posted 05-16-2001 03:53 PM            

The language used by our people in the Liturgy is called Church- or Old-Slavonic. It is called Church- Slavonic, since its use is limited to the Church for the liturgical services. It is also called Old-Slavonic, since in former times it was the common language of Slavic tribes. Some Slavists refer to it as the "Old-Bulgarian" language, but incorrectly.

The Slavonic language was introduced into the Byzantine liturgy by the Apostles of the Slavs, SS. Cyril and Methodius, during their missionary activity in Great Moravia. The missionary brothers were sons of a high ranking officer (Gr. "drungarious") Leo, who was attached to the governor of the Macedonian province. During the eighth century this whole province became occupied by the Slavic tribes. Thus SS. Cyril and Methodius were familiar with the Slavic dialect as spoken at that time in Macedonia.

Constantine, known mostly by his religious name Cyril, was one of the finest linguists in the whole Empire. Commanding a sufficient knowledge of the Slavic dialect of Macedonia, he created the first Slavic alphabet, called ''Glagolitic" (Sl. "hlaholati"-to speak). From the testimony of the monk Khrabr in the tenth century, we read:

"Being still pagans, the Slavs did not have their own letters, but read and communicated by means of tallies and sketches. After their Baptism they were forced to use Roman and Greek letters in the transcription of their Slavic words but these were not suitable ... At last, God, in his love for mankind, sent them St. Constantine the Philosopher, called Cyril, a learned and upright man, who composed for them thirty-eight letters, some (24 of them) similar to the Greek, but some (14 of them) different, suitable to express Slavic sounds" (cfr. E. Sabov, Khristomatia, Ungvar 1893, p. 174-175).

Inscription in Glagolitic

"JEVA (N) HELIE OT LUKI"

Having devised the Slavic alphabet, St. Cyril, along which his brother and disciples, began to translate Liturgical Books and excerpts from the Holy Scriptures, which he brought with him in Moravia in 863. The literary work of both brothers was indeed a wondrous and far reaching event in the religious and cultural life of the Slavic peoples, especially those who retained the Cyrillic alphabet and the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite.

We consider the literary work of SS. Cyril and Methodius sacred, since it was motivated by a most sacred cause, namely, the evangelization of the Slavic peoples, a magnanimous response to the sacred commission of Christ: ''Preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mr. 16:15).

It was done not without God's assistance, as we read in Constantine's Life: "The Philosopher (i.e. St. Cyril) withdrew and, according to his custom, had recourse to fervent prayer with his several companions who shared his ideas. Presently God, Who always hears the prayers of His servants, revealed to him what he desired to know. At once he formed the letters and proceeded then to write the words of the Gospel in Slavonic: 'In the beginning was the Word' (Jn. 1:1)." Pope Adrian II ascribed the invention of the Slavic letters to the "grace of God and the intercession of St. Clement" (cfr. his breve "Gloria in Excelsis," of 869).

The invention of the Slavic letters and introduction of the Slavonic language into worship could be considered a genial work, a real miracle, since it surpassed all the literary attempts made in the Middle Ages. We have to bear in mind that the literary work of the brothers was revolutionary, for which they suffered humiliations, persecutions and even imprisonment. By introducing the Slavonic language into the divine worship, SS. Cyril and Methodius infuriated the powerful and very influential Frankish clergy, and lost the support of the Prince. And yet, these two dedicated missionaries, who did not even belong to the Slavic people, were able to fashion a literary language for the Slavs, which until today is our common heritage and pride.

Even non-Slavic linguists, experts in comparative philology, cannot find adequate words in in praise of the beauty and perfection of Slavonic, admiring its flexibility, nuances and force of expression. They unanimously agree that "the greatness of the Slavonic language, even from the standpoint of philological workmanship. can not be surpassed" (cfr. Van Wijk, Nahtigal, Brueckner, etc.). A great admirer of SS. Cyril and Methodius, the Rev. Francis Grivec, University professor in Zagreb, Yugoslavia, wrote an entire '"Meditation" on the excellence, sacredness and geniality of the Slavonic tongue, concluding: "The whole Old-Slavonic literature, not only by its origins, but also by its contents is entirely Christian and spiritual. Therefore, not without foundation, the linguists call it a Church Slavonic language" (cfr. Acta Academiae Velehradenis, Olomouc 1947, p 75-84).

