to one language, it happens unconsciously that I switch (I hope this is not a sin!). I do not really know which one is the language of my heart.

Father David Moser

26-12-2008, 07:00 AM

Furthermore, I think your comparison is unfair to Americans.

Although I realize that this is probably the most minor of your points, at this moment let me just say that this is my observation, not an assumption or "comparison" but simply my observation of the way things have worked in mixed parishes with which I have been acquainted.

The rest will have to wait until the morrow.

Fr David Moser

Effie Ganatsios

26-12-2008, 10:27 AM

Dear Effie, you said it perfectly! I WANT Greek in the Liturgy not because I am Greek but because THIS IS the way the CHURCH has celebrated it from the start ... it doesnt change like you say.

Another thing is ... people think that by changing the Greek into English this will automatically bring in heaps of people back into Orthodoxy ... this is wrong thinking. If someone doesnt want to know God ... he/she will not bother whether the service is Greek, English or even served on a platter to them with red carpet treatment in their own homes!!!

We humans have the same phsycology for over 7,500 thousand years and that is why the devil knows how to play us ....

Vasiliki, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!! You also have your nameday on New Year's day. So Chronia Polla for your nameday, if I'm not here.

Vasiliki, I think that the country you live in should celebrate the Orthodox liturgy in it's own language. Can you imagine how difficult it is for children who know very little Greek to follow the service. I have a book that has the original Greek on one side and the English translation on the other and I have to tell you that this has been very, very helpful. I am now in a position to move on and concentrate only on the Greek. I could not have done this without the English translation. Am I making any sense at all?

In my previous message I was referring to Greeks here in Greece not the diaspora Greeks. Perhaps our grandparents and parents need only Greek, but for all of us born in other countries we need to hear everything in our own language. Of course, the best solution would be for these children to also learn Greek in order to enjoy the beauty and wonder of the original service.

It is snowing here at the moment. Our first heavy snowfall.
Lots of European countries have had a very harsh winter up to now but, in Greece, we have been having beautifully mild weather. It seems as if all the snowstorms that are making life hard for other Europeans are zigzagging all over the place and missing Greece - up to now that is.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

26-12-2008, 10:34 AM

What about me that I start a prayer in another language and in the middle switch to another language and end it in another? Sometime I do this also with the shortest prayer, the Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner!) Although most of the time I just try to stick to one language, it happens unconsciously that I switch (I hope this is not a sin!). I do not really know which one is the language of my heart.

Dear Nina, you have just described me!!! I always say the Lord's Prayer in English during the liturgy because this has meaning for me. Other parts of the liturgy I sing in Greek.

We are really mixed up, aren't we? Andreas has said it perfectly though : it is what we feel during the liturgy that is important. Once we know what is being said exactly, then we can be free to use whatever language is the one that reaches into our hearts.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, your husband and the rest of your family.

Effie

Albion

26-12-2008, 02:50 PM

All Greeks understand the Greek that is used in church. It is not a foreign language, it is not something that needs to be taught to them as a second language, it is not Ancient Greek that is difficult and needs to be learnt but is still understandable (vaguely in my case....)

Interesting you say this, Effie. I have been given to understand by my Greek-speaking Cypriot friends that this is not the case. Indeed, I am told that many do not go to church because they do not understand what is being said, including the scriptural readings! We have once-a-month Divine Liturgy in English at one Nicosia parish where the vast majority of people attending are Greek Cypriots, whom I hear speaking Greek to each other.

Also, I was recently given a New Testament, with NT Greek on one page and modern Greek on the opposite. I have not examined it closely yet, but I did look at the prologue to the Gospel of John, and the NT "en archi einai o Logos" was almost unrecognisable in the modern version.

Herman Blaydoe

26-12-2008, 04:50 PM

This has already been said many times, in this forum and in others, but I think it bears repeating, since many other reasonings have also already been repeated in this thread.

1 Corinthians 14:10-25

10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

13 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

20 Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21 In the Law it is written:

"Through men of strange tongues
And through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
But even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understandcomes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

I have to think that "tongues" which are a sign for unbelievers refers to the miracle of Pentecost, when people of many countries heard the Gospel in their own languages. Hearing the beautiful metre and rhythm of Slavonic or Greek chant can certainly be inspiring, but if you don't understand the words, it is less than edifying. Even if you "know" the Liturgy and can "follow along" for the most part, you STILL miss out on all the teachings that occur in the tropars, kontaks, stichera, and prokimen. And if you attend any service beyond the Divine Liturgy, and I certainly hope you do, you generally end up totally lost since Matins and Vespers are more involved and have more "moveable" parts, so that unless you bring at least three different books with you, you are not going to be able to "follow along" and even if you know, "OK, that must be the stickera", you won't know what the stickera are saying! All you know at that point is that they sound nice.

And while people seem to insist that ALL Greeks and Russians understand Liturgical language, my experience differs considerably. I have known native-speaking Russians and Greeks who literally did not have a clue. When a nice Greek lady heard the Liturgy in English for the first time, she was horrified to learn the real teaching of the Church. She actually turned to her friend and asked "do we really believe that?!" She was very surprised because she had been Orthodox her how life and never heard that before!

So, in short, it is certainly nice to pray in beauty, but it is better (if I am reading the Holy Apostle rightly) to pray with understanding. And giving up understanding for "beauty" is selling the Liturgy short.

Most of the "ethnic" Orthodox churches in the US are in decline, except for a few that benefit from periodic boosts from immigration. The Greeks are doing the best at retaining their numbers, but they are NOT bringing in non-Greeks in great numbers and even many of their churches not in major urban centers are getting smaller. They are not keeping their young people and they are not attracting outsiders. If they don't get immigrants, they are withering. England, if what I read is typical, is experiencing a similar problem, if somewhat in reverse, in that recent immigrants are currently chasing away recent converts in some places. Is that how it is supposed to be? I have to suspect otherwise.

My personal opinion is that we should live the Liturgy outside the Church. We shouldn't have one language to worship God and another to swear, lie and cheat with, since we shouldn't be doing those things anyway. The language we address our brethren in ought to be the language we address God in, is that so radical or "evil" an idea? Splitting them up makes it easier to dichotomize our "spiritual" and our "worldly" lives, so that how we live outside the Church can be different than the one we live inside. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that, but can you not at least see that such a thing is possible?

Sorry, little thoughts from a little brain. I will climb down off my soapbox, shut up, and I look forward to correction by those who know better.

Herman the Pooh

Father David Moser

26-12-2008, 05:23 PM

Is not the "language of our heart" silence/stillness? Hesychia?

I thought this might be a problem when I use the term "language of the heart". In the patristic writings, particularly those devoted to prayer, there are references to the "language of the heart" being in some cases stillness, or in others love. I use the term here in a different context suggesting that the language in which the heart first learned to pray always produces the deepest most heartfelt prayer and it is the "default" to which prayer always returns when it is most heartfelt.

Never did I even hint that the Antiochian Archdiocese abandoned Arabic. I'm still confused about the language of our heart distinction.

You did say, "Why are all the converts to the Antiochian Archdiocese, who has adopted English primarily, ..." which prompted my comment. I will agree that there is a large number of English only convert parishes in the Antiochian Archdiocese, but the core parishes of the Antiochian Archdiocese, the ones whose roots are deep and who have survived numerous generations are still very heavily Arabic. The Antiochian Archdiocese may have a numerical preponderance of English, but I think that primarily at its heart are still the Arabic parishes.

I'll spell out more clearly what I'm trying to say. I would not dare go to an Orthodox church in any other nation and demand that the language be in English or even suggest it. Similarly, I don't think that people should come to the United States and do such.

But those other countries do not have a tradition of being a "melting pot", they are not by their own culture a mix of ethnicity and language. The US is most assuredly a melting pot and has always welcomed a multiethnic, multilingual culture. I do not think that there is an "official English" obligation in the US - even hopeful naturalized citizens are allowed to take their tests with the aid of an interpreter - in fact we are legally obligated to provide interpreters for all official and necessary services for those legal residents and naturalized citizens who cannot speak English. To say that our Churches must use English is to deny the cultural history of the United States.

In a couple generations these languages vanish and we are left with our native tongue (English) and our children that speak it, not the other languages. Primary importance should be on the language of the country due to numerous reasons including our understanding, others' understanding, mission work, and future generations.

Not necessarily true. As long as this nation continues to welcome immigrants and refugees from other countries, there will always be a fresh "wave" of people from the "old country". I have seen this happen so many times in parishes where the next generation grows up speaking English and the parish begins to shift to more English when suddenly a new wave of immigrants come who don't speak English well, but who come to pray. I know of one long time parish which had a reputation for being intransigently "Russian". The services were entirely in Slavonic, the people spoke Russian to each other, despite being 2nd and 3rd generation. But this parish attracted converts who were not Russian speaking and eventually took on a convert priest and more and more English began to be included (just as you suggested). But as the English increased, attendance and participation in the parish decreased despite the growing population of new Orthodox Russians in the city. When there was an opening for a new priest, the bishop sent one who was bilingual and the English/Slavonic language ratio stablized. When the word got out that the new priest could speak Russian the parish increased in size by 400% almost overnight with the influx of Russians. The parish, due to the new "balance" of Russians to Americans the use of Russian and Slavonic increased. While a minority of Americans were distressed at this, the majority of the Americans who were in the parish welcomed their new brothers and sisters with open arms and now you have surnames like "Moore" and "Murphy" along side others such as "Preobrazhinsky" and "Vasilieff". The lack of English did not prevent the parish from attracting new converts, nor did the loss of English when the parish changed its makeup cause the loss of the converts. The transition you describe is not often as clean and as simple as you suggest.

Furthermore, I think your comparison is unfair to Americans.
As I said, it is not a comparison, it is an observation. Americans tend to demand English while the Russians tend to demand Orthodoxy. I will certainly admit the fact that some Russians will demand Russian (in fact I once threw a Russian out of the parish who made a public row during the liturgy because there wasn't enough Russian to suit him - he was there for "Russian" not for "Orthodox"), however, in my experience, Americans demanding English are much more numerous and difficult to deal with than Russians demanding Russian. But that's just my experience.

Fr David Moser

Luke

26-12-2008, 05:30 PM

Herman,

Thank you for sharing your ideas and substantiating the ideas that I have set forth. It seems we have a common experience.

For others:
I think my posts have been akin to Herman's because I feel strongly about the American Church and have a sense of duty to bring it to the limelight in American Christianity, because we owe that to America's people, who are largely unaware. I have recently been in contact with a great friend who wrote to me that had he been aware in the least about Orthodoxy, he would have had a very different path: He thought it was just RC vs. Protestant - that was his world. This type of personal recognition as a microcosm reinforces so many of the ideas we have all put forth on this thread.

In any case, forgive me if I have come off at any time as hostile. I never intend that. And believe me when I say that I am not trying to abolish the old, just fulfill what I see is the right action & purpose. I think anyone can identify with that.

Be good,

Luke

Fr Raphael Vereshack

26-12-2008, 06:52 PM

Luke wrote:

I'll spell out more clearly what I'm trying to say. I would not dare go to an Orthodox church in any other nation and demand that the language be in English or even suggest it. Similarly, I don't think that people should come to the United States and do such.

I was interested in this comment because it is so very often used as a reason for using languages common to the country one lives in.

Yes- on the face of it this may seem like a proper justification. But actually I think it is not full in its understanding of Orthodox pastoral practice or rather what it is based on.

Orthodox pastoral practice is first and foremost based on the people before you. Anything else is an abstraction that ends up harming the very people one is called to shepherd.

Thus the starting point within the Church as far as language goes- is not the language of the country one finds oneself in-but rather the language of the people who come to you in the parish setting.

Thus some arrive as Russians, some as Greeks, some Serbs and some as Canadians & Americans.

Within the Church the clergy are called to meet each of these according to who they really are. Therefore some parishes use Slavonic, others liturgical Greek, some Slavonic/Serbian and others English. Again according to Orthodox pastoral understanding this practice is longstanding (in the ancient west Greek was used until Latin speaking Christians outnumbered them) and also proper.

Otherwise what we do is to impose an abstract standard on real people. If I was to use an entirely English service for my 80% Russian parish this would I believe be an imposition that would amount to a kind of violation of them.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

26-12-2008, 07:02 PM

A second post concerning language and missions.

The use of the native language(s) for missions is crucial and obvious.

However it is not at all so that the use of such will naturally lead to great growth in Orthodoxy.

For example here in Canada where the use of English has been freely used in Orthodoxy for at least 30 years the greatest growth has been in the Russian speaking churches.

In our city for example all previous attempts at English mission failed. The present attempt looks very promising- but it is not all equal in numbers to the other Orthodox parishes in our city.

Thus the problem is probably not language as much as it is some other issue which we need to become more aware of.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Moses Ibrahim

26-12-2008, 07:32 PM

haha fantastic... even more lengths to keep people from understanding the prayers!

Andreas Moran

26-12-2008, 08:44 PM

haha fantastic... even more lengths to keep people from understanding the prayers!

I don't understand my prayers even when I pray in English. I understand and know nothing. What I do know is that God hears my prayers and understands and knows my heart and my mind better than I ever shall.

The Church is presumably not unaware of the sayings of St Paul quoted by Herman. Yet the Church lays down certain linguistic requirements. She must have her reasons and I accept them even though I don't know what they are.

Kusanagi

26-12-2008, 09:05 PM

Herman Blaydoe

26-12-2008, 09:47 PM

I don't understand my prayers even when I pray in English. I understand and know nothing. What I do know is that God hears my prayers and understands and knows my heart and my mind better than I ever shall.

The Church is presumably not unaware of the sayings of St Paul quoted by Herman. Yet the Church lays down certain linguistic requirements. She must have her reasons and I accept them even though I don't know what they are.

So is the Holy Apostle just spouting crazy talk when he prefers we pray with understanding? Do you understand what he is saying? I wonder, is it "the Church" or the people in the Church who set the linguistic requirements? Elements of "The Church" got rather upset when they dared to translate Holy Scripture into Slavonic, after all the ONLY languages used for the sign on the Cross were Latin, Greek and Hebrew, therefore these must be the "only" languages to properly understand Scripture!!! But it seems to this bear of little brain that language was made for man, not man for language (see Mark 2:27). It seems like personal preference to me.

Herman the Pooh

Andreas Moran

26-12-2008, 11:07 PM

I would like my posts to be read as they are and without spin or expansion. I did not say or imply that Apostle Paul was 'spouting crazy talk'. I was also careful to say that the Church lays down certain linguistic requirements which are, as is well known, only Church Greek in Greece (and I assume in Cyprus) and Church Slavonic in Slav countries. Nothing I said meant or could reasonably be taken to have meant that the Church proscribed other languages in other countries such as the UK and the USA whch clearly it does not.
As to the difference between the Church and the people in it, I suppose that the longstanding restrictions on language of the Churches of Greece and Russia are of those Churches and not of some of the people in them at any given time. The idea that the personal preference of Greeks in Greece or of Russians in Russia may take precedence over the their respective Churches seems a very western and rather unsound idea. Elsewhere, preference may be in issue if there are different views within ethnic/immigrant communities or, indeed, if a person has a choice of church to attend.

Vasiliki D.

26-12-2008, 11:56 PM

Corinthians 14:10-25 21 In the Law it is written:

"Through men of strange tongues
And through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
But even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.
Sorry, little thoughts from a little brain. I will climb down off my soapbox, shut up, and I look forward to correction by those who know better.

Herman the Pooh

Hi Herman, I dont think that those (like myself) who speak about the importance of the Greek are saying not to have churches that are in English ... on the contrary. What we are trying to emphasise is that the authentic church was in Greek and written in Greek and spread in Greek and it is important to always remember this and respect it and also not forget it .... the concern we have is that once America and Australia convert into English ... then the authentic form of Orthodoxy is forgotten and it changes from what it originally was ...

In the above scripture that you quoted us ... in the original Greek, it is:

en to nomo gegrapte oti en eteroglwssis kai en xilesin eteris laliso to lao touto kai oud outos eisakousontai mou, legei o Kurios.

"Through men of strange tongues And through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people,
But even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

:BUT EVEN THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME.

If the need for English speaking churches is required then it is required but NOT because no one understands the Greek ... if you really want to learn about God you make it happen for yourself ... otherwise, church could be given to you in a thousand different options and you still wont be satisfied ...

The intention has to be right for America to have English liturgies NOT because people are lazy - and I tell you what most of the time (95%) the people are LAZY .. (not English speaking or converts I mean the actual Greeks or actual Russians) ... the excuse "I dont get it" is a real cop-out ... I haev heaps of friends who use this as an excuse ... many people buy them the translated books, spend time to explain the actions in the liturgy and still on Sundayu they dont go ... why? not because it is in Greek (this is the excuse they give though) .. they dont go because on Sunday morning they want to sleep in ... or they had a late night ... or or or ... the REAL excuses are endless but only ONE excuse is always given ...

Then people come along and rather than look at the TRUE problem which is laziness .. they say, it is the Greek.

Another thing .. the scripture passage above is not about the liturgy it is about the actual Word of God ... it is an eschatological statement ... the Scripture will be spread throughout the entire world before the end times in every language yet not many will understand its true meaning :) Thankfully all of you here have and we all try to make it understandable to lots of people ... but in the end Christ asks, when I return ... will I find faith?

This comment always makes me stop and think .... why would Christ say such a strong comment when we all claim to be the best Christians in this day and age???

Paul Cowan

27-12-2008, 12:28 AM

Corinthians 14:10-25 21 In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues
And through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
But even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

I don't see any difference here from what was typed below in Greek. Am I missing a grammatical point? So are you saying if Greek goes away then so does Orthodoxy? I think this why we were given 5 Patriarchial centers and not one. Surely the whole Faith is not tied up in one language or one identity?

Hi Herman, I dont think that those (like myself) who speak about the importance of the Greek are saying not to have churches that are in English ... on the contrary. What we are trying to emphasise is that the authentic church was in Greek and written in Greek and spread in Greek and it is important to always remember this and respect it and also not forget it .... the concern we have is that once America and Australia convert into English ... then the authentic form of Orthodoxy is forgotten and it changes from what it originally was ...

In the above scripture that you quoted us ... in the original Greek, it is:

en to nomo gegrapte oti en eteroglwssis kai en xilesin eteris laliso to lao touto kai oud outos eisakousontai mou, legei o Kurios.

"Through men of strange tongues And through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people,
But even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

:BUT EVEN THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME.

If the need for English speaking churches is required then it is required but NOT because no one understands the Greek ... if you really want to learn about God you make it happen for yourself ... otherwise, church could be given to you in a thousand different options and you still wont be satisfied ...

The intention has to be right for America to have English liturgies NOT because people are lazy - and I tell you what most of the time (95%) the people are LAZY .. (not English speaking or converts I mean the actual Greeks or actual Russians) ... the excuse "I dont get it" is a real cop-out ... I haev heaps of friends who use this as an excuse ... many people buy them the translated books, spend time to explain the actions in the liturgy and still on Sundayu they dont go ... why? not because it is in Greek (this is the excuse they give though) .. they dont go because on Sunday morning they want to sleep in ... or they had a late night ... or or or ... the REAL excuses are endless but only ONE excuse is always given ...

Then people come along and rather than look at the TRUE problem which is laziness .. they say, it is the Greek.

Another thing .. the scripture passage above is not about the liturgy it is about the actual Word of God ... it is an eschatological statement ... the Scripture will be spread throughout the entire world before the end times in every language yet not many will understand its true meaning :) Thankfully all of you here have and we all try to make it understandable to lots of people ... but in the end Christ asks, when I return ... will I find faith?

This comment always makes me stop and think .... why would Christ say such a strong comment when we all claim to be the best Christians in this day and age???

I am the ultimate lazy person. But to say because I don't learn Greek keeps me from wanting to know God is a bit of a stretch. I am still trying to learn my native english. Now to have the burden to learn Greek with its script (written form) seems to me more of the same as having to make the pagans Jews before they could become Christians. Besides, where I come from, if you are not Baptist or Methodist, you were going to hell. So for me to endure from famliy and friends Orthodoxy, I think is sufficient lashes towards martyrdom than also now having to learn Greek.

but in the end Christ asks, when I return ... will I find faith? This comment always makes me stop and think .... why would Christ say such a strong comment

I don't think he actually says this, but I get your point. And if this is the best age of Christinaity, then we ARE in sad shape for His return.

Vasiliki D.

27-12-2008, 12:53 AM

I am the ultimate lazy person. But to say because I don't learn Greek keeps me from wanting to know God is a bit of a stretch. I am still trying to learn my native english. Now to have the burden to learn Greek with its script (written form) seems to me more of the same as having to make the pagans Jews before they could become Christians. Besides, where I come from, if you are not Baptist or Methodist, you were going to hell. So for me to endure from famliy and friends Orthodoxy, I think is sufficient lashes towards martyrdom than also now having to learn Greek.

There is a distinction between those who are NOT Greek or NOT Russian who wish to learn Orthodoxy .. and we all agree that it is good to have a church native to ones language to serve the need of those people ...

BUT to change the language of a culture that is its own culture ... that is ridiculous and just plain lazy for the people who use the I dont understand technique ... honestly, this absolves them from any guilt or any responsibility to learn about God ... because its always the "Churches" fault ...(the Church is FAULTLESS because IT IS Christ Himself)

In these cases, I am saying that you can serve the liturgy and its dogma on any platter you like ... these people WILL always find excuses ... I cant prove this to you ... but this is the excuse they give now ... I guarantee you give them exactly what they want they will still find an excuse not to attend church.

This has been proven many times and this is why generally the Greek churches do not change the structure of the original service so that they do not follow current trends that may send the ship off on a bad direction and lose the authenticity unnecessarily. A trend now may not be a trend in the future ... or even if it is a trend in the future is it part of God's plan?

This is why the Greek church has done a VERY GOOD job at keeping Orthodoxy alive for 2,000 years (No matter what anyone says). This is why the Greeks evangelised to the Balkan lands IN GREEK ... and many other nations ...

Also, we are not in a good shape for His return but He makes it quite clear that WHEN He returns ... he asks, Will I find faith? <--a question by Christ!

I always humble myself when I read this ... we Orthodox have the ultimate level of Orthodox knowledge today. We have ALL the books we ever need - Abundance. Yet, why then does God ask this question if we are at the peak of Christianity?

I wonder ... those stupid ethnics that we all love to mock ... who didnt even have a bible to read bc they were so poor ... what did they do that was more pleasing to God than what us educated orthodox do that is maybe displeasing him?

It comes down to blind faith in Him and Trust in Him ... If you look at the history they always trusted in HIS guidance for HIS church ... Some exmaples, they would need money for support ... never do you read that they would hold fundraisers. They would PRAY and God provided ... another example, the church didnt have people, they would hold FAST VIGILS and God provided ... I have read a story where a WHOLE TOWN fasted and prayed for a priest who left the village to have an affair with a woman. Through the prayers and love of his church .. he repented after a month and came back! The point is ... they all solved the problems of the church through this means .. the fasting, the prayer ... there is a lot of reliance in the faithful for the problems to be solved through prayer NOT by changing the rules of God. If there was a problem they didnt rely on their intelligence for the problem to be fixed ..they asked God for HIS guidance and HIS providence ...

Today we dont do that ... We dont fall down for 40 days in fast and prayer to ask God to have mercy on us and to help us build the church ... we dont ask for him to enlighten our children!! All we want to do is TELL GOD how it can work right ... on our logix.

Since the whole convert revolution .. the converts want to change everything to suit a Western understanding ... this is OK but there are some merits in the old fashioned way ... can you all see the down side of the Western thinking?

Nina

27-12-2008, 12:54 AM

Herman Blaydoe

27-12-2008, 12:55 AM

Hi Herman, I dont think that those (like myself) who speak about the importance of the Greek are saying not to have churches that are in English ... on the contrary. What we are trying to emphasise is that the authentic church was in Greek and written in Greek and spread in Greek and it is important to always remember this and respect it and also not forget it .... the concern we have is that once America and Australia convert into English ... then the authentic form of Orthodoxy is forgotten and it changes from what it originally was ...

I am sure this was the exact motivation of those who fought against translating Holy Scripture into Slavonic. In light of history, how valid do you think this concern was?

In the above scripture that you quoted us ... in the original Greek, it is:

en to nomo gegrapte oti en eteroglwssis kai en xilesin eteris laliso to lao touto kai oud outos eisakousontai mou, legei o Kurios.

"Through men of strange tongues And through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people,
But even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

:BUT EVEN {THEN} THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME.

Is the significance that you still have to "translate" the words in order for me (and others like me) to "appreciate" the meaning apparent to you?

If the need for English speaking churches is required then it is required but NOT because no one understands the Greek ... if you really want to learn about God you make it happen for yourself ... otherwise, church could be given to you in a thousand different options and you still wont be satisfied ...

Are you saying that anyone who wants to "make it happen for themselves" will take it upon themselves to learn Greek? Certainly there are those that have and will, but are the rest merely "lazy"?

The intention has to be right for America to have English liturgies NOT because people are lazy - and I tell you what most of the time (95%) the people are LAZY .. (not English speaking or converts I mean the actual Greeks or actual Russians) ... the excuse "I dont get it" is a real cop-out ... I haev heaps of friends who use this as an excuse ... many people buy them the translated books, spend time to explain the actions in the liturgy and still on Sundayu they dont go ... why? not because it is in Greek (this is the excuse they give though) .. they dont go because on Sunday morning they want to sleep in ... or they had a late night ... or or or ... the REAL excuses are endless but only ONE excuse is always given ...

Then people come along and rather than look at the TRUE problem which is laziness .. they say, it is the Greek.

Rather interesting that you should mention this, particularly in light of the earlier comments that EVERY Greek understands the Liturgical Greek. Here you seem to be acknowledging that some at least profess not to. Seems a direct contradiction, don't you think? You blame this "apparent' lack of comprehension on "laziness", but you still say that there are "heaps" of friends making this "excuse", as you call it. I don't dare to judge their hearts or their motivations or lack thereof, I merely speak of what I have seen and what you too, have evidently seen even as you explain it away.

Another thing .. the scripture passage above is not about the liturgy it is about the actual Word of God ... it is an eschatological statement ... the Scripture will be spread throughout the entire world before the end times in every language yet not many will understand its true meaning :)

Excuse me, but the scripture passage above IS EXACTLY about the Liturgy. What else could "For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says" be about? He is talking about corporate worship, PRAYING, which is what the Liturgy is.

Thankfully all of you here have and we all try to make it understandable to lots of people ... but in the end Christ asks, when I return ... will I find faith? This comment always makes me stop and think .... why would Christ say such a strong comment when we all claim to be the best Christians in this day and age???

OK, you lost me. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes the following about this verse:

"If there be among us the fear of God, if he maintenance of the faith prevail, if we keep the precepts of hrist, if we guard the incorrupt and inviolate sanctity of His spouse, if he words of the lord abide in our thoughts and hearts, when He says. 'Thinkest thou, when the Son of Man cometh, shall He find the faith on the earth?' then, because we are God's faithful soldiers, who war for the faith and sincere religion of God, let us keep the camp entrusted to us by God with faithful valor. Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error." {emphasis mine}

Blessed Theophylact says:

"By using the form of a question, He shows how then few faithful He will find. For the son of lawlessness shall gain the mastery to such a degree then, 'so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect {Mt. 24:24}.' Few will keep faith towards God and towards others....Now faith is the solid base and foundation of prayer. The Lord mentions faith while He is teaching about prayer, showing in a hidden manner that few will pray then, since few shall be found then who have faith.... With His coming, however, He shall put an end to faithlessness; for, willingly or not, 'every tongue shall confess for itself that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Nothing there about the language of prayer. I certainly do not lay claim to being a "best Christian" and readily agree with those that write that the faith of the Fathers was "better" and stronger than it is today. I only know that I am an Orthodox Christian today because I was able to hear and UNDERSTAND the Gospel as preached by the Orthodox Church, because I happened to walk into an English-speaking parish after being chased away by the local Greek church.

If the Greek Church wants to ban spoken Greek from its services that is, indeed, their business, even as the Ukrainian Church in Canada has decreed that Slavonic is the "official" language of their Church. One really has to wonder if evangelization is foremost in their minds with these rulings and if, indeed, our Lord will find any faith when He returns...

Vasiliki D.

27-12-2008, 01:19 AM

To Herman and Paul and to the others .

I dont want to have a verbal fight .. that is not my intention. I am trying to dialogue or put forward a feeling that could be best explained if there was less Anti-Greek sentiments ... everyone's desire is to have an English based liturgy .. no one is saying that it is wrong ... we are trying to say that the intention to change should be for the RIGHT reasons WITH God's blessing and not for the WRONG reasons and WITHOUT God's blessing.

What we might think is justified because it is within the realms of our logic and reality may not fit into God's providence at this point or in the overall scheme of things ...

If all of our actions and thinking are SO RIGHT then why cant the Antioch church who has its liturgies in English attract English speaking people? Instead, it has attracted the Arabic community? That was my point yesterday ...

The veil is over our eyes because God at this point in time doesnt want us to achieve this UNTIL we change it for the right reasons.

You know what herman .. ur wrong ... many young people do not go to church NOT because they dont get it but because they just dont want to .. and they use the language barrier as there excuse ... you are talking about a handful of people who legitimately desire God but dont get it ....

That is my point ... if we understood how much of SIN is involved in our desire to change .. then God would automatically make the whole transition easy because we acknowledge that the fault does not lie in the language barrier but in our own laziness .. if we then fell down in prayer and fast and asked him to LOOSEN us from this problem .. everything would fall in place.

Paul Cowan

27-12-2008, 01:21 AM

since the whole convert revolution .. the converts want to change everything to suit a Western lifestyle .. there are some merits in this as you all have pointed out .. but can you all see the down side of these demands?

I was nodding my head in agreement with you until this last sentence. From what I have seen in my little microcosm of the world, this is the opposite of what I have experienced. I have seen converts hold more strongly onto the ancient faith than most cradle. We want to know how it all started. Yes, we are hopelessly academic, but I think this only strenghtens our resolve to be as anciently knowledgeable and steadfast in how it "is supposed to be". We are desperately seking out the liturgics, we want the original text (but in a language we understand), we are tired of being taught the "wrong" way ie. PC/RC/other.

I think if you get to know more converts, you will see we hang on to this Pearl of Great Price with both hands and won't let go for any reason. I am not pointing blame as I am THE worst of all sinners, but if we turn the Western lifestyle theory around, I think you will see it is more the cradles that have embraced this line of thinking and behavior than those in the Western countries.

Yes, we need to hold onto our roots. Yes, we need to preserve the original intent of what Jesus gave us. Yes, we need to heed the early Chruch Fathers, yes, we need to bring the Good Message to all peoples but in a language they understand. I don't know if we are still on topic of this thread as this topic has morphed from many similar threads.

I agree the Church should not sway with popular opinion and "go with the flow" of whatever new lingo fad is out there. But over the course of history, languages have become extinct from the earth. I am not saying Greek will, but if the masses stop using it then only the theologians and academics will rememebr it as in Aramiac which is all but gone from the earth.

Vasiliki D.

27-12-2008, 01:22 AM

Also, I wont be replying anymore because it is not productive for anyone and I dont want to be the reason for my sin or another persons sin ... Honestly wish you peace and for God to enlighten you to see I am not being a rebel or a pro-Greek but a person who is keen to see the Church grow but with God as the leader not our own logic as the leader, including my own ...

Father David Moser

27-12-2008, 02:01 AM

in light of the earlier comments that EVERY Greek understands the Liturgical Greek. Here you seem to be acknowledging that some at least profess not to.

I've got to say here that I think there is a disconnect around the concept of understanding. I have a parishioner who is old Russian (WWII immigration). She learned Slavonic as a grade school subject and taught Russian here in the US and so has a better grasp of Slavonic and Russian than most Russians even. When people ask her if she "understands" the Slavonic she will say no, because it is not her natural language, it was never her "spoken" language, she must think to understand it. Some (Americans with an agenda) then posed the question if she would want to have English in the service. She always answers yes, because she knows the language and it's ok with her to have some English. But then this information is reassembled and presented to me as: "A. says that she doesn't understand Slavonic and that the services should be in English." and this then is the basis for "the Russians don't understand" argument but when I talk to A. she much prefers Slavonic over English - because her heart prays in Slavonic (no matter which language is coming into her ears.)

I tell the story, because I think we have to be careful in how we ask the questions and how we interpret the answers. Sometimes when we ask the question and get the answer that we think we want, then we don't look any deeper to see what that answer really means. The very Russians in my parish who "don't understand Slavonic" are the same ones who support the all Slavonic liturgy (even if it means they have to read and stumble through the singing themselves to have it - not to mention putting up with my really bad pronunciation and reading.)

I think too, that we have to realize that "understanding" is an American (or maybe even "Western") thing and that it doesn't really matter to many of the Russians (or maybe Greeks?) that they don't "understand" with their rational minds. What is important to them is that the words of the liturgy touch their hearts and so if they "understand" in English, it doesn't hold a candle in importance to the fact that the Slavonic touches the heart. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions.

Fr David Moser

Luke

27-12-2008, 04:01 AM

First off, I really don't think that anyone here is anti-Greek, so I want to make that very clear. I am a cradle and I have been in a pan-orthodox format nearly my whole life. Perhaps that is why I see things the way I do. I've also seen ethnicity do things completely antithetical to the gospel, which always seemed ironic to me since what shouts at you when you read history and the holy scriptures is that bloodlines, prestige and certain customs are precisely what Christians are directed to be wary of (St. Paul ad nauseum). As I said, we will not do away with anything, just make sure the weightier matters are observed. Does anyone honestly think that if we speak in a different language, and understand the scriptures, teachings of the church and its morals, we will not know when to defer to the original language(s) and fathers who spoke these languages? Of course we will! So that is not the issue. The issue is understanding and evangelization.

I think too, that we have to realize that "understanding" is an American (or maybe even "Western") thing and that it doesn't really matter to many of the Russians (or maybe Greeks?) that they don't "understand" with their rational minds. What is important to them is that the words of the liturgy touch their hearts and so if they "understand" in English, it doesn't hold a candle in importance to the fact that the Slavonic touches the heart.

I am willing to accept that I may have a different cultural mindset, one that shapes me differently from others. All I have been speaking from is an American perspective. If "understanding" is, and let's say, "only is" an American thing, then all the more reason for the services to be in English!

I will not question the possibility that words (of which one may or may not know the meaning) can touch the heart. But when we do not have a grasp of their significance why do we even need words then? Why isn't everything stillness, silence, quietude? I have a difficult time buying that linguistic things, when all other liturgical practices are precisely the same, have any more significance than going to church to smell the insense or hear chanting that you don't know, etc. as a form of shamanism or the like. Why would one not think in his own language and say prayers in his preferred language if that indeed touches the heart?

As an addendum also as I think Fr. Raphael mentioned, of course if you are serving only foreign peoples who are not comfortable with English then you would not force them into this. Again, perhaps it is an insurmountable stumbling block for me, but I believe so greatly in assimilating to the culture that you go to, there is only one option. If you care about Orthodoxy to be part of that nation there is only one choice. Again, I would never go to another place and not practice in the common ethos. It seems counter-productive, disrespectful, or selfish to me.

Perhaps my problematic or burning issue is that those who argue for other languages to be used in the US ... often are native english speakers themselves. I just can't get past this as anything other than destructive, especially when we are 3 million at best in this country and given the fact that we are the holy catholic and apostolic church [for all intents and purposes] NO ONE knows about us. My hope lies in that it is God's plan to change slower than I have patience, something I often contemplate, as my lifetime in the scheme of things, is nothing.

Andreas Moran

27-12-2008, 04:47 AM

I think too, that we have to realize that "understanding" is an American (or maybe even "Western") thing and that it doesn't really matter to many of the Russians (or maybe Greeks?) that they don't "understand" with their rational minds. What is important to them is that the words of the liturgy touch their hearts and so if they "understand" in English, it doesn't hold a candle in importance to the fact that the Slavonic touches the heart. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions.

Fr David Moser

I think, if I may say so, that Fr David here expresses the essence of the points some of us have been trying to make. It is worth mentioning that in Russia (and, so far as I can gather, in Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan (I have postgraduate students from Kazakhstan whom I also meet in church)), whereas twenty years ago no one, apart from a few babushki, went to church for obvious reasons, there are now millions going to church and so they are obviously not put off by Church Slavonic. My wife and her brother and their parents (and her father was a colonel and party member) understand the liturgy though my parents-in-law do not follow the variable parts or much of the other services. None of them 'learned' Church Slavonic - they picked it up by going to church and reading. It grew in their hearts and it speaks to their hearts. I have picked up very little CS but the services do something in my heart. How else could I stand for three hours and yet feel moved to tears on occasion? I keep saying this, but there really is too much western thinking about this. But English clearly has its place; where exactly that place is is not always clear.