The Old-Slavonic language, as it was devised by the Apostles of the Slavs, underwent some changes and morphological modifications during the course of centuries. First of all, the elaborate (glagolitic alphabet was simplified by one of St. Cyril's eminent disciples, probably the presbyter Constantine. He called this new alphabet Cyrillic, in honor of his inspired teacher. Thus, during the tenth and eleventh centuries a more practical and simpler Cyrillic alphabet came into common use. It is the very same alphabet used in our liturgical Books even today.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Cyrillic alphabet was simplified even more by the Russians and somewhat modified according to the exigences of the spoken language. In 1713, Czar Peter the Great, ordered its use in all "civil (hrazhdanski") matters, hence it was called the Civil Alphabet ("Hrazhdanka"). The Civil alphabet spread from Russia to other Slavic peoples. Thus today we have, really, two Cyrillic alphabets, one-Church-Cyrillic, used in Liturgical Books and another-Civil-Cyrillic-Alphabet, used for profane purposes.

The Old-Slavonic language also underwent some morphological and lexical changes being influenced by various spoken dialects. Until the tenth century the dialectical differences of Slavonic languages were negligible and the Old-Slavonic language was used as a literary language by all the Slavs. But during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when the evolution of various Slavic languages took its full course, the Old-Slavonic was somewhat modified by each particular group, introducing it into their literature-. At the present time the linguists distinguish various types of Old-Slavonic, recognizing Serbian, Bulgarian, Croatian-Glagolitic, Russian and Ruthenian (Rusyn and Ukrainian) types

In our churches the Rusyn type of the Slavonic language is used, as it developed in Kievian Rus'. It took its definite shape in 1619, when Meletius Smotricky published his famous Grammar of the Church Slavonic language.

The spoken language supplanted the Old-Slavonic in profane literature during the fifteenth, limiting its use only to the Church. Hence the change of its name to Church Slavonic. In the Carpathian region, where the Church was the only bulwark of our national and cultural life, until the middle of the last century the Church-Slavonic was considered as our national literary language. In 1805, announcing the publication of the Old-Slavonic Bible, our enlightened Bishop Andrew Bachinsky wrote:

"Ready, at last, is the Bible, namely the Books of the Holy Scriptures, published in our Rusyn language (in fact--in Church-Slavonic)... If you will diligently read it and explain it to the people, you will not only guide them toward the knowledge of the truth, but also you will preserve and strengthen our native tongue, literature, nationality and religion" (cfr. his Pastoral Letter, in Naukovyj Zbirnyk, Svidnyk 1967, p. 213- 241).

From the above quotation we can conclude that our great Bishop Andrew Bachinsky (+1809) still identified liturgical language with literary language, calling the Church-Slavonic our native and national tongue.

Another example is the Rev. Michael Luchkay's "Grammatica Slavo-Ruthena," written in Latin and published in Budapest, 1830. In the Preface, Luchkay affirms that our spoken language differs from Polish, Bohemian or Russian, therefore, we should accept as our literary language Church-Slavonic, which "is considered to be our native language, easily understood by other Slavs" (N.B.-Accidentally, I discovered Luchkay's Grammar of 1810 in the Chicago Public Library).

It was only during the period of our re-awakening, after 1848, that our writers began to introduce the spoken language into our literature (for the various samples of our language cfr. Sabov's Khristomatia). Due to the conservatism of our clergy, who lacked education in their native tongue, the influence of Church-Slavonic on our literary language remains strongly felt until this day. What a pity that such a great treasure, our Church- Slavonic language, is completely neglected in our parochial schools. No wonder, that with the language, our Slavonic Rite also becomes neglected and obsolete.

posted 05-16-2001 04:15 PM               

I don't know what others will say about this (actually, with all due respect, I don't care! ), but I agree with you.

The modern Ukrainian used in my Church's liturgy can be a bit trying at times.