I'm off to Heathrow now to catch my flight to Moscow.

Father David Moser

27-12-2008, 05:12 AM

The issue is understanding and evangelization.

In an entirely unrelated conversation with the chairman of the Synodal committee for evangelization, he made a remark that I am still digesting but which seems to apply here. He said that evangelization is very different from mission work and both of them are different from Church planting. Our faith is not solely about evangelization, but is about the worship of God. Some of us are called to be evangelists, some to be missionaries, some to build Churches, some to support these efforts. But we are all called to worship God and to enter into union and communion with Him. The apostle reminds us, "some are apostles, some are evangelists, some are prophets, some are pastors and teachers ... " We all have a place in the Church and we all do the work that God has prepared for us and sets before us.

For evangelization there is no question that it requires the language of the people who are being evangelized. If we try to bring the Good News to the Americans but speak of it only in Greek or Russian, then there will be no success - they must hear it in their own language. But we do not only bring the good news, we also are the servants who tend the fields and insure that the newly planted Truth of God incarnate takes root and grows and that the weeds are pulled and that water and nourishment are brought so that the seed of the Good News might grow and mature and ripen and the fallen man is raised up and lifted up into the heavens. Liturgical Greek, Slavonic, Liturgical English etc are "lofty" languages. We do not bring heaven down to the world, (God Himself came to us) but rather we bring the world up to heaven. It starts with the language of the street, but as we open our hearts to the renewing grace of God we look past the language of the street and the language of worship finds a home. The language of worship can express new concepts, new images, new feelings, new life to us which are impossible to express in the language of the street. The language of worship, whatever it may be, speaks directly to the heart and thus it is possible for me - a dedicated English speaker - to be transported by the Slavonic service. (I'm not saying that Slavonic replaces or supplants English - but that even without understanding, we can still sense some of that richness that we taste in full when understanding is added.

Yes, we need English language parishes and English language music and services and books, and hymns and sermons and everything else - for the English speaking people around us. We also need Slavonic and Greek and Serbian and Arabic and all the other languages of the world to express the glory of God - but when we are attuned to the glory of God, we will sense it no matter what language is being used and it will move our heart to true prayer and worship.

I would say more, but I fear I have said too many words already. Now is the time to listen to the Word of God.

Fr David Moser

Paul Cowan

27-12-2008, 05:24 AM

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 06:59 AM

I know lots of young people in the UK would love to be able to understand what is happening in the Liturgy if it was chanted in Modern Greek. At the moment most just come and then observe and then go home and there is not much to make them come again because they do not understand the language. All missionaries translated the Liturgy and the bible into the native language that they are preaching in to help preach Christianity. If it is banned, I am not really sure how they intend to reach out to the younger generation in Greece where I was told the Church was eager to stem the bad influences of joining the EU.

Hello Kusanagi. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Could I just say once again that Greeks in Greece have absolutely no trouble understanding liturgical Greek. It is the same almost except for the endings of certain words and other words that are different but known to all.

The children of Greek descent in other countries however need to hear the liturgy in the language of the country they now belong to in order to understand it. But, as I already said in a previous message, it is a shame that the beauty of the Greek of the original liturgy should be denied to them, therefore it would be a good idea and very worth their while if they studied the Greek language in order to appreciate the liturgy even more.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 07:12 AM

I have been reading about Church Slavonic since I have been on the forum assuming it was Russian, just old russian. Now I am getting the feel this is not the case. What eaxctly is Church Slavonic and how does it differ from say, English? I get the feel that Greek being discussed is more along the lines of old English with the thees and thous and thys.
Can you give an example or two or the difference or comparison of a couple of words? Thank you

Paul

Yes Paul. This is it, exactly.

I shall just look up a couple of examples My husband's bible has Ancient Greek on one side (the original language the NT bible texts were written in) and liturgical Greek on the other side. I will use his prayer book and convert the liturgical Greek into modern day Greek.

This is from the Creed.

I believe in one God, Father,Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Liturgical Greek :

Πιστευω εις ενα Θεον, Πατερα, Παντοκρατορα, Ποιητην ουρανου και γης, ορατων τε παντων και αορατων.

Pistevo eis ena Theon, Patera, Pantokratora, Poi-i-tin ourano kai gais, oraton te panton kai aoraton.

In modern Greek the above would read :

Pistevo se ena Theo, Patera, Pantokratora, Kataskevastis ourano kai gais, kai apo ta panta pou einai orata kai aorata.

As you can see only a few words change. eis becomes se,
Theon becomes Theo, panton becomes panta, Poi i ton becomes kataskevastis although I think that there is another word for Maker that is more appropriate but I just cant think of it now.

Hope the above has been helpful.

Effie

Paul Cowan

27-12-2008, 07:18 AM

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 07:25 AM

I've got to say here that I think there is a disconnect around the concept of understanding. I have a parishioner who is old Russian (WWII immigration). She learned Slavonic as a grade school subject and taught Russian here in the US and so has a better grasp of Slavonic and Russian than most Russians even. When people ask her if she "understands" the Slavonic she will say no, because it is not her natural language, it was never her "spoken" language, she must think to understand it. Some (Americans with an agenda) then posed the question if she would want to have English in the service. She always answers yes, because she knows the language and it's ok with her to have some English. But then this information is reassembled and presented to me as: "A. says that she doesn't understand Slavonic and that the services should be in English." and this then is the basis for "the Russians don't understand" argument but when I talk to A. she much prefers Slavonic over English - because her heart prays in Slavonic (no matter which language is coming into her ears.)

I tell the story, because I think we have to be careful in how we ask the questions and how we interpret the answers. Sometimes when we ask the question and get the answer that we think we want, then we don't look any deeper to see what that answer really means. The very Russians in my parish who "don't understand Slavonic" are the same ones who support the all Slavonic liturgy (even if it means they have to read and stumble through the singing themselves to have it - not to mention putting up with my really bad pronunciation and reading.)

I think too, that we have to realize that "understanding" is an American (or maybe even "Western") thing and that it doesn't really matter to many of the Russians (or maybe Greeks?) that they don't "understand" with their rational minds. What is important to them is that the words of the liturgy touch their hearts and so if they "understand" in English, it doesn't hold a candle in importance to the fact that the Slavonic touches the heart. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions.

Fr David Moser

Father, I am sure that you have read the Greek philosophers. Understanding something is of primary importance. Greece is the country that "gave" the world this so-called western thought process. It's really strange to me that something that was so purely Greek now seems to exclude the root of "western" thought every time it is mentioned.

For me, the liturgy "opened up" when I was given a prayer book with the liturgy in Greek on one side and the English translation opposite it.

This enabled me to understand everything (my Greek was quite limited at this time) and, to my mind, there is no comparison between my experience in church now that I understand everything and my experience before I received this book. I did feel the liturgy with my soul, if you will, but now that I understand the beauty of this daily praise to our God I feel as if I am living it.

We can experience the beauty of communion with God without understanding what we are listening to, but doesn't understanding what is being said come first. Opening our hearts to the words, and thus allowing the rapture to enter, follows the understanding of the words naturally.

The above post is really mixed up but I hope that you can understand what I am trying to say.

Elder Paisios tells us to say a lot with only a few words. Unfortunately I am not very good at doing this.

Merry Christmas and a Happy new Year

Effie

Vasiliki D.

27-12-2008, 07:29 AM

Yes Paul. This is it, exactly.

I shall just look up a couple of examples My husband's bible has Ancient Greek on one side (the original language the NT bible texts were written in) and liturgical Greek on the other side. I will use his prayer book and convert the liturgical Greek into modern day Greek.

This is from the Creed.

I believe in one God, Father,Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Liturgical Greek :

Πιστευω εις ενα Θεον, Πατερα, Παντοκρατορα, Ποιητην ουρανου και γης, ορατων τε παντων και αορατων.

Pistevo eis ena Theon, Patera, Pantokratora, Poi-i-tin ourano kai gais, oraton te panton kai aoraton.

In modern Greek the above would read :

Pistevo se ena Theo, Patera, Pantokratora, Kataskevastis ourano kai gais, kai apo ta panta pou einai orata kai aorata.

As you can see only a few words change. eis becomes se,
Theon becomes Theo, panton becomes panta, Poi i ton becomes kataskevastis although I think that there is another word for Maker that is more appropriate but I just cant think of it now.

Hope the above has been helpful.

Effie

Oh gosh, I said I wouldnt write again but I just cant resist ....

Poitin and kataskevastis are two different meanings :)

Poitin is Author ... which ties in quite nicely with the fact that He is the Logos .... and it implies that creation was made through his Word ...He Authored us ... and this is significantly different to the plain modern reduction to kataskevastis ... who is a person who makes things with his hands ... many theologians from the past have discussed this difference and many have concurred to the authoring of creation OVER the physical making of creation with his "hands" - think about HOW MUCH changes just from one word!

At this point, forget the should the service be in English debate ...definately churches need to exist in English for people who are of English background ... but the Greeks need to stick to the original context ... they/we are lazy if they can not undersant Poitin Ouranou and need to change the word to kataskevastis ... this is clearly obvious how you only get 70% of the true understanding of the service when you change a word.

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 07:39 AM

Thank you Effie,

Between the King James and New King James, I will pick the New simply because I loose track who is being spoken to or about between thee and thou. Not that I can't understand the words, but they just don't make much sence, are too formal. I see no difference using you for thee and thou for me or thou for you? Dost thou Seest? It is difficult to understand scripture when thou don't know whom thou speakest to. Thee or me.

PC

Do Quakers still use these words in their everyday speech?

Paul, I don't think "thou don't know" is correct.....................

To be a little serious though - which is sometimes difficult for me - you are absolutely correct as concerns Greek.

I don't know if it is the same for Russian and Slavonic because I don't know these languages, but perhaps it might be useful to remember that two Greek saints sat down and invented a written language for the Slavs in order to travel in their lands and preach the bible. This tells us I think that the local language is the right language to use. They could have tried to Christianize the Slavs using Greek but no-one would have understood what they were saying.

Effie

"The Saints devised an alphabet for the Slavs derived from the Greek, and used it to translate the Greek books into the language of the people. In their apostolic labours throughout the Balkans, certain Germanic bishops who opposed the use of the vernacular in the church services slandered the holy brothers. Summoned to court at Rome in 867 AD, they presented their Slavonic translations to Pope Adrian II, who received them with love and full approval. Two years later, St Cyril reposed in Rome on February 14 and was buried in the Church of St Clement. St Methodios was made Bishop of Moravia."

Vasiliki D.

27-12-2008, 07:42 AM

Father, I am sure that you have Elder Paisios tells us to say a lot with only a few words. Unfortunately I am not very good at doing this.

Effie

No, no, no ... you say everything so well .... you say everything I try to say but only better and it comes across .. better. I agree with you 1009% with what you are saying. That is what I am trying to say too but not very well. So, I want to keep it quiet.

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 07:49 AM

Oh gosh, I said I wouldnt write again but I just cant resist ....

Poitin and kataskevastis are two different meanings :)

Poitin is Author ... which ties in quite nicely with the fact that He is the Logos .... and it implies that creation was made through his Word ...He Authored us ... and this is significantly different to the plain modern reduction to kataskevastis ... who is a person who makes things with his hands ... many theologians from the past have discussed this difference and many have concurred to the authoring of creation OVER the physical making of creation with his "hands" - think about HOW MUCH changes just from one word!

At this point, forget the should the service be in English debate ...definately churches need to exist in English for people who are of English background ... but the Greeks need to stick to the original context ... they/we are lazy if they can not undersant Poitin Ouranou and need to change the word to kataskevastis ... this is clearly obvious how you only get 70% of the true understanding of the service when you change a word.

Thank you so much Vasiliki. I knew the word "kataskevastis" was wrong but I couldn't think of the right word. I just asked my husband and he said the right word in modern Greek would be Δημουργο - Dimourgo - Creator.

He was still asleep when I posted my previous message...................

Thank you again. It is so wonderful that whatever we need we can find here on this forum. So many people know so much and are willing to share.

Effie

Vasiliki, just one more remark. Most of the children of the diaspora don't know Greek very well. They have trouble with everyday Greek. I know that today most of these children have private Greek lessons and perhaps know more of this language than I did when I was young - if I remember correctly there were only 6 Greek Australian children in the whole district...... - but liturgical Greek would still be quite difficult for them and that's why I think that services outside Greece should be in the language of the country they are held in.

Vasiliki D.

27-12-2008, 07:57 AM

Thank you so much Vasiliki. I knew the word "kataskevastis" was wrong but I couldn't think of the right word. I just asked my husband and he said the right word in modern Greek would be Δημουργο - Dimourgo - Creator.

He was still asleep when I posted my previous message...................

Thank you again. It is so wonderful that whatever we need we can find here on this forum. So many people know so much and are willing to share.

Effie

Vasiliki, just one more remark. Most of the children of the diaspora don't know Greek very well. They have trouble with everyday Greek. I know that today most of these children have private Greek lessons and perhaps know more of this language than I did when I was young - if I remember correctly there were only 6 Greek Australian children in the whole district...... - but liturgical Greek would still be quite difficult for them and that's why I think that services outside Greece should be in the language of the country they are held in.

Effie, I am a kid of the diaspora ... I have grown up in Australia and all I do is speak English ... but where there is a will there is a way ... it can not come across well in this forum but my Greek is extremally good. Like you, I needed the little black book (as we call it at church) to start off with ... but I will not trade the Greek Service for anything. I do agree we need English liturgies for those people who are not Greek but I dont agree that the children like me of Greek background can not understand ...

We tried an exercise at my fellowship class. We had the Sunday Gospel reading in the liturgical greek. Our speaker read it and asked us if we understood - all of us said NO. He said, OK .. lets take it sentence by sentence ... At each word he stopped and he would ask what does this mean ... and they would blurt out the correct answer .. and what does this mean ... THEY ALL KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE PASSAGE WAS SAYING WITHOUT ENGLISH.

The point he tried to make is that it is not the language but the willingness of the participants to (a) teach it and (b) receive it.

St. Augustine hated Greek and refused to read his scripture in parallel with the Greek - this is why he had so many theological errors but is a Saint nonetheless because his heart was in the right place.

Point is ... I think a synergy should exist ... we must never forget the roots ...

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 08:17 AM

Effie!!!!!! Have a Blessed Nativity Season and a Blessed Agios Vasilis! I wish I would get presents on that day too like in Greece. :D At least we have ta kalanta and the Vasilopita.

Anyway, yes, you are right and now I understand what the language of the heart is. It is that language which we can not even distinguish we are speaking when our heart is saying something to God and we are not even aware of it just the notions it is expressing. Interesting! I never thought of that until now. I have been attending Slavonic services and to be honest I just know a couple of phrases (like: God have mercy! etc.) But it goes straight in my heart and my soul and soothes me. I do not know what it is. Very, very few languages have created such effect in me. Maybe it is the church, the people, the priest, chanters... I have no idea... or maybe God helping me since I can not follow it. What is interesting is that I know at which exact part of the Liturgy we are just by some little details like tones, or happenings. God helps us. Glory to God in the Highest... goodwill to men.

Nina, once you know the liturgy and understand it, then, no matter in which country you are and in what language it is being celebrated in, you will be part of it, because you know what is being said.

This is the beauty of knowing the liturgy.

I know that if I ever visit Russia I will feel completely comfortable in church because, without understanding the language I will know what is being said and thus will be able to free my mind and experience the wonder. Plus, I will be able to enjoy the beautiful Russian choirs, which is something we don't have here.

We have some Russians living here and although most of them attend the Old Calendar churches there are those who attend the New Calendar churches. I am sure that they only have an elementary knowledge of Greek and yet I have noticed that they are completely a part of the congregation because they are absolutely familiar with what is happening.

re presents :

I am lucky, Nina. Why? Because we exchange presents here, traditionally on New Year's Day, but we also exchange presents on Christmas Day. Naughty? Not really because we don't believe in expensive presents but just a small something from the heart.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 08:30 AM

Effie, I am a kid of the diaspora ... I have grown up in Australia and all I do is speak English ... but where there is a will there is a way ... it can not come across well in this forum but my Greek is extremally good. Like you, I needed the little black book (as we call it at church) to start off with ... but I will not trade the Greek Service for anything. I do agree we need English liturgies for those people who are not Greek but I dont agree that the children like me of Greek background can not understand ...

We tried an exercise at my fellowship class. We had the Sunday Gospel reading in the liturgical greek. Our speaker read it and asked us if we understood - all of us said NO. He said, OK .. lets take it sentence by sentence ... At each word he stopped and he would ask what does this mean ... and they would blurt out the correct answer .. and what does this mean ... THEY ALL KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE PASSAGE WAS SAYING WITHOUT ENGLISH.

The point he tried to make is that it is not the language but the willingness of the participants to (a) teach it and (b) receive it.

St. Augustine hated Greek and refused to read his scripture in parallel with the Greek - this is why he had so many theological errors but is a Saint nonetheless because his heart was in the right place.

Point is ... I think a synergy should exist ... we must never forget the roots ...

What you are saying is true of the younger generation of Greek-Australians who have had the luxury of having Greek lessons available to them.

Vasiliki, I believe I am much older than you and my Greek was nearly non-existent when I came here with my husband.
Even today people ask me why I still make mistakes even though I have been here so many years. And they give me examples of younger Greek Australians who speak the language really well. I am tired of telling them that, apart from my mother and a couple of other families, I had no opportunity to learn this language. Something I deeply regret because if you don't learn the grammar of a language you cannot really claim to know it. That's why I can translate from Greek into English - as I do for the City Council - Nomarchia - here, but it is impossible for me to translate from English into Greek for the above reason.

And that's also why I can understand those who want to hear the liturgy in their own language. It's not a matter of laziness for converts to the Orthodox faith. It's very, very difficult for some people - including myself - to learn a new language. Some people seem to have a talent for it, others don't.

I spent a long time reading some of Elder Paisios' works yesterday. Each time I read one of his books, I find something of value, something I missed the first time around. How could a person who received so little formal education know so much about the human spirit? How could he be so practical and so down to earth and at the same time be so wonderfully connected to God? He was such a humble person, not in a Uriah Heep way but in a truly godly way. When I read his words I feel so ashamed of myself, but at the same time, so hopeful that I can truly change.

The above was off topic but I am still meditating on some of the things he wrote and my mind is full of his words.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

27-12-2008, 08:42 AM

Luke

27-12-2008, 07:52 PM

Effie, I think we are on the same page. I'm aware of the beauty of many languages and of course if I thought that it were truly necessary to learn koine greek (I have studied ancient greek and can read and write the alphabet - being an absolute novice however) I would do so. My feeling is that it is just not practical. More crucial to learning greek for me or anyone else is to know what the proper teachings are (by the fathers and ecumenical councils) so that I can speak about the faith to those who are here that don't know it. I am a layperson and it is not my calling to reach out in that way, academically. If I were to go to Seminary or had that path in life, of course I would be more well versed, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I don't stray from the Orthodox position on things, because no matter what language you speak you can accurately depict the Word and the teachings. It might take you a bit longer to explain, but that is of course what I'm willing to sacrifice (and what I would have to do anyway if I were talking to someone who didn't know Greek!)

While many things in the liturgy are for beauty (sounds, language, choir, incense, vestments, etc.) to me there is nothing more beautiful than hearing things such as "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?"

Thinking about what that means, and then contemplating your life in your heart has nothing to do with the aesthetic of that verse in human utterance. It can add to it surely, however it is a peripheral.

Also, it doesn't surprise me that people were in church on Christmas. I just saw people I haven't seen in Church for 10 years on Christmas. While there is great faith and astounding monastic traditions in Greece, of which I am grateful for, it has become part and parcel to the other mediterranean countries and most of Europe, a cultural vestige for most, I'm sorry to say. Let's be honest.

Ryan

27-12-2008, 09:15 PM

Thank you Effie,

Between the King James and New King James, I will pick the New simply because I loose track who is being spoken to or about between thee and thou. Not that I can't understand the words, but they just don't make much sence, are too formal. I see no difference using you for thee and thou for me or thou for you? Dost thou Seest? It is difficult to understand scripture when thou don't know whom thou speakest to. Thee or me.

PC

Here are the basics: Thou and Thee are singular (subjective and objective, respectively). Ye and You are plural. Once you keep that in mind, it's easy to read. Thy and Your are respectively singular and plural possessives. Part of the reason I prefer KJV English is because this singular/ plural distinction is retained.

What happened is that the continental custom of addressing superiors in the plural was adopted by English speakers, and, since no one wanted to appear disrespectful of anyone, "you" eventually became the only second person pronoun.

It's not something I think is too important, but I think the distinction does help in understanding who is being addressed in some passages. For example, "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" Here, we can see that Paul is referring to the Church as body of Christ and not simply the individual human body, because he says "ye". Many commentators use modern translations and misread this passage as chiefly relating to "theology of the body."

Nowadays, we need context to determine whether our "you" is plural or singular, and sometimes context is not enough, so some people introduce new second-person plurals like "y'all" and "yous". These words, silly as they seem, are filling a real need for which the general "you" is insufficient.

I honestly think the archaism of the KJV is greatly exaggerated- once you get past some old words and usages that crop up every now and then, it is very easily intelligible to modern ears.

PS The insufferable pedant in me inclines me to point out that the English of the KJV is not "Old English" but "Early Modern English." Old English is the language of Beowulf :)

Paul Cowan

27-12-2008, 09:59 PM

Also, it doesn't surprise me that people were in church on Christmas. I just saw people I haven't seen in Church for 10 years on Christmas. While there is great faith and astounding monastic traditions in Greece, of which I am grateful for, it has become part and parcel to the other mediterranean countries and most of Europe, a cultural vestige for most, I'm sorry to say. Let's be honest.

I was going to say about the same thing. This is not judgement but observation and I have been guilty of it as well over the course of my lifetime, the only time you see 40% of the registered and nonregistered members of any faith are on Christmas or Easter.

Moses Ibrahim

27-12-2008, 10:34 PM

I don't understand my prayers even when I pray in English. I understand and know nothing. What I do know is that God hears my prayers and understands and knows my heart and my mind better than I ever shall.

The Church is presumably not unaware of the sayings of St Paul quoted by Herman. Yet the Church lays down certain linguistic requirements. She must have her reasons and I accept them even though I don't know what they are.

If you are satisfied with this great. Others are not. Perhaps some churches should be able to use modern Greek or whatever language for that matter, if some people object to this, there are many churches, go to one that has ancient Greek or whatever else may be used. Not everyone must be subject to this (in my opinion absurd) rule. Please take no offense to my harsh words, but I'm getting sick of how lacking in potential we are compared to Catholics and Protestants. Shame on us.

Paul Cowan

28-12-2008, 01:01 AM

If you are satisfied with this great. Others are not. Perhaps some churches should be able to use modern Greek or whatever language for that matter, if some people object to this, there are many churches, go to one that has ancient Greek or whatever else may be used. Not everyone must be subject to this (in my opinion absurd) rule. Please take no offense to my harsh words, but I'm getting sick of how lacking in potential we are compared to Catholics and Protestants. Shame on us.

Are you truly saying we should reach our full potential by imitating the heretics that abandoned the Way as set out by the Church fathers? You are saying nothing more than picking and choosing what type of church we should have. This is exactly what got the Reformation started. We leave it to our heirarchs to rightly dividethe Word of Truth. When they say we change, then we change. Until then we conform ourselves to the Church, not it to us.

Luke

28-12-2008, 02:59 AM

Paul,

I think you are completely misunderstanding Moses.

Vasiliki D.

28-12-2008, 06:42 AM

Are you truly saying we should reach our full potential by imitating the heretics that abandoned the Way as set out by the Church fathers? You are saying nothing more than picking and choosing what type of church we should have. This is exactly what got the Reformation started. We leave it to our heirarchs to rightly dividethe Word of Truth. When they say we change, then we change. Until then we conform ourselves to the Church, not it to us.

Perfect! This is what I believe too ...

Vasiliki D.

28-12-2008, 06:44 AM

Paul,

I think you are completely misunderstanding Moses.

I think he did understand him ... the Orthodox thinking is to not to act based on a human understanding of things but on a God based providence for His own body - the church. This is why, we can discuss certain matters but we do not act on anything without the blessing and direction of the Hierarchs since we Orthodox believe that they are guided by the Holy Spirit ... everything/anything else would be acting on human vanity.

Effie Ganatsios

28-12-2008, 10:00 AM

I was going to say about the same thing. This is not judgement but observation and I have been guilty of it as well over the course of my lifetime, the only time you see 40% of the registered and nonregistered members of any faith are on Christmas or Easter.

Luke and Paul, it is not like that here. Granted, on Christmas Day we could hardly move, but even if it is not this crowded every Sunday, it is standing room only, but the women are wonderful. They sit down for 15 mins,perhaps half an hour and then generously offer their seats to those who are standing, so everyone has the luxury of resting a little.

As soon as the snow allows me to, I will go and take some pictures of the inside of our church (I have already posted the outside of the church and the grounds in the past).

The frescoes are nearly all finished now and look lovely. The painter was a true artist. Everything is very luxurious though, from the expensive marble floors, to the very expensive Persian carpets on the floors. I have to admit that I felt a little uncomfortable knowing how everyone is struggling to make ends meet with this new economic crisis.

That people in just about every country have given in to consumerism is the truth. But Luke, there are still many pious people here who are resisting consumerism and who recognize the stupidity of it. I have realized that just about everything we see and hear about on TV is exaggerated and you have to live and experience something to have a true picture of it.

Effie

What's the weather like in other parts of the world? Here, everything is covered in snow, it's freezing, and STILL snowing................

Effie Ganatsios

28-12-2008, 10:03 AM

I think he did understand him ... the Orthodox thinking is to not to act based on a human understanding of things but on a God based providence for His own body - the church. This is why, we can discuss certain matters but we do not act on anything without the blessing and direction of the Hierarchs since we Orthodox believe that they are guided by the Holy Spirit ... everything/anything else would be acting on human vanity.

Vasiliki, this is exactly what Elder Paisios says.

Effie

Vasiliki D.

28-12-2008, 10:26 AM

Vasiliki, this is exactly what Elder Paisios says.

Effie

PHEW! I visited his grave last month and with the blessing of the Sister, I was allowed to take home some of the dirt as a blessing!! I love him to tears ... but it is true isnt it?

I have my opionions but at the end of the day .. whatever the Church wants is what I want to ... even if it really tickles my pride :)

Saint Nektarios demonstrated this act of humility beautifully. When I first read his life story .. I was moved to tears so much! He was truly adikimenos ... and yet, he kept his mouth shut (something I havent learnt yet .. LOL) and NEVER said a BAD word about ANY Hierarch from ANY province!

Today, we are very quick to judge the decisions hierarchs make and based on our own understanding yet we can not know what God is working through them ... so, like I said the other day ... We LEAVE GOD to AUTHOR, to speak His poetry ... and we accept this poetry in humility. I was thinking about my position on the matter with regards to the English liturgy and I think I have found a way, from the Bible, to be comfortable after all, with an English liturgy or an American Orthodoxy.

My heart still longs and love for Greek ... I wish people could love it half as much as I do .. only because it is a language RICH in POETRY ... when u read a passage and study it ur heart flies into the heavens with the beauty of the words and the connection to God is like a dance ... a wonderful poetical weaving between you and him .... like a fine ribbon that laces your heart to him ....

This is what Elder PORFYRIOS says, to Love God is to become a POET ............................. an ARTIST.

Andreas Moran

28-12-2008, 03:25 PM

Greetings from Moscow, everyone! Church Slavonic was specifically devised for Church use - it is not an old form of Spoken Russian. In this sense it is not the same as Church Greek or Liturgical English.

Ryan

29-12-2008, 03:51 AM

Church Slavonic was originally based on the dialect spoken by Slavic people (Bulgars?) settled in Greece. As I understand it, Cyril and Methodius did want to use a language understandable to locals, but they had to work with the nearest example of Slavic language they could find, which partly explains the differences between Church Slavonic and Russian. It is in the Slavic family of languages but not directly related to Russian.

Father David Moser

29-12-2008, 06:14 AM

Nina

29-12-2008, 12:28 PM

only because it is a language RICH in POETRY ...

According to an Archbishop, Greek is a poetic language and also very melodic.

Yes, Elder Porphyrios said we should all be poets for our Christ, pour out our hearts in love for Him. However I believe, that this is possible in every language. It is actually a blessing to include all languages God created, in His praise.

Anthony

29-12-2008, 12:41 PM

Old Church Slavonic was based on (allowing for its special nature as an ecclesiastical and literary language) the Slavic language at the time of Ss Cyril and Methodius and their disciples. This language already showed a bit of differentiation between what would become the West, South and East Slavic sub-families; and OCS generally has distinct South Slavic characteristics (South Slavic being ancestral to modern Bulgarian and Serbian). Bulgarian is thus close to it in many respects, though less close in others - for example, Modern Bulgarian has lost nearly all its case endings.

Sorry if this is getting a bit away from Modern Greek here, but I am taking my cue from Fr David. ;)

Effie Ganatsios

29-12-2008, 01:10 PM

Actually as I understand it from a friend who is a Bulgarian linguist, Bulgarian is very close to Slavonic even today.

Fr David Moser
In fact, the two countries FYROM (Slav) and Bulgaria (Bulgarian) are about the only countries - apart from the English and French speaking countries - who don't need interpreters at international conferences.

This would indicate that these two languages are very similar.

Effie

Anthony

29-12-2008, 01:23 PM

Bulgarians have usually claimed - possibly still do for all I know - that "Slavo-Macedonian" (or whatever we are going to call it) is just a dialect of Bulgarian.

At the time we are talking about (Old Church Slavonic), the area concerned - Ohrida and surroundings - were part of the Bulgarian state, and writings which come from there are commonly referred to as West Bulgarian or "Macedonian" more or less indiscrimately (at least until it became an "issue" - and not one I would like to go into).

Andreas Moran

29-12-2008, 01:48 PM

Old Church Slavonic was based on (allowing for its special nature as an ecclesiastical and literary language) the Slavic language at the time of Ss Cyril and Methodius and their disciples.

My wife has mentioned that the language of the people these saints were helping had no way of expressing Orthodox theology and so the saints had to devise a church language based on the slavic language but adapted to include Greek theological terminology. It is in this sense that Old Church Slavonic was devised for church use.

Anthony

29-12-2008, 01:52 PM

Yes, that is my understanding too. OCS included massive influence of Greek vocabulary, new Slavonic expressions based on Greek (calques), etc. In this sense it was quite different from the contemporary spoken language on which it was based.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

29-12-2008, 04:12 PM

Actually as I understand it from a friend who is a Bulgarian linguist, Bulgarian is very close to Slavonic even today.

Fr David Moser

Slavonic also has similarities to Ukrainian in some of the archaic words it preserves, in the use of the vocative case (eg Otche for Father) & in the way it forms the infinitive verb form.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nina

29-12-2008, 04:27 PM

My wife has mentioned that the language of the people these saints were helping had no way of expressing Orthodox theology and so the saints had to devise a church language based on the slavic language but adapted to include Greek theological terminology. It is in this sense that Old Church Slavonic was devised for church use.

So blessed Saints! To create a new language with the help of God and for His praise and greater glory!

Mary

29-12-2008, 05:24 PM

I was thinking about my position on the matter with regards to the English liturgy and I think I have found a way, from the Bible, to be comfortable after all, with an English liturgy or an American Orthodoxy.

My heart still longs and love for Greek ... I wish people could love it half as much as I do .. only because it is a language RICH in POETRY ... when u read a passage and study it ur heart flies into the heavens with the beauty of the words and the connection to God is like a dance ... a wonderful poetical weaving between you and him .... like a fine ribbon that laces your heart to him ....

This is what Elder PORFYRIOS says, to Love God is to become a POET ............................. an ARTIST.

I do not know Greek. The language of my heart is English, although I grew up speaking two other languages as well. Last summer, I was at a monastery, where everything was in English. I too experienced my heart flying into the heavens, and soaring up and up and up, towards the beautiful lights above. I felt every fibre of my being entwined with the beautiful words, the chanting, the stillness, the incense... and being drawn to places I could never have imagined. ...

I have nothing against Greek. But I have neither the ability nor the time to learn it. However, God isn't limited by my ignorance. He can touch me whether I have Greek or not. English may have it's limits and may not be as beautiful and poetic and melodic as Greek. But, that's because it sings to it's own tune. But that's another story.

I believe, if I were in a place where I cannot hear the liturgy in English, and my only choices are in languages that I cannot understand, then, I believe that God can touch my heart in the same ways. A language can only get us so close to God, the rest, depends on our hearts. God is willing to accomadate our weakness, because He remembers that we are but dust... and that includes our weak languages.

English is poetry to me. Greek to you. I cannot make you love English like I love it. And I'm not going to try. Because, it's irrelevant.

In Christ,
Mary.

Ryan

29-12-2008, 05:41 PM

I don't think anyone can argue that the language of Milton, Shakespeare, or Keats lacks poetry. Sometimes Orthodox translations into English have lost much poetry, but this is largely due to the failings of translators and not of the language itself. Sadly, it's hard to find many English-speakers today who understand much about poetics. By the way, thanks for the quote by Elder Porfirios regarding Christianity and poetry, it confirms for me something that I felt for a long time. "Sing to the Lord a new song" is a recurring thought in Old Testament poetry. The recent Nativity hymn to the Theotokos also seems like an invocation to the muse- not a pagan muse but the great inspirer of Christian poets: "To love silence is easier, as a safeguard against fear! But to compose songs of love in harmony, O Virgin! Grant us strength, O Mother, equal to our purpose."

Effie Ganatsios

29-12-2008, 05:56 PM

Effie Ganatsios

29-12-2008, 05:58 PM

Nina

29-12-2008, 05:58 PM

I do not think that by saying that Greek is a poetic language, Vasiliki meant that English (or any other language for that matter) is not a poetic language. She was simply saying that Greek is a poetic language (which is a true fact). I am just tired of those comparisons, putting down of others, and triumphal attitudes. Why can't we all be Orthodox and love and respect each other and try to learn from each other's backgrounds? Why can't we rejoice with the friends who rejoice (even if they love a language, or a tree, or an architectural style etc.), and be happy for the passions, talents, loves other people have? Things are here and in existence because God wills them to be. When trying to diminish certain things and elevate other things we are not heading towards a beneficial path, let alone spiritual. Not that I am spiritual, or wise.

Anthony

29-12-2008, 06:04 PM

Just something that needs to be pointed out. The Slavs migrated to the area from the north in 6oo A.D. Their language is their own.

Forgive me, Effie, but I am not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Ryan

29-12-2008, 06:53 PM

Shakespeare lacks poetry? I don't agree at all. When I read Shakespeare I am always astounded by the beauty of the language he uses.

Effie

I agree with you actually, what I meant was that Shakespeare is proof that English is as capable of poetry as any other language.

Vasiliki D.

30-12-2008, 12:04 AM

Mary

30-12-2008, 03:47 AM

I do not think that by saying that Greek is a poetic language, Vasiliki meant that English (or any other language for that matter) is not a poetic language. She was simply saying that Greek is a poetic language (which is a true fact).

In the same way.... I believe, those who are expressing a desire to hear things in their own languages, are also not putting Greek down. They are just expressing a desire in their hearts. It is not a desire to change Orthodoxy... it is a desire to enter into it deeper, and more completely. Nor is it an expression of disrespect to those who have preserved Orthodoxy for us. Rather it is a desire to be consumed by Orthodoxy, as our Fathers were - everything we are, including our languages. Just as Greek was purified, to be used for the Glory of God, so we long for our own languages to be used in that way. We aren't going to leave the Church because the translations aren't to our liking; but that doesn't mean that translations shouldn't be beautiful and poetic. And although I am not one of them, I know of many converts for whom language was also not a barrier in converting, they learned Greek or whatever else they needed to, rather than be left out of the Church; but that doesn't mean the liturgies shouldn't be translated.

So, if those of us who are weaker, need to hear the liturgy in modern Greek or modern English, is that too much to ask for? When we couldn't understand what God wanted to tell us, didn't He lower himself to our level, and become a human being, so he could communicate with us in a way that we could understand? Not so he could leave us down there, but that once we made a connection, he could raise us up, and take us higher and higher and deeper and deeper....

So, if we need to lower the beauty of a liturgy from the ancient Greek, to modern Greek, and one person is saved because of that, isn't it worth the effort?

Does this sound like I'm questioning the wisdom of the Church and being rebellious and tearing down our heirarchs? If it does, it must be the limitations of the human speech, which is so pathetically two dimensional.

Forgive me,
in Christ,
Mary.

Nina

30-12-2008, 04:43 AM

In the same way.... I believe, those who are expressing a desire to hear things in their own languages, are also not putting Greek down.

Then do not use Greek as an example. There is no way to compare and it is not profitable to have arguments over such things, or to overreact when someone new here expresses a certain affinity. Good hosts (since we have been longer here) that we are!

There are billions of people in this world. Greek and English are not the only languages spoken in Orthodoxy.

Effie Ganatsios

30-12-2008, 11:27 AM

Forgive me, Effie, but I am not quite sure what you're getting at here.

I'm sorry Anthony. I just wanted to point out that the Slavic language and the Ancient Macedon language are two completely different languages.

But let's not discuss this here, as you so rightly pointed out.

A Happy New Year to you and your family.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

30-12-2008, 11:31 AM

I agree with you actually, what I meant was that Shakespeare is proof that English is as capable of poetry as any other language.

Not only capable..... Shakespeare's language is in a class of its own. He was a genius with words.

I don't know any other languages (smattering of German and French but not enough to be able to judge) but I assume that every language can be poetical. It depends on the ability of the person using it.

I have read though that German is the only language that Shakespeare can be properly translated into. This would indicate the poetical value of this language also.

Effie

Nina

30-12-2008, 12:55 PM

but I assume that every language can be poetical.

Of course!

I have read though that German is the only language that Shakespeare can be properly translated into. This would indicate the poetical value of this language also.

Effie

That's maybe because an immense wealth of words in English originate from Old German?

Anthony

30-12-2008, 04:09 PM

I'm sorry Anthony. I just wanted to point out that the Slavic language and the Ancient Macedon language are two completely different languages.

I don't know anybody who would disagree with this. But if you think I meant anything controversial, or detrimental to Greece, please put your mind at rest.

But let's not discuss this here, as you so rightly pointed out.

A Happy New Year to you and your family.

Effie

And to you and yours - kali khronia ;)

Kusanagi

31-12-2008, 11:59 AM

Hello Kusanagi. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Could I just say once again that Greeks in Greece have absolutely no trouble understanding liturgical Greek. It is the same almost except for the endings of certain words and other words that are different but known to all.

The children of Greek descent in other countries however need to hear the liturgy in the language of the country they now belong to in order to understand it. But, as I already said in a previous message, it is a shame that the beauty of the Greek of the original liturgy should be denied to them, therefore it would be a good idea and very worth their while if they studied the Greek language in order to appreciate the liturgy even more.

Effie

Well in the UK, I do not know how much lessons there are to learn ancient Greek in Greek schools, but I do know when there are intentions to do bible studies or church studies not many people turn up unfortunately.
There are books on sell on the Liturgy, which does Greek and English in the same book. Luckily the Bishop of the church I go to handed out for free all the Liturgy books in English and Greek to everyone that turned up to the talks on a regular basis. But most young Greek Cypriots I know prefer to go back home anyway. So at least their are books available but whether the people want them or not is something different.

Isa Almisry

02-01-2009, 06:08 AM

Show some respect. All of early Christianity was involved in Greek literature ... and the epistles are for Greeks ... let us not try to change history because today (for some reason) there is a constant ATTACK on the Greek people and the Greek language ...

God himself loved it .. you should too.

Full Stop.

Actually no.

I wanted to answer this seperately, because this is an issue unto itself.

All of early Christianity was involved in Greek literature? No, unless you can show me where Alleluia, Sabaot, Amen, Marantha, etc. are in Homer.

The Gospels themselves give evidence that Our Lord spoke Aramaic and Hebrew (according to the witness of the Fathers, the original language of the Gospel of St. Matthew). We have no evidence He spoke Greek.

As for the OT, the Septuagint is in a tortuous overliteral, if not interlinear, translation from the Hebrew. Not Greek. Evidently God didn't like the worst of it, the book of Daniel, because the Church abandoned the LXX text for a later, better translation by a Jewish proselyte.

The Epistles are for Christians. And that of St. James and to HEBREWS are not to Greeks. At least not ethnic Greeks.

Change history how? By having the Church speak a language, as she did in the 1st century, in a language the people actually UNDERSTAND? As St. Paul's speech at Athens shows, the NT could have been written in Classical Greek. It wasn't.

God Himself loved it? I recall a number of languges being spoken at Pentacost. My Bible doesn't say they all spoke Greek.

I don't know about hoards of people waiting to come into Church when it goes into English. I do know about a number who were struck by something in the DL that they heard, which drew them in. Of course, they have to understand the language for that to happen (St. Paul says something about that and clanging bells). St. Athanasius says that each of St. Anthony's steps to founding monasticism came from something he heard in the DL. St. Athanasius also tells us that St. Anthony didn't speak a word of Greek.

I also know of people coming to seek becoming catechumens, and being given a Greek grammar and told to come back once they learned it. I heard this from those who did come back. How many don't?

Isa Almisry

02-01-2009, 07:10 AM

This is why the Greek church has done a VERY GOOD job at keeping Orthodoxy alive for 2,000 years (No matter what anyone says). This is why the Greeks evangelised to the Balkan lands IN GREEK ... and many other nations ...

Actually, they started in Greek, but once the disciples of SS. Cyril and Methodius showed up with their Slavonic, they switched to that, even the Latin Romanians. And Russia/Ukraine/Byelorussia, though evangelized by the Greeks (and having a Greek hierarchy for centuries) used the Slavic. And when the Turks showed up (e.g. the Gagauz), the services were put in their language too.

And the Aramaic speaking Apostles did a VERY GOOD job of evangelizing the Greeks.

Effie Ganatsios

02-01-2009, 08:20 AM

Well in the UK, I do not know how much lessons there are to learn ancient Greek in Greek schools, but I do know when there are intentions to do bible studies or church studies not many people turn up unfortunately.
There are books on sell on the Liturgy, which does Greek and English in the same book. Luckily the Bishop of the church I go to handed out for free all the Liturgy books in English and Greek to everyone that turned up to the talks on a regular basis. But most young Greek Cypriots I know prefer to go back home anyway. So at least their are books available but whether the people want them or not is something different.

Hello Kusanagi. Happy New Year!!

Kusanagi,Ancient Greek and Liturgical Greek are not the same thing. If you look back over the messages you will see a message I wrote to Paul showing the first lines of the Creed in both Liturgical Greek and modern Greek. That is why I said that all Greeks understand Liturgical Greek perfectly.

Ancient Greek is taught here in most schools but it is very difficult. A little like the Latin I learnt when young.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

02-01-2009, 08:32 AM

Actually, they started in Greek, but once the disciples of SS. Cyril and Methodius showed up with their Slavonic, they switched to that, even the Latin Romanians. And Russia/Ukraine/Byelorussia, though evangelized by the Greeks (and having a Greek hierarchy for centuries) used the Slavic. And when the Turks showed up (e.g. the Gagauz), the services were put in their language too.

And the Aramaic speaking Apostles did a VERY GOOD job of evangelizing the Greeks.

The last line is true Isa, but you forgot to mention that Greek was the common language back then of all this area and three of the gospels were originally written in Greek. There is some discussion about St. Matthew but it is not absolutely clear if this gospel was originally written in Greek or Aramaic. Opinions differ.

I have already said that I believe that the language of the liturgy should be in the language of the country it is being celebrated in.

You mention the Turks. How many of the population are Christian? Most Turks are Muslims and fanatical at that.

Of course I am showing my total ignorance here, but I assume that those who converted to Christianity would then celebrate the liturgy in Turkish. This is the first time I have heard of this but it seems quite logical.

I found this on the web :

"Patriarchate, also refererred to as the Karamanli or Turkish Orthodox Church, is a nationalist denomination, whose doctrine and liturgy is drawn from the Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy (also called Greek Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy) is a Christian tradition which represents the majority of Eastern Christianity. ...

In 1924 Papa Eftim started to conduct the liturgy in Turkish, and quickly won support in the new Turkish Republic formed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They claimed that the Ecumenical Patriarcate of Constantinople was ethnically-centered and favored the Greek population. Being excomunicated, Eftim called a Turkish ecclesial congress that elected him Patriarch in 1924. However most of the ethnic Turkish Orthodox in Turkey and Greece remained affiliated with the Greek (Ecumenical) Patriarchate of Constantinople. "

This was obviously after the population exchange in 1922. How many Greeks were left in Constantinople by 1924?
I know that a second expulsion occurred in the 1950's because a relative who was living in Constantinople for business reasons was told to leave. All his possessions were confiscated by the Turkish government - and he was very well off. He and his family returned here with nothing.

I must confess that I don't know very much about this subject other than this personal experience.

I also know, again from the personal experience of a friend whose grandparents came to Greece as refugees in 1922, that some of his relatives still living in Turkey are secret Christians.

Effie

Vasiliki D.

02-01-2009, 09:34 AM

Actually no.
We have no evidence He spoke Greek.

Yes we do I think ... they used the Septuagint in Christs days - the translation of the Seventy, this was in Greek.

He also named Apostle Peter - PETER ... this is Greek.

But I am not responding with this to get into an anti-Greek/pro-Greek debate. Thank you for understanding that and stopping at this point.

Kusanagi

02-01-2009, 10:03 AM

Hello Kusanagi. Happy New Year!!

Kusanagi,Ancient Greek and Liturgical Greek are not the same thing. If you look back over the messages you will see a message I wrote to Paul showing the first lines of the Creed in both Liturgical Greek and modern Greek. That is why I said that all Greeks understand Liturgical Greek perfectly.

Ancient Greek is taught here in most schools but it is very difficult. A little like the Latin I learnt when young.

Effie

Happy New Year!

Then it does seem to be a bit of a problem for Greeks outside Greece then. Not as much resources available like back home. Maybe someone need to present a project to the archbishop here.

Nina

02-01-2009, 03:27 PM

I also know of people coming to seek becoming catechumens, and being given a Greek grammar and told to come back once they learned it. I heard this from those who did come back. How many don't?

Some weeks ago I was told something similar by a friend. She said that they have an Orthodox mission church. And then proceeded to tell me that very near by there is a Greek Orthodox church, but people from the mission church do not like the GO church because "when they went there they were not talked to, or welcomed, and people looked down to them." So I felt so bad and resolved when in the area I would visit that GO church and see for myself.

However before that I visited the mission church because my friend got baptized there. The priest was wonderful and he recognized and acknowledged the three guests (Mary, another friend and I) and welcomed us very warmly in front of the congregation and personally. However the rest of the people did not approach. I was expecting them to be the opposite of what they had described to my friend about the GO church nearby. The only people I personally spoke to were a guy that resembled my friend and I mistook him for her brother and wanted to wish him for the baptism; and an elderly man, about whom my friend had spoken to me. Therefore I do not believe in the hearsay about others, and such generalizations any longer. Sorry. It seems everywhere here, there is gossip about those "bad Greeks".

And the Aramaic speaking Apostles did a VERY GOOD job of evangelizing the Greeks.Ummm It was the work of the Holy Spirit, actually. And from the Pentecost we know that the Apostles, because of the Holy Spirit, started speaking in tongues. The Greeks of those times were humble and receptive enough to receive the teachings of the Holy Spirit and open their hearts to Christ, our God. So early in the history of Christianity and without precedents, or role models! So readily when they were immersed in centuries-old, ultrastrong paganism!

Isa Almisry

02-01-2009, 05:40 PM

Yes we do I think ... they used the Septuagint in Christs days - the translation of the Seventy, this was in Greek.

We still use the Septuagint: the new Orthodox Study Bible is proof of that. And we should. But that's not without its problems:there are times when the NT agrees with the Masoretic text (which, by the way is LATER than the LXX, and not the basis of the latter), e.g. Mat. 2:15 cf. Hos. 11:1 (but then again, Matthew is said to have been originally in Hebrew/Aramaic), or reflects neither the LXX nor the MT but the Targums (e.g. Eph. 4:8, cf. Ps. 68 (69):19.

They also used the Peshitta, the Aramaic/Syriac Bible which was not translated from the LXX (but later edited in light of it). That is the Bible that St. Ephraim and St. Isaac would have known.

He also named Apostle Peter - PETER ... this is Greek.

No, He named him Kepha, which is Aramaic:

John 1:42 (http://biblos.com/john/1-42.htm) ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, Peter).

1 Corinthians 3:22 (http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/3-22.htm) εἴτε Παῦλος εἴτε Ἀπολλῶς εἴτε Κηφᾶς, εἴτε κόσμος εἴτε ζωὴ εἴτε θάνατος, εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα εἴτε μέλλοντα πάντα ὑμῶν,
whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come. All are yours,

1 Corinthians 9:5 (http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/9-5.htm) μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς;
Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Galatians 2:9 (http://biblos.com/galatians/2-9.htm) καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν·
and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.

Galatians 2:11 (http://biblos.com/galatians/2-11.htm) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned.

1 Corinthians 1:12 (http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/1-12.htm) λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει· ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, ἐγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλῶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ.
Now I mean this, that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," and, "I follow Christ."

1 Corinthians 15:5 (http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/15-5.htm) καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα·
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Galatians 2:14 (http://biblos.com/galatians/2-14.htm) ἀλλ' ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων· εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ / οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν;
But when I saw that they didn't walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?"

Galatians 1:18 (http://biblos.com/galatians/1-18.htm) ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ⇔ ἔτη ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε,
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.

But I am not responding with this to get into an anti-Greek/pro-Greek debate. Thank you for understanding that and stopping at this point.

There is nothing anti or pro Greek in that.

But back to the OP:the liturgical Greek was made to conform to the Attic standard set by the literatti of the Greek speaking world. That standard has now been displaced it seems. The question then becomes one of intelligibility for Greek speakers.

Isa Almisry

02-01-2009, 06:38 PM

The last line is true Isa, but you forgot to mention that Greek was the common language back then of all this area and three of the gospels were originally written in Greek. There is some discussion about St. Matthew but it is not absolutely clear if this gospel was originally written in Greek or Aramaic. Opinions differ.

Opinions do differ, but the oldest claim that Matthew was in Aramaic, which in some respects is supported by the Greek text. And althought the other three were authored in Greek, both Mark and John reference Aramaic words, etc.

Yes, Greek was the lingua franca from Palestine Westwards. But Aramaic was the lingua france from Palestine Eastwards, and even some Westwards: there are things in Coptic and Giiz/Ethiopic that show origin from Aramaic without the intermediary of Greek (shown, for instance, by names with "sh," which both Coptic (and Ethiopic did, but doesn't now) and Aramaic have, but Greek does not). And the Church was quite successful going East: Syria, Mesopotamia, Ethiopia and the ajoining areas of Arabia (including India) were converted, and, as the list of Persian martyrs show, had Islam not interupted the trend, Iran might have converted.

Since the Church adopted the LXX as the authorized version, the received text of the NT is in Greek, and the Creed and the definitions of the Seven Councils are in Greek, the primacy of that language is not in question. But "preserving the language of the NT/Apostles/Early Church/Fathers," as is often given as the excuse for actions such as in the OP, is not as black and white as many would like to make it. Since the NT is written in a common (Koine) vernacular, not Attic, nor did the Apostles adopt Attic as their medium (except St. Paul at Athens, but that was a tough audience), the questions raised about Greek that people actually speak and understand is a valid point.

I have already said that I believe that the language of the liturgy should be in the language of the country it is being celebrated in.

To get back to the OP, the question is whether Atticized Koine is the language of Greece (or Cyprus). Since the abolition of Katharevousa to the wholesale adoption of Dhimotiki, there is some doubt. The resistence to Dhimotiki in law and, of course, the Church, is the grey area on this.

You mention the Turks. How many of the population are Christian? Most Turks are Muslims and fanatical at that.

Actually many of them are secular, which is even worse.

Of course I am showing my total ignorance here, but I assume that those who converted to Christianity would then celebrate the liturgy in Turkish. This is the first time I have heard of this but it seems quite logical.

I found this on the web :

"Patriarchate, also refererred to as the Karamanli or Turkish Orthodox Church, is a nationalist denomination, whose doctrine and liturgy is drawn from the Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy (also called Greek Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy) is a Christian tradition which represents the majority of Eastern Christianity. ...

In 1924 Papa Eftim started to conduct the liturgy in Turkish, and quickly won support in the new Turkish Republic formed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They claimed that the Ecumenical Patriarcate of Constantinople was ethnically-centered and favored the Greek population. Being excomunicated, Eftim called a Turkish ecclesial congress that elected him Patriarch in 1924. However most of the ethnic Turkish Orthodox in Turkey and Greece remained affiliated with the Greek (Ecumenical) Patriarchate of Constantinople. "

This was obviously after the population exchange in 1922. How many Greeks were left in Constantinople by 1924?
I know that a second expulsion occurred in the 1950's because a relative who was living in Constantinople for business reasons was told to leave. All his possessions were confiscated by the Turkish government - and he was very well off. He and his family returned here with nothing.

I must confess that I don't know very much about this subject other than this personal experience.

I also know, again from the personal experience of a friend whose grandparents came to Greece as refugees in 1922, that some of his relatives still living in Turkey are secret Christians.

Effie

No, I wasn't speaking of the schismatic group (yes, I knew of them, for one thing seeing a church of these in Constantinople), but the earlier Karamlis.

The Karamanlis as a group were expelled in the population transfer in 1922. Secular Ataturk couldn't stand the thought of Christian Turks. They were concentrated around Iconium for centuries: the czar's used to import their liturgical books (Turkish in Greek letters) for his Turkish Chrisitan subjects, like the Gagauz (who are nearly 100% Orthodox Christian). Those in Greece were almost totally hellenized I understand.

Ilaria

03-01-2009, 04:07 PM

Actually, they started in Greek, but once the disciples of SS. Cyril and Methodius showed up with their Slavonic, they switched to that, even the Latin Romanians.

Did they?
Our history says that Romanians are Christians since St. Andrew spread the Evangelia in Scitia Minor, which is a region of Romania today called Dobrogea;in Dobrogea there are relics of holy martyrs of the Diocletian period; also, st Cassian and Gherman are from Dobrogea;
so do you think that after hundreds of years of Christianity Romanians needed to be switched to the Slavonic??
however, Romania, being in the middle of confluences, did receive a lot of influences, from both area: Greek and Slavonic.

Isa Almisry

04-01-2009, 01:12 AM

Did they?
Our history says that Romanians are Christians since St. Andrew spread the Evangelia in Scitia Minor, which is a region of Romania today called Dobrogea;in Dobrogea there are relics of holy martyrs of the Diocletian period; also, st Cassian and Gherman are from Dobrogea;
so do you think that after hundreds of years of Christianity Romanians needed to be switched to the Slavonic??
however, Romania, being in the middle of confluences, did receive a lot of influences, from both area: Greek and Slavonic.

Although St. Andrew did evangelize Romania, and she produced martyrs in the Roman period, and from there came St. Cassian (which St. German?) and St. Dionysius Exiguus (who sent up the BC/AD system, and the West's Pachalion) and the other Scythian monks who, among other things, saved the day at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, also came from Romania; nonetheless it is more correct to say that there were Romanian Christians than to say that Romania was Christian. Organization of the Romanian Church was impeded by being in the first province abandoned by empire, before St. Constantine (who was proto-Romanian, btw, as was the emperor Justinian) and before the Era of Migrations which brought in the Slavs who established their dominance. When the Turkic groups followed, they adopted Slavic (hence how the Bulgars became Bulgarians), and when the dust settled, the organization of the Church of the Romanian Lands was done under the auspices of Church Slavonic. This can be seen in the Bible of Bucharest, 1688 by not only its Cyrillic lettering but also its vocabulary, still in liturgical Romanian.

Btw, Arabic printing got started in Romania: the metropol printed Arabic liturgical books etc., and the Patrioch of Antioch later came and got the presses to bring back in Syria. Printing in Arabic was long something only Christians did.

Paul Cowan

04-01-2009, 03:15 AM

What I love about this forum is on any given topic, there is sure to be someone(s) with expertise or knowledge to speak on most every topic. Whether they be clerics, monastics, professors, teachers, lawyers, doctors or just down home folk. Open source of knowledge is a blessing to us all especially to me.

I really appreciate the latest string of posts from not only Romanians themsleves as this is unique in and of itself, but to also have an historian specializing in the same area. I see the benefits of the mission of this forum only being enhanced as we grow with more specialists in historical and theological areas joining.

We never know what our neighbor may be knowledgeable of. I ask all Orthodox I come into contact with to consider joining Monachos. Even some folk who are not Orthodox. Some of us (me) may not have much to contribute, but those that do are a blessing to the rest of us (me).

Paul

Ilaria

04-01-2009, 06:04 PM

St. German was the closed friend of st. John Cassian, since their childhood,through their military service, up to their monastic life, according to st. Cassian's book "Conferences".He was glorified by the Orthodox Church of Romania in 1992.

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=205437

Carlos Antonio Palad

04-01-2009, 08:10 PM

Alice

04-01-2009, 09:48 PM

Dear Carlos,

Christ is born!

I am an American of Greek descent who learned Greek at a Greek Orthodox parochial school daily since first grade. I have been pretty fluent in modern Greek for all of my adult life.

The parish I attend when I am in New York has a priest who does many of the services in English or predominantly English. This priest feels what he is doing very much, and the services are more awesome in English the way he does them, than any other service I have been to in a Greek Orthodox church in the U.S. which used Byzantine Greek...and being able to understand every single word of the liturgy and equally importantly--the chants (when our young Greek American cantor is chanting alone)-- was the most heavenly experience for me...after many, many years of church going.

I also had this wonderful heavenly experience at services of our OCA (Orthodox Church of America which is Slavic in origin) seminary. The Divine Liturgy and other services are completely in English, served absolutely reverendly and awesomely, and their famous choir who chant in the beautiful Russian style made me truly feel as if I was in Heaven!! I have their Resurrection service tape, and I play it over and over again in the car (alternately with the Greek Orthodox EIKONA version also in all English) after Pascha, and they make me feel more rejoiceful than I have EVER felt when this service is served in Greek at church.

Understanding our beautiful services (which I never knew were that beautiful before) in one's own native language cannot be underestimated. It never feels like a true liturgia when following in a book to understand. One cannot participate with a full heart, mind and soul when following in a book. One cannot close their eyes and join in in heavenly praise in the same way...

Ofcourse, this is also how the Greeks who come to America feel (they have learned the Byzantine liturgy in school, so Byzantine Greek is not a problem for them)--so herein lies the tension in our Archdiocese. I always thought that alternating Sunday liturgies would be the best compromise, but priests tell me that this idea would have its drawbacks.

As for modern Greek to be used over Byzantine (Koine) Greek in Greece, I do not know. I once heard a Roman Catholic Mass in modern Greek and *I* liked the way it sounded, but Greek is not my first language. Modern Greek may be better for the younger generations which do not go to church. This is the largely churchless generation that Archbishop Christodoulos, of blessed memory, tried everything to help attract to church. I believe it was during his dynamic tenure when the first idea of changing the language came up. Infact, he also saw to it that an English liturgy would be served in Athens for Orthodox from English speaking countries like me. However, after a long wild goose chase, I finally tracked down the Scottish priest who had been serving it, and it seems that this has fallen mostly to the wayside since the Archbishop's death. :-(

Please know that I totally understand your concern and I am not dismissing it. I respectfully thank you for it. However, I humbly suggest that you remember that language was just one of the many changes instituted in your Church after Vatican II. Had everything else stayed exactly the same--the old order Mass, the reverence, the piety, the pageantry, etc., the traditions, the devotions, the disciplines, the architecture and decor of the beautiful older churches, and only the language had changed, (with a sprinkling of Latin, as is the case in English liturgies), perhaps not that many Catholics would have been disappointed and left as they have, unfortunately, done.

Ofcourse these are only my own (humble) opinions and sentiments. :-)

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2009, 09:57 PM

I don't think the problem was with the vernacular, it was with the total evisceration of the traditional Mass that came along with Vatican II.

The Divine Liturgy survived the translation from Greek to Slavonic and to Arabic and Chinese and even English. Again the requirement for Latin by the Catholic Church is the same reasoning that tried to prevent the translation into Slavonic.

What happened at Pentecost? Did everyone suddenly all understand the same language? No, the Gospel was proclaimed in many different languages. The Divine Liturgy was in different languages long before the Latins submitted to the vernacular and "Right Glory" survived, and will continue to do so, don't worry.

Herman the Pooh

Isa Almisry

04-01-2009, 10:47 PM

I see that, here as in many other Orthodox fora, there are some who claim that praying in another tongue than one's own "hinders active participation" and that we should "understand the liturgy".

What astounds me is that, in these discussions, the Orthodox seem oblivious to the UTTER DESTRUCTION of the Roman Catholic liturgy that the very same ideas led to, in the 1960's and 1970's.

The Roman Catholic Church introduced the vernacular in the late 1960's precisely due to the same reasons now being bandied about: "we must allow the people to actively participate", "we must let the people understand the Mass". Guess what: the loss of Latin in the Roman liturgy scarcely led more people to the Church, while it certainly drove millions of the Catholic faithful away. The vernacularization of the liturgy has led to the fulfilment of NOT ONE of the promises attached to it. Indeed, it can now be argued that the average Catholic attending a vernacular Mass today understands it far less than a Catholic who attended Mass in Latin prior to the 1960's. The loss of Latin has directly led to the loss of faith, of catechesis, and of the sense of the sacred.

Before the Orthodox Churches jump into the vernacularization bandwagon, the "let's-make-it-understandable-to-everyone" way of thinking, I'd plead with them to at least be fully aware that vernacularization did the Catholic Church no good. Please, learn from our mistakes!

The problem with this kind of thinking is that, once the transition to the vernacular is made, you can be pretty sure that the next step will be to dumb down the liturgical texts, precisely for the sake of "understanding"! You only have to look at the current controversies over the abbreviated, deficient and highly simplified English translations of the Roman liturgy used today.

Incidentally, a major article in L'Osservatore Romano published in 2008 made the observation that the Latin of the Roman Rite was NEVER, even during Roman times, the spoken or vernacular Latin, but was a highly formal form of it that was not used in the streets. Indeed, the rich and extremely subtle and nuanced poetry of the Roman Collects proves this.

I am aware that Koine Greek, far from having been the "slang GreeK' or "street Greek" of the ancient era, was even then already a formal form of Greek. And Our Lord and the apostles, when they went into the Temple, certainly worshiped in Hebrew -- which at that time was a dead language.

In worshiping in archaic and highly formal language we are but imitating Christ our Lord.

How do you figure that?

That it was a highly formal language, there is no doubt: such is the case with practically all religions, including modern ones (the excesses of Vatican II notwithstanding). Nor is archaism a stranger to sacred idiom. But that's beside the point.

The only direct evidence we have as to what language the Lord worshipped in is Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46, quoting Psalm 21 (22). Mark seems to be Aramaic, Matthew Hebrew, but it doesn't help you case any, as the word "sabakhthani" in Hebrew is an Aramaism, i.e. it is not an archaism, but a vernacular borrowing. Btw, Hebrew was not as dead as some make it out to be in the 1st cent., as the Hebrew of popular texts such as Sirach and the Dead Sea Scrolls attest, as does the language of the Talmud. It died out after the Bar Kochba revolt of the early 2nd cent.

Your comparison of the action of HG Bishop Apostolos to that of Vatican II I suspect is also off the mark in other ways. There is nothing in the report that HG planned on changing the Divine Liturgy in any way except to put it into Modern Greek (I am assuming that it was a highly formal form of Demotic). He wasn't reorientating the priest to face not God but the people, rejecting the universal practice everywhere and at all times. He wasn't pulling the altar out of the sanctuary. He wasn't dumming down the texts. He wasn't abbreviating them (that has already happened in the archaic texts we have, and that in antiquity btw). Simply putting them in a language someone can understand.

The comparison is not apt, in that up until recently, the Attic, Atticized Koine were taught with a "purified" Demotic as the standard language of Greeks. In other words, the equivalent of the King's English (or General American Broadcast English), Castillian Spanish, Standard Italian ("a Tuscan tongue in a Roman mouth" as they say), Parisian French of the Academie, etc. It was not taught as an earlier form of the language (e.g. Beowulf for English speakers), nor as a foreign language (e.g. Latin for any Romance speaker, except perhaps the Romanians: their language alone devoloped without the shadow of Latin over it, although it in many ways is the most Latin of them all). It was the correct way of speakng Modern Greek.

That is not the case any longer, since the establishment of Demotic in the place of Katharevousa. Before 1975 it would be unthinkable that a parliament member or a public address would NOT sound like a presidential speech delivered in Elizabethan English. Such is not the case now. Now it sounds as ridiculous as when people speak Elizabethan English in a jocular manner.

With the full implientation of Demotic, for the Church to cling to the Atticized Koine of the Divine Liturgy (as opposed to the Koine of the NT, which is NOT Atticized) risks to make it seem something one does on Sunday (or not), with NO relevance to the rest of your life nor the modern world. Bromides refering to the "language of the Apostles" isn't going to change that:Mantras are not Christian.

Can you give a reference to the remark of L'Osservatore Romano on Latin? because it is surely wrong. There was a articificial Classical Latin created in imitation of the Attic movement in Greek. Whereas at least at one time Attic was spoken at Athens, it doesn't seem that this Classical Latin was ever spoken even at Rome. But this Latin was nearly never used by the Church: St. Jerome proved he could use it, composing a martyrdom in Ciceronian prose (btw, even Cicero admitted that he had to ditch the strict dictates of the Classical Latin grammarians and bow to the popular, natural speech), and St. Ambrose wrote on Classical models. But the language of the Latin Fathers was the vulgar/vernacular Latin, the one that people actually spoke. Hence Vulgate. The ironic thing is that the only feature of ecclesiastical Latin that it shared with Classical Latin was slavish imitation of Greek. But this too differentiates them: the ecclesiastical borrowed Koine, Classical Latin, Attic, forms.

It was not until the renaissance, with its slavish imitation of pagan norms, that Classical Latin took over the Latin church, reversing what had been the norm for a millenium.

Andreas Moran

04-01-2009, 11:08 PM

Vasiliki D.

04-01-2009, 11:38 PM

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2009, 11:42 PM

Isa Almisry

04-01-2009, 11:49 PM

That people should be able to understand what is being chanted or sung in church seems a compelling argument, and it is right. It does not follow that modern Greek should be used where Church Greek is currently, nor modern Russian where Slavonic is. The use of traditional liturgical English (TLE) presents no problems because it is so like modern English that it does not present the same 'problems' that Church Greek and Church Slavonic are said to present to Greeks and Russians (though not so much as some claim). Not entirely true. Educated native English speakers can have their difficulties with it.

Claims that TLE is 'hard' are unfounded: the available texts of the liturgy in TLE are far easier than the texts of Shakespeare's plays which children learn at school.

The texts of Shakespeare's plays are annotated. I have even seen parrallel texts where the original is "translated" into Modern English (and I don't mean "colloquial English"). But you do bring up a point: how far within reach are Shakespeare's plays in the original to Educated, cultivated English speakers? Is there a register in Educated, cultivated modern English within which Shakespearean English resides?

Of course, there is a vital difference: DL is intended to have something to do with the rest of your life. Shakespeare can safely be confined to the textbook and theater.

I have a lot of sympathy with Carlos's plea. All the western churces - none more so than the Church of England - have lost a lot, including congregations, since they set out to be 'modern', 'relevant' and 'easily understood'.

You mean like the King James Version intended in the 17th century?

If someone who is Greek or Russian (or is not from such an ethnic background but finds that Greek of Slavonic services are what are on offer) is at all serious about going to church (and arriving earlier than half way through), it cannot be be beyond them to pick up at least the liturgy in those languages.

What languages?

Greek and Russian?

Or Attic and Slavonic?

You don't have to be a scholar to do it. If a modern language were to be used, there would be problems agreeing its form and style.

No. What constitutes educated, cultivated Russian is quite established. Educated, cultivated Dhimotiki maybe less so, given the language question. But any Greek has an idea what language to use when giving a formal speech. I've heard it several times from the pulpit during a sermon. And no, it wasn't Attic.

No one version would be acceptable to all.

How about that one that the ministeries of education teach in schools?

Also, as has been pointed out, everyday language is a shifting and changing thing; how often would texts need altering to keep up with the vernacular at any given time?

Romanian, given the "protection" of Church Slavonic against Latin (Romanian's "Attic"), doesn't have a problem. It's text are up to date.

How much change has happened in Demotic since 1976? There aren't going to be a lot of new things in the DL which would be suseptible to rapid linguistic change. The idea is not to be "trendy." Just comprehensible.

Furthermore, I challenge the notion that making the words understandable (and at what level - the lowest common demoninator?) really makes the liturgy completely comprehensible.

Again, comprehended. Not trendy. Not chic. Not

Is it not the case, as we seen in places in this forum, that the liturgy has richness and depth of meaning that go far beyond the dictionary meaning of the words?

Then we could go to DL and be silent for two hours. Instead, we use words. Christ might be the silence of God (St. Ignatius) but He is God the Word.

To go beyond the dictionary meaning, you first have to know and understand the dictionary meaning.

Why else are their commentaries and books explaining the liturgy? What is needed is not innovation but education.

One of the most damning remarks (and it wasn't meant to be) about the Orthodox Church I heard was from someone who was going to convert to marry someone Orthodox. I noticed the book they had: it was a language primer. He said "in their Sunday School you don't learn religion. You learn their language."

Is that what you want to reduce the Gospel to? Verb conjugations?

And, as the facts of the NT being in Koine, not Attic (indeed, not Aramaic); Christ worshipping in Aramaic, not Hebrew; SS Cyril and Methodius translating the Gospels into Slavonic, not evangelizing in Greek or Latin (as the Germans who suppressed their mission did), etc. what is advocated here is no innovation.

Vasiliki D.

04-01-2009, 11:50 PM

What is the nominal attendance of Church in Greece?

Have any trends been seen, is attendance increasing, decreasing or static?

What place do you think does the language of the Liturgy play in this?

Herman the Pooh

I can not understand why outsiders want to reform an area of the church that is outside of their own comprehension, however, attendance in Greece is up and its down ... it does not follow the pattern of the West ...

The Greek person has a LOT of zeal for God ... they believe and they have icons in their home and they pray to the Saints and to God and they attend church on the major festivals ... and celebrate the glory of God. However, the Greek person has a tendancy to mix religion and politics ... and if it is politically fashionable to tease and hate priests - the Greek person follows ... as such, many people avoid the church because the priest is "bad" or "sinner" or ... whatever ... this comes down to LACK OF EDUCATION.

The Church of Greece (contrary to what Western people think) has a wonderful outreach program for the Greeks ... they have had internet sources BEFORE OCA and ROCOR started ... the problem is the GREEK PERSON IS LAZY!! LAZY!! LAZY!! This is our sin and our weakness ... this is OUR downfall.!

Herman Blaydoe

05-01-2009, 12:05 AM

I can not understand why outsiders want to reform an area of the church that is outside of their own comprehension, however, attendance in Greece is up and its down ... it does not follow the pattern of the West ...

The Greek person has a LOT of zeal for God ... they believe and they have icons in their home and they pray to the Saints and to God and they attend church on the major festivals ... and celebrate the glory of God. However, the Greek person has a tendancy to mix religion and politics ... and if it is politically fashionable to tease and hate priests - the Greek person follows ... as such, many people avoid the church because the priest is "bad" or "sinner" or ... whatever ... this comes down to LACK OF EDUCATION.

The Church of Greece (contrary to what Western people think) has a wonderful outreach program for the Greeks ... they have had internet sources BEFORE OCA and ROCOR started ... the problem is the GREEK PERSON IS LAZY!! LAZY!! LAZY!! This is our sin and our weakness ... this is OUR downfall.!

Wow, as outspoken as I tend to be, I would never go this far in describing any individual, much less an entire race, even my own (whatever it is, I have never really figured it out, too much the mongrel, I, but I am pretty sure there is little or no Greek involved).

Are you saying that these questions therefore somehow irrelevant?

Herman the tuber-existentialist* Pooh

* "I yam what I yam" Popeye the Sailor

Ryan

05-01-2009, 12:09 AM

Not entirely true. Educated native English speakers can have their difficulties with it.

The texts of Shakespeare's plays are annotated.

It doesn't make much sense to compare the liturgical English used in the Orthodox Church with Shakespearean English... today, readers of Shakespeare will find in his works much unfamiliar vocabulary as well as familiar words used for very different meanings. In the liturgical texts I've seen, however, the chief differences from contemporary English consist of pronouns and verb conjugations which are easily learnt and remembered. If people really have problems with these, it would not take long to explain them.

Regarding the King James Bible, while it was a translation into the vernacular, it certainly maintained an elevated style that set it quite clearly apart from ordinary speech and prose.

Vasiliki D.

05-01-2009, 12:16 AM

Wow, as outspoken as I tend to be, I would never go this far in describing any individual, much less an entire race, even my own (whatever it is, I have never really figured it out, too much the mongrel, I, but I am pretty sure there is little or no Greek involved).

Are you saying that these questions therefore somehow irrelevant?

Herman the tuber-existentialist* Pooh

There is nothing wrong in describing a tendency for a race ... if there is something that I hate is fake humility and i refuse to be fake ... and therefore I am not humble. However, I want to point out (and thank you for posting otherwise I would never have said this and I should have) that a description is not for INCLUSIVE of everyone - there are and always will be exceptions to a rule and shining examples that contradict this. We have such examples in the Church of Greece - truly exemplary and beacons of Orthodoxy and there are also the Unknown beacons or heros - the simple people who uphold Orthodoxy to this very day the way it was passed down ... these people deserve praise and credit ....

but for the whole - what else do you call a people who prefer the paganistic ideals of sex and partying over their spirituality and put God at a second best when it suits them? I LOVE Greek people and I love Greece (if you havent figured it out) but I am big enough and strong enough to also know what our weakness are .... this is what confession is about ... to find out what your weaknesses are and work on it.

My people .. the Greek people ... we have to remember and be RE-EDUCATED .. God is not another tool we can use to make our lives better ... we can not switch him on and off like a light bulb when it suits us nor can we turn to him only when things are going bad in our lives ... the Greek people have forgotten to worship God and to visit Him in His house .. this is laziness i am afraid and simplyfying the liturgy will not fix the problem it will only feed the beast - like Carlos said wisely .. if you give in to the sin of the people you only make things worse ... another analogy:

If a child asks for a chocolate and it is nearly dinner ... as a good parent, do you give the child the chocolate or in your knowledge ask the child to wait for after the dinner meal for his desert? The good parent, no matter how much the child objects, will give the chocolate to the child AFTER dinner ...

Isa Almisry

05-01-2009, 01:05 AM

It doesn't make much sense to compare the liturgical English used in the Orthodox Church with Shakespearean English... today, readers of Shakespeare will find in his works much unfamiliar vocabulary as well as familiar words used for very different meanings. In the liturgical texts I've seen, however, the chief differences from contemporary English consist of pronouns and verb conjugations which are easily learnt and remembered. If people really have problems with these, it would not take long to explain them.

Regarding the King James Bible, while it was a translation into the vernacular, it certainly maintained an elevated style that set it quite clearly apart from ordinary speech and prose.

Not only that, it was explicitely made to be, how shall we say, a more ecclesiastical translation than that the Puritans had been using, e.g. insisting that Church be translated "Church" and not changed to "congregation." In addition, King James included rules that would get the translation familiar to its readers and listeners. Yes, it was an elevated style, but not one very different than one would come across, say, in a royal edict.

Much of the liturgical texts in English use Elizabethan English: Western Rite Orthodox directly (perhaps the DL of St. Gregory is slightly indirect), others (e.g. Hapgood, the Triodion and Menaion of HG Bishop Kallistos, etc.). Only the OCA translations and the GOA translations seem, in the main, to skirt this. The OCA texts tend to (try at least) maintain an elevated, but modern, style. The GOA seem to be just paraphrases.

I use the Shakespeare examples as it is the closest thing English has to diaglossia, a common feature of Eastern languages, but rarer and limited in Western languages. And of course, the phenomena underlining the problem of the OP.

Paul Cowan

05-01-2009, 01:07 AM

I can not understand why outsiders want to reform an area of the church that is outside of their own comprehension, however, attendance in Greece is up and its down ... it does not follow the pattern of the West ... !

I have to mirror Herman. WOW!

This is an Orthodox website not a Greek Orthodox website. If questions are posted to the general forum for all to see and weigh in on, then expect those of us who have little to no comprehension to weigh in with what little or more than little knowledge for what it is worth. Those that read what is posted can take it or leave it. passion/ fake humility/ humblness notwithstanding; attitudes come across the net loud and clear.

If a Greek topic is posted, the best of my recollection, we currently only have 4 regular Greek posters so it will be a very short lived thread. Yes, I too believe this thread has morphed to something more than it started out to be and should probably be split into another relevent thread, but as rabbit trails go, this one seems to have touched a nerve for some for reasons only they know of.

I appreciate the specialties Mr. Almisry is offering us for our education and edification. I would like to know more of what he is talking about the history of languages; perhaps the mods can move some of these posts to a similar titled thread.

I think Fr. Dcn Matthew's post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=32509&postcount=3)5 years and 8 pages ago sums up where we are today. it s actually vertually verbatim where we are today on this thread. I think the last sentence of his post is most insightful.

But, hey. I am an outsider trying to understand beyond my comprehension of a culture I never will. SO I will just read along.

Attendance in the West (http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=52&SID=3)is up I am pleased to say as it is in the east (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church).

Isa Almisry

05-01-2009, 02:48 AM

I would like to kindly remind everyone that this thread is about the liturgy in Greece becoming more modern ... it is not about debating if the early Church was Aramaic or Greek, it is not about whether Americans understand English better than Greek - it is about Greece and the needs of GREEK people.

So, at this point, I would like to remind everyone that American culture is NOT Greek culture - so what you or I think in foreign lands is not the spirit of the people of Greece nor do our problems relate to why Greek people do or do not go to Church ...

As such, my point of view is that the Greek church should maintain the traditional liturgy, as Carlos rightly points out since the Greek people CAN understand the liturgical Greek it is jus that they CHOOSE not to go to Church because they have become to lost in the secular way of life and use the bad behaviour of some priests as an excuse to justify their lack of desire to go to church every single Sunday.

Let me just recap: this thread is NOt it is not about whether Americans (or Australians) understand English better than Greek, that American (or Australian) culture is NOT Greek culture, so what you or I think in foreign lands is not the spirit of the people of Greece nor do our problems relate to why Greek people do or do not go to Church, it is about Greece and the needs of GREEK people.

And that being said, it is your opinion, off in Australia, that the Greek people CAN understand the liturgical Greek it is just they, in your opinion, off in Australia, CHOOSE not to go to Church.

Just checking if I understod you right.

The problem is NOT the liturgy - the problem is that the Greek person is TOO lazy to maintain a consistent schedule of attending the Church every Sunday because the Greek person believes it is enough to simply believe in God and they will be saved (I have said it before that the Greek person is lazy but I dont think anyone noticed or understood my comment - I am Greek and I can give you 100% guarantee that you could roll out the liturgy on a silver spoon but if someone does not COMMIT to get to know God properly they will never understand - the VEIL in front of their eyes is the veil that Isaih prophecies about the people).

Unfortunately, this not, by any means an affliction unique to Greeks, nor, thankfully, does it apply to all Greeks.

So, the Church of Greece rather than change the liturgical language needs to outreach to the Greek people and RE-EDUCATE and REMIND THEM what Orthodoxy IS about ...

What language is that re-education going to be in? Demotic? Katharevousa? Koine? Attic?

Also, I think Isa should take his educated points of views and start a new thread that relates directly to what his point is rather than input it into this particular thread

And let things like this stand?

...definately churches need to exist in English for people who are of English background ... but the Greeks need to stick to the original context ....

What we are trying to emphasise is that the authentic church was in Greek and written in Greek and spread in Greek and it is important to always remember this and respect it and also not forget it .... the concern we have is that once America and Australia convert into English ... then the authentic form of Orthodoxy is forgotten and it changes from what it originally was ...

In my tradition, we have guarded the authentic form of Orthodoxy for thousands of years ... the Apostles and Christ himself spoke in Greek - we do not hang on to Greek for the sake of being nationalistic (although some do) we hang onto the Greek because this is how the Apostles gave it to us ....

Now, all you academics out there can argue till the cows come home that its not the case but it was ... u just have to read your bible to know how much love the Apostles had for the Greek LANGUAGE ...

So, when we debate ... we want to hang on to the Greek language because it has the ULTIMATE connection to God ... that does not mean it is bad to celebrate in any other language ... but lose the Greek ... you will lose the identity of the authentic WORDS ....

There is a prophecy that has been around for hundreds of years and we know it ... that is why we fight to keep it from happening ... when the Greek is lost from the church ... then the church will be in the end times ...

Not everything is black and white in Orthodoxy ... ultimately it IS about prayer but many of us know how important it it to also protect it from óther things ...

I WANT Greek in the Liturgy not because I am Greek but because THIS IS the way the CHURCH has celebrated it from the start ... it doesnt change like you say.

We humans have the same phsycology for over 7,500 thousand years and that is why the devil knows how to play us ....

this IS orthodox thinking ... sorry mate .... this IS the thinking that kept the HIDDEN PEARL hidden for 2,000 years - yo'áll here that "those" yucky Greeks (we all love to hate) did us a service ... they kept Orthodoxy alive ... they did it with their blood, they did it with a lack of education and so on and so forth ...

Show some respect. All of early Christianity was involved in Greek literature ... and the epistles are for Greeks ... let us not try to change history because today (for some reason) there is a constant ATTACK on the Greek people and the Greek language ...

God himself loved it .. you should too.

Full Stop.

... as a side matter, the common language spoken in the Holy Land (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Land) at the time of Jesus was Aramaic. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Koine_Greek), the vernacular dialect in 1st century Roman provinces, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. (However, some of the Church Fathers seem to imply that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or more likely Aramaic, and there is another contention that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Neither view holds much support among contemporary scholars, who argue that the literary facets of Matthew and Hebrews suggest that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated.)

So you had to make point, to a point of mine you said was off point?

Aramaic was the common language of Palestine, and we know the Lord spoke it. Greek was spoken more commonly than hereto thought:inscriptions show this, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (parts of which are in Greek. One fragment is claimed to be the earliest Gospel fragment). Koine Greek was the vernacular form of Greek, but Greek wasn't the vernacular of the provinces, it was the lingua franca, overlapping with Aramaic in the Levant.

The idea of revelation nor God holds much support among contemporary scholars (witness the New Revised Standard and the Jesus seminar). Not impressed. I'll go with the earlier witness of the Fathers.

It is notable that many books of the New Testament, especially the Gospel of Mark (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Mark&action=edit) and the Book of Revelation, are written in relatively poor Greek. They are far from the refined Attic Greek or Classical Greek found composed by the higher classes, ruling elites, and trained philosophers of the time. Relative exceptions to this include the gospels of Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Acts_of_the_Apostles).

And you conclude what from that?

If we are to believe that Scripture is the Logos and that nothing has happened by chance - even IF the original texts were Aramaic (which there is no proof for) the actual texts permitted to be passed down by the Holy Spirit remain to be Greek ... I think God knows why he entrusted his Church to the Greek for the first few centuries ...

Perhaps withholding the original words (Hebrew/Aramaic) to prevent us from falling into the errors of the Jews, Muslims and Hinus into thinking that there is such a thing as a sacred language, a language that God speaks as His own, a language one must pray in, understood or not, a language for creating mantras...

let us not try to alter this because we have an agenda we wish to pursue in the 21st century! It is what it is ... if the need now is to translate and change the language so be IT .. however, let us NOT alter history for the sake of our own intellectual arrogance as this is punishable under the laws of God ...

Yes, let us not push our 21st century agenda. Let us follow the spirit of the Apostles, rather than setting their letters into stone. That's Corban.

.. this is laziness i am afraid and simplyfying the liturgy will not fix the problem it will only feed the beast - like Carlos said wisely .. if you give in to the sin of the people you only make things worse ... another analogy:

If a child asks for a chocolate and it is nearly dinner ... as a good parent, do you give the child the chocolate or in your knowledge ask the child to wait for after the dinner meal for his desert? The good parent, no matter how much the child objects, will give the chocolate to the child AFTER dinner ...

Another analogy: the child asks for dinner, and you give them stale leftovers that they can't digest.

A fellow parishoner is Greek, but doesn't understand the services. As far as I can tell, his efforts didn't go beyond Greek school. Now, he comes every Sunday (our services are all English), goes to Bible study, has gone on missions, etc. Is his refusal to study a dead language laziness, or having his priorities in order?

The idea that the liturgy should be in a language understood is as old as Pentacost. It is no sin to demand this, and refusing to learn another language to speak to God is no sin. Translationg the liturgy is not simplifying it (that already happened in the Old Greek), it is simply making it understood. Treating the Church like a fossil, paleontology as liturgics, there's a beast.

Btw, what's this all about?

If Revelation is the living Holy Liturgy (if anyone is not familiar with this teaching let me know) then I wonder how Revelation 22:18-19 can be understood ... ?

Isa Almisry

05-01-2009, 02:59 AM

I appreciate the specialties Mr. Almisry is offering us for our education and edification. I would like to know more of what he is talking about the history of languages;

What would you like to know?

But, hey. I am an outsider trying to understand beyond my comprehension of a culture I never will. SO I will just read along.

Outsider? There are no outsiders in the Church. Besides, you live in God's country.

Attendance in the West (http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=52&SID=3)is up I am pleased to say as it is in the east (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church).

From the rising of the sun to its setting, Praise the Name of the Lord.

Father David Moser

05-01-2009, 05:13 AM

I would like all the members of this community to remember that we expect that all members will treat one another with respect and courtesy. Please watch yourselves as you post and refrain from any comments that might be personally critical of another or which might be construed in a derogatory manner. This discussion has been focused on the use of the language of he people and how that is made real in the services of the Church. Although it started with Greek, certainly the topic has drifted to include Slavonic/Russian and English as well the various languages of the Apostle. Please try and stay on topic as this discussion has seemed to take a very personal turn which is inappropriate for this venue.

Fr David Moser

Alice

05-01-2009, 10:00 AM

Dear Friends,

I know that my posts are largely ignored, (or perhaps just not liked), but please note that when I said this:

Modern Greek may be better for the younger generations which do not go to church. This is the largely churchless generation that Archbishop Christodoulos, of blessed memory, tried everything to help attract to church. I believe it was during his dynamic tenure when the first idea of changing the language came up. Infact, he also saw to it that an English liturgy would be served in Athens for Orthodox from English speaking countries like me. However, after a long wild goose chase, I finally tracked down the Scottish priest who had been serving it, and it seems that this has fallen mostly to the wayside since the Archbishop's death. :-(

I said it from the experience of presently residing in Athens where a huge part of the Greek population also lives.
I said it from the experience of having attended different churches throughout the city.
I said it from the experience of knowing many youth.

My personal opinion is that *anything* that will get the youth anywhere to think about God, to want to know Him, and take their spiritual lives seriously is a first step...a baby step which this young generation, which sometimes despite their parent's best efforts to church them as children, a generation largely raised on immorality and consumerism all around them desperately needs to take. Let's not forget that.

The *RARE* youth I see in church (church goers are generally thirty somethings with children or middle aged and up. The large majority of church goers in Athens are older people, with both men and women equally represented), do come in their street clothes as Archbishop Christodoulos encouraged them to do...

When he died, my 21 year old daughter made his funeral procession as it entered the First Cemetery of Athens and she said that there were more young people her age (and younger) than one has ever seen for such an occasion. Their favorite saying translated was: 'Archbishop Christodoulos, you are cool'. They held banners with that, and they told television cameras that. He loved them and they loved him. He understood what was going on in today's world.

Today's popular culture is so fixating, so enticing, and so all consuming that it will take gargantuan efforts of all kinds for the Church to get the younger generations back in. In the States, in Greek Orthodoxy, it is often said "don't worry, they will be back when they marry and have children of their own", and in great part this is very true...

One such small change which was recently announced is that the Metropolis (Cathedral of Athens) has another liturgy after its first liturgy, which is later in the morning, for the benefit of the youth. (I think this is a good idea, because even my husband and I have been having a hard time with the much earlier hours of church services here)--

This is what this thread's title is about, (changes to attract more people) and that is why the ideal of modern Greek into the Liturgy was first introduced here.

In Christ,
Alice :-)

Kusanagi

05-01-2009, 01:19 PM

Although St. Andrew did evangelize Romania, and she produced martyrs in the Roman period, and from there came St. Cassian (which St. German?) and St. Dionysius Exiguus (who sent up the BC/AD system, and the West's Pachalion) and the other Scythian monks who, among other things, saved the day at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, also came from Romania; nonetheless it is more correct to say that there were Romanian Christians than to say that Romania was Christian. Organization of the Romanian Church was impeded by being in the first province abandoned by empire, before St. Constantine (who was proto-Romanian, btw, as was the emperor Justinian) and before the Era of Migrations which brought in the Slavs who established their dominance. When the Turkic groups followed, they adopted Slavic (hence how the Bulgars became Bulgarians), and when the dust settled, the organization of the Church of the Romanian Lands was done under the auspices of Church Slavonic. This can be seen in the Bible of Bucharest, 1688 by not only its Cyrillic lettering but also its vocabulary, still in liturgical Romanian.

Although during the first Ecumenical Council, Romania did send one of their own Bishop to attend the council as well. During the 1st century there are unknown martyrs whose relics are still on display. During St Basil the Great's time St Sava of Buzau was martyred by the Goth's by being drowned in the river and his relics were transported to Constantinople as requested by St Basil. Depending where you read the source of history, what is known outside Romania is way way different to what is known inside Romania. So i think it's safe for me to agree with Fr Cleopa that Romania (Wallachia) was a Christian land from 1st Century.

But going back on topic, St Comas of Aetolia said to Aromanians living in Northern Greece, that during the Liturgy they should use Greek and not Aromanian, i believe it was intended to help spread the faith via missionary work.

I dont see the fuss about the language to be honest, the Georgians had to change the chanting so their language can fit, and they are turned out fine indeed!:)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-01-2009, 03:15 PM

Dear Friends,

I would like to encourage everyone to read Fr David's post above and take in what is being said in it.

In many areas of the Forum it is very hard to avoid expressions of personal feeling considering the issues being discussed.

However we need to constantly keep in mind the principle of this Forum which is mutual discussion concerning the Church from within the Patristic perspective.

In other words our first effort here should be to consider & discuss from a Church perspective that is beyond our own personal take on an issue.

It is in this way that we keep the Forum focussed and also avoid personal disputes.

Thank you.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nina

05-01-2009, 03:39 PM

However we need to constantly keep in mind the principle of this Forum which is mutual discussion concerning the Church from within the Patristic perspective.

Thank you.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Yes Father.

For this specific thread I would like to mention that both Saint Kosmas Aetolos, and Elder Paisios told us (to the Greek Orthodox at least) to learn Greek. The reasons that Elder Paisios mentions in the book "With love and pain for the contemporary Man" are several. I can quote him later for this thread when I have more time. For me it sounds reasonable. When I spend an inordinate amount of time doing useless things, listening to modern Greek songs, watching modern Greek movies, why shouldn't I spend some time to learn to read my Bible in Greek (this stage of the language is called the New Testmant Greek). V, is right that I am lazy, and to that I would add that I am vain and indolent and spend too much time doing things that do not profit my soul.

However by these words I am not saying that people who are unable to read at all (in every language) are less. Actually I think that a pious, Godly person is just that, no matter the background, education etc. Like the story of the three holy men who ran over the water after the boat to ask the bishop how to recite the Lord's prayer.

Isa Almisry

05-01-2009, 04:31 PM

Dear Friends,

I know that my posts are largely ignored, (or perhaps just not liked), but please note that when I said this:

I said it from the experience of presently residing in Athens where a huge part of the Greek population also lives.
I said it from the experience of having attended different churches throughout the city.
I said it from the experience of knowing many youth.

My personal opinion is that *anything* that will get the youth anywhere to think about God, to want to know Him, and take their spiritual lives seriously is a first step...a baby step which this young generation, which sometimes despite their parent's best efforts to church them as children, a generation largely raised on immorality and consumerism all around them desperately needs to take. Let's not forget that.

The *RARE* youth I see in church (church goers are generally thirty somethings with children or middle aged and up. The large majority of church goers in Athens are older people, with both men and women equally represented), do come in their street clothes as Archbishop Christodoulos encouraged them to do...

When he died, my 21 year old daughter made his funeral procession as it entered the First Cemetery of Athens and she said that there were more young people her age (and younger) than one has ever seen for such an occasion. Their favorite saying translated was: 'Archbishop Christodoulos, you are cool'. They held banners with that, and they told television cameras that. He loved them and they loved him. He understood what was going on in today's world.

Today's popular culture is so fixating, so enticing, and so all consuming that it will take gargantuan efforts of all kinds for the Church to get the younger generations back in. In the States, in Greek Orthodoxy, it is often said "don't worry, they will be back when they marry and have children of their own", and in great part this is very true...

One such small change which was recently announced is that the Metropolis (Cathedral of Athens) has another liturgy after its first liturgy, which is later in the morning, for the benefit of the youth. (I think this is a good idea, because even my husband and I have been having a hard time with the much earlier hours of church services here)--

This is what this thread's title is about, (changes to attract more people) and that is why the ideal of modern Greek into the Liturgy was first introduced here.

In Christ,
Alice :-)

One thing is that it is not a question really of "modernizing" even less "simplifying" the liturgy, but "Demoticizing" it.

Back when Attic was the language of education, the Koine of the Bible was Atticized in liturgical Greek. But then anything formal was in Attic. With the creation of Katharevousa as the vehicle of education, this continued as Katharevousa was to pull Demotic in the direction of Attic. But now, with the abolishment of Katharevousa for 3 decades, any pull it was to exert on Demotic (and it has left an indellible mark) it has done. Liturgical Greek now is in an vacuum.

Besides the idea of attracting the youth, whose education is Demotic, I also fear religating the Church to some quaint relic of the past that has nothing to do with your real life. Do any of the clergy give sermons in liturgical Greek? Or even Katharevousa? Why not? Because they know it is vital that they be understood.

We cannot worship a language as a verbal idol. We must engage, and defeat, and transform the modern world. That debat now in Greece, since 1975, has been in Demotic. The Church can do in it what she did in Attic.

Andreas Moran

05-01-2009, 10:23 PM

Not entirely true. Educated native English speakers can have their difficulties with it.

Evidence? I went to school here. I and my classmates enjoyed our English literature lessons. We studied Shakespeare and all the poets up to the late 19th century who used 'archaisms'.

But you do bring up a point: how far within reach are Shakespeare's plays in the original to Educated, cultivated English speakers? Is there a register in Educated, cultivated modern English within which Shakespearean English resides?

Shakespeare is performed constantly in the original texts. The theatres are full. People read Jonson, Marlowe, Herbert, Marvell, Milton, Gray, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Tennyson . . . Not long ago, I interviewed an 18-year girl who applied to come to study in my department. I asked her what she had read recently that had really gripped her attention. 'Oh', she replied with great enthusiasm, 'Marlowe's "Dr Faustus"'.

Shakespeare can safely be confined to the textbook and theater.

I cannot agree. Shakespeare, like the BCP and the KJV, has shaped our language more than we realise.

You mean like the King James Version intended in the 17th century?

This is only a small part of what has been lost.

What languages?

Greek and Russian?

Or Attic and Slavonic?

Obviously, Church Greek and Church Slavonic.

No. What constitutes educated, cultivated Russian is quite established. Educated, cultivated Dhimotiki maybe less so, given the language question. But any Greek has an idea what language to use when giving a formal speech. I've heard it several times from the pulpit during a sermon. And no, it wasn't Attic.

My wife tells me that modern Russian is incapable of expressing the full meaning of Church Slavonic. It is a fallacy that there is a vernacular English which would serve for church services. What are the models of contemporay English that liturgists would use? Ordinary speech? Newspaper leaders? These do not carry the linguistic forms which are a feature of the divine services. The simple avoidance of archaisms does not lead to a contemporay style of English. Liturgical language is poetic in style. It includes multiple adjectives, adverbial forms, grammar and syntax not found in any forms of contemporary English. I cannot speak for Greek.

How about that one that the ministeries of education teach in schools?

I should find it surprising if a secular government department were to lay down the language of the Church.

One of the most damning remarks (and it wasn't meant to be) about the Orthodox Church I heard was from someone who was going to convert to marry someone Orthodox. I noticed the book they had: it was a language primer. He said "in their Sunday School you don't learn religion. You learn their language."

One isolated example cannot be the determiner of a policy. He should have gone and seen and listened. The emissaries of Grand Prince Vladimir may not have 'understood' the liturgy in Aghia Sophia, yet they reported that 'we knew not whether we were on earth or in heaven for surely on earth there is no such beauty. Only this we know - that God lives there among men'. Thus did Russia become Orthodox.

Why should we assume that things ought to be be easy? Nothing else in the Orthodox spiritual life is easy.

Vasiliki D.

05-01-2009, 10:23 PM

I have more that I wish to pursue relating to this thread but have not got the luxury of time right now. For now, I want to offer two of the many prophecies of Saint Kosmas the Aitolian relevant to this discussion, please note #2. Naturally these are out of context and i wish to review them later in the context of the Greek and the passages that they are taken from ... also, how our Greek church fathers have dealt and discussed these prophecies:

1. A foreign army will come. It will believe in Christ, but it will not speak the (Greek) language.
2. People will become poor because they will become lazy.

Note, "poor" in the context of a Saint or a spiritual father does not refer to material wealth but spiritual wealth. So, if #2 is read as "People will become [spiritually] poor because they will become lazy" then you start to associate this point with other reply's I have made all along ... note, Saint Kosmas's prophecies are unique for Greece and not other nations ... so, "lazy" is a direct reference to Greek people.

Vasiliki D.

05-01-2009, 10:29 PM

Isa Almisry

06-01-2009, 07:56 AM

Another prophecy by St. Kosmas the Aetolian, relevant to this discussion:

"The evil will come to you from the learned."

It is by the intelligentsia that atheistic, materialistic, anti-Christian, soul-corrupting ideas have been introduced into Greece from Western Europe and the rest of the world.

... and so, we start to join the dots ... more to follow.

This is not so much a prophecy: Origen was learned. Nestorius was learned.

But then so were SS John Chrysostom and Gregory the Great.

And from where I come, atheism and materialism and soul-corrupting ideas are traced to the Greek philosophers, an idea that SS John and Gregory shared: when they said "Greek," they meant "pagan."

And to be frank, the Attic movement, which gave Greek its diglossia and the issue we are wrestling with, and the Renaissance, which led the West towards the path you outline above, spring from a common source, and its not the Gospel.

Vasiliki D.

06-01-2009, 08:14 AM

This is not so much a prophecy: Origen was learned. Nestorius was learned.

But then so were SS John Chrysostom and Gregory the Great.

And from where I come, atheism and materialism and soul-corrupting ideas are traced to the Greek philosophers, an idea that SS John and Gregory shared: when they said "Greek," they meant "pagan."

And to be frank, the Attic movement, which gave Greek its diglossia and the issue we are wrestling with, and the Renaissance, which led the West towards the path you outline above, spring from a common source, and its not the Gospel.

I dont believe that the prophecy is referring to ORTHODOX intellectuals :-) I think he is referring to outside intelligence so it is not about Basil or Gregory that we are speaking about ... also, there intentions for the Church where filled by guidance from the Holy Spirit since they functioned within the body that is the Church.

Could you please provide a citation for what the Attic movement is and where someone who is not learned on this read up on. To make references to Greek lingua, it would be useful to also provide a further reading opportunity ... thanks heaps.

Second, I am not talking about the West or the East - Saint Kosmas the Aotalian lays out a prophecy about Greece - he is one of the MOST prophetic Saints of the Orthodox Church ... and this specific prophecy is about Greece and the influence of the West on the personality of Greece ...

Outcomes such as do we or do we not simplify the Liturgy are directly influenced by this prophecy since the need to do this would not be necessary if Greece still retained its old character ... very complex phsychological profiling of Greece is required to be able to completely engage in a proper discussion and its also hard to do with the Internet ...

Isa Almisry

06-01-2009, 08:56 AM

Evidence? I went to school here. I and my classmates enjoyed our English literature lessons. We studied Shakespeare and all the poets up to the late 19th century who used 'archaisms'.

Can you compose in such language? I teach language, and sign of mastery, or lack, of a language is the ability to comunicate in it. I teach Arabic. Many Muslims can recite the whole Quran for me, but like a parrot, having no idea what they are saying.

Note: you mention poets up to over a century ago. What happened?

Not that educated English can't understand it: they are the only ones who can tackle it. But the Gospel isn't addressed just to the Educated elite: we went early on against the gnostics on exactly this point.

Modern topics can be done in Elizabethan English: they just aren't. I was laughing to tears over a The Onion satire over the American election, where the archaic English was interplaying between present events and projected back to 1776. Part of what was so funny was that it was archaic. I also couldn't explain to most people why it was so funny: it would have to be explained, which always kills a joke.

Shakespeare is performed constantly in the original texts. The theatres are full. People read Jonson, Marlowe, Herbert, Marvell, Milton, Gray, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Tennyson . . . Not long ago, I interviewed an 18-year girl who applied to come to study in my department. I asked her what she had read recently that had really gripped her attention. 'Oh', she replied with great enthusiasm, 'Marlowe's "Dr Faustus"'.

Will she be doing here dissertation in such language? I mean, will her defense be in Elizabethan English?

I cannot agree. Shakespeare, like the BCP and the KJV, has shaped our language more than we realise.

I didn't say they didn't.

But misunderstanding Shakespeare isn't going to place your immortal soul in danger in most circumstances. And yes, I think your existence is impoverished if you leave Shakespeare as soon as you pass your English final and close the textbook, but it isn't imperiled as it is if the DL is dissassociated from your life.

This is only a small part of what has been lost.

The time for mourning had come to an end.

Obviously, Church Greek and Church Slavonic.

Why Atticized Koine, when Greece has moved on to Demotic, and CS when Russia has moved on to Russian? It may not be beyond them, but why should they bother: that hasn't been answered.

My wife tells me that modern Russian is incapable of expressing the full meaning of Church Slavonic.

To put it bluntly, you can say anything in one language that you can say in another. That's the nature of language. Now, there is a discrepancy between a cultivated language like Greek (including Demotic) or English or Russian on the one hand, and a pidgin on the other, but even pidgin can be pressed into service: hence Middle English.

It is a fallacy that there is a vernacular English which would serve for church services. What are the models of contemporay English that liturgists would use? Ordinary speech? Newspaper leaders?

You are not going to convince me that you do not have a fairly definitive idea of what language the Queen is going to use in her address to parliament.

These do not carry the linguistic forms which are a feature of the divine services. The simple avoidance of archaisms does not lead to a contemporay style of English. Liturgical language is poetic in style. It includes multiple adjectives, adverbial forms, grammar and syntax not found in any forms of contemporary English.

So poetry had died out in English, has it?

Newspapers do not avoid archaism, they differ in how they use them. Nor does the retension of archaism automatically make something poetic, sometimes it just makes it obscure. Not the Mystery and mystic we are looking for.

A typical legal pleading has its fair share of archaism: does that make it liturgical?

I should find it surprising if a secular government department were to lay down the language of the Church.

LOL. And who did the KJV and the BCP?

Secular education set the language in the early Church: the NT as a whole did not fall for the Atticists, but the Fathers did. Early canons forbid Christians from teaching, because of the Atticism and the emphasis on pagan models. Julian the Apostate even enforced these canons. The Church's response: a translation of the Bible into Homeric verse. That is why what is called "liturgical Greek," is really Atticized Koine: if they could have changed the text of the NT, it would have been pure Attic.

One isolated example cannot be the determiner of a policy.

That's just it: it is FAR from isolated.

He should have gone and seen and listened.

And why are you assuming he didn't?

The emissaries of Grand Prince Vladimir may not have 'understood' the liturgy in Aghia Sophia, yet they reported that 'we knew not whether we were on earth or in heaven for surely on earth there is no such beauty. Only this we know - that God lives there among men'. Thus did Russia become Orthodox.

And if understanding wasn't important, why did they import the Old Slavonic books, not only in Cyrillic but Glagolitic as well? Why not take the Greek books?

The Fathers didn't compose hymns for effect. They wrote them for understanding.

Why should we assume that things ought to be be easy? Nothing else in the Orthodox spiritual life is easy.

I'm not speaking of the difficult. I'm speaking of the unnecessary.

Andreas Moran

06-01-2009, 10:05 AM

Can you compose in such language?

Yes.

Many Muslims can recite the whole Quran for me, but like a parrot, having no idea what they are saying.

Not good.

Note: you mention poets up to over a century ago. What happened?

My point was that children learn poetry of different centuries. Modern poetry does not use plain, vernacular English which is easily understood, for example, as in T S Eliot. English was at its finest (say those who know) in the late 16th and early 17th centuries; that it probably why the style lasted so long. There is an argument that we offer the best to God and traditional litugical English has been held by many (not least Elder Sophrony) to be the best.

Not that educated English can't understand it: they are the only ones who can tackle it.

With higher education so widespread and secondary education supposedly doing well, who are the uneducated English? Are there really people so thick that they cannot follow traditional liturgical English? The KJV was all that one could find when I was a schoolboy; those who wished to managed. The average English person with little interest in Christianity who wandered into a church (not only an Orthodox church) would not understand the real meaning of the texts. This is because such a person is not attuned to forms of religious expression.

Will she be doing here dissertation in such language? I mean, will her defense be in Elizabethan English?

I think the point I was trying to make would have been clear to everyone.

But misunderstanding Shakespeare isn't going to place your immortal soul in danger in most circumstances. And yes, I think your existence is impoverished if you leave Shakespeare as soon as you pass your English final and close the textbook, but it isn't imperiled as it is if the DL is dissassociated from your life.

Of course.

The time for mourning had come to an end.

Tell that to the very many Anglicans who feel that their church cared nothing for them or their wishes and left them. The trend there started with linguistic innovation: it has reached the point where the C of E (which will have women bishops before long) hardly deserves to be called a church anymore.

Why Atticized Koine, when Greece has moved on to Demotic, and CS when Russia has moved on to Russian? It may not be beyond them, but why should they bother: that hasn't been answered.

Others can speak better for Greek (and I'm aware that this thread is mainly about Greek) but Russians do not want modern Russian even if that was capable (which it is not) of doing the job just as well. Why bother? Because they love its beauty, they know they are using the language of the saints of all ages, it is constant and unchanging like the Orthodox faith itself. Because that which takes no effort is not worthwhile.

So poetry had died out in English, has it?

If you know of any contemporary English poetry which stands comparison with Keats or Tennyson, do let me know. Even so, what poetry would use a construction such as the verse we sing to the Mother of God at the end of a litany: four adjectives and two forms of nomenclature?

sometimes it just makes it obscure. Not the Mystery and mystic we are looking for.

'Mystery' and easy clarity somehow don't go together to my mind.

And who did the KJV and the BCP?

(a) King James I as supreme governor of the Church of England (b) some archbishop, I think.

Why not take the Greek books?

Because SS Cyril and Methodius had already done the Church Slavonic books.

The Fathers didn't compose hymns for effect. They wrote them for understanding.

I had always assumed they wrote them to praise God.

I'm not speaking of the difficult. I'm speaking of the unnecessary.

Church Greek and Church Slavonic 'unnecessary'? I don't think you'll have many takers for that view. Certainly not here in Russia.

Should we pray for 'temperate seasons, and an abundance of the fruits of the earth', or for 'nice weather and lots of stuff in the supermarket'?

Nina

06-01-2009, 10:52 AM

And from where I come, atheism and materialism and soul-corrupting ideas are traced to the Greek philosophers, an idea that SS John and Gregory shared: when they said "Greek," they meant "pagan."

Excuse me?!!!!!!!

Anthony

06-01-2009, 11:43 AM

With higher education so widespread and secondary education supposedly doing well, who are the uneducated English? Are there really people so thick that they cannot follow traditional liturgical English? The KJV was all that one could find when I was a schoolboy; those who wished to managed. The average English person with little interest in Christianity who wandered into a church (not only an Orthodox church) would not understand the real meaning of the texts. This is because such a person is not attuned to forms of religious expression.

There have been cases here on Monachos of avoidable misunderstandings of biblical texts caused purely by use of archaic translations. Nothing to do with anybody being "thick".

Others can speak better for Greek (and I'm aware that this thread is mainly about Greek) but Russians do not want modern Russian even if that was capable (which it is not) of doing the job just as well. Why bother? Because they love its beauty, they know they are using the language of the saints of all ages, it is constant and unchanging like the Orthodox faith itself. Because that which takes no effort is not worthwhile.

This in fact points to the basic difference between the debate about Greek or Slavonic and the debate about English. Ecclesiastical Greek and Slavonic have been used for centuries to express Orthodoxy, and are held in veneration because of this. English is different in that there is no body of literature in English (since Anglo-Saxon times) that has any claim to deference whatsoever on the part of Orthodox Christians. By "deference" I do not mean that it has no value, but that it cannot be imposed as some kind of criterion of Orthodoxy.

In the sense of Orthodox tradition there is in fact no "traditional liturgical English". The phrase, if used to exploit the associations that "tradition" has for the Orthodox, is no more than a rhetorical trick. I trust people are not falling for it.

If you know of any contemporary English poetry which stands comparison with Keats or Tennyson, do let me know.

Wilfred Owen? (Switched from writing second-rate imitation Keats, with "thou", to his own best poetry, generally with "you".)

Should we pray for 'temperate seasons, and an abundance of the fruits of the earth', or for 'nice weather and lots of stuff in the supermarket'?

Sorry, but obviously just a cheap caricature.