Patriarch Slipyj's translation uses a lot of anachronisms taken from the Slavonic language (scholars Over There just use "Slavonic" period).

Modern translators have also found that there are words whose meanings would truly be lost if they would alter their original Slavonic roots e.g. "Nasuschnej" or "Daily," or "Suschu Bohoroditsu" etc.

I found that my understanding of Ukrainian and other Slavic tongues is deepened through greater familiarity with Slavonic.

Slavonic was the language that brought Christianity very close to the people and helped greatly in the inculturation of Christianity in Eastern Europe.

It is a beautiful, melodious language that sings in one's ear, much like the King James English.

I had a moving moment at a funeral for a Slavic friend.

After saying a few words at the gravesite in Ukrainian, I recited some prayers in Slavonic. The people joined in with me and this was all so beautiful!

There is something in the views of those who say we should pray in an other-worldly, non-secular, "mystical" language i.e. Latin, Slavonic and so on.

I find that using Slavonic in prayer stills one's thoughts and allows one to concentrate fully on the object of our worship.

My thoughts on this, anyway . . .

Hospody Isuse Khriste, Syne Bozhiy, pomiluy mya hrishnaho!

Alex

posted 05-17-2001 01:48 PM               

You write:

"What a pity that such a great treasure, our Church- Slavonic language, is completely neglected in our parochial schools. No wonder, that with the language, our Slavonic Rite also becomes neglected and obsolete."

I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. In fact, I think that in THIS country it is best to use English. Why? Because here in the United States, the Byzantine Catholic Church serves the needs of people of various ethnic backgrounds. Placing an undue stress on Church Slavonic because "it is the language of our people" can isolate those who have no Slavic roots. Likewise, it can send out a strong signal that converts are not welcome.

We cannot forget the prophetic warning of the late Archbishop Joseph Tawil of blessed memory:

"One day all our ethnic traits - language, folklore, customs - will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, primarily for the service of the immigrant or the ethnically oriented, unless we wish to assure the death of our community. Our Churches are not only for our own people but are also for any of our fellow Americans who are attracted to our traditions which show forth the beauty of the universal Church and the variety of its riches." - from The Courage to Be Ourselves, 1970.

This having been said, there IS a place for Church Slavonic in parts of the liturgy. On certain occassions, parts of the Liturgy that everyone is very familiar with can be taken in Slavonic... such as the Trisagion or Christ is Risen. That is similiar to how Latin parishes often take the Agnus Dei or the Sanctus. But I do think that we have made the right decision to use English as our primary liturgical language in the U.S.A.

posted 05-30-2001 12:54 AM               

Thank you for your post. I agree with you entirely, that Church Slavonic must not only be preserved, but also made a more integral and responsive part of our Byzantine Church life.

It seems to me that unless this happens, the Church Liturgy and all that makes the Liturgy meaningful will whither away. The logic of belief and the preservation of the original sanctity of the Eastern Church demand the faithful use of Slavonic. The Church and the truth of its orthodoxy (Orthodoxy?) will ultimately be made meaningless in translation, when we rely upon translation alone, as we now are.

A similar discussion is printed in vol. vii, #1, edition of the Eastern Churches Journal ("What Does This Mean?"), Pp. 125 - 134. Although the sermon refers to a different language, the same pricipals apply. While the author strongly supports the teaching of the Gospel in each nation's tongue, he also recognizes that language has an effect on how a particular people thinks, speaks, and writes, The author quotes "Oriental Lumen"

"The proclamation of the Gospel should be deeply rooted in what is distinctive to each
culture and open to conveyance in a universality which explores an exchange for the sake of mutual enrichment."

It is clear to me that the author of "What...?" has an authoritative grasp of what is necessary to preserve what is meant: by preserving the lanuage which expresses its meaning. To lose the language is to lose the meaning. In addition, the poetry or uplifting beauty of the meaning, is almost assuredly lost as well. This may not be an immediate result, but in this country of ours it seems to be a degenerative certainty. Witness ICEL,et. al. as culturally significant.

Dragani supports use of the English to the exclusion of the Slavonic, to reduce the significance of the Slavic nature of our Church, stating that use of the English is the only way to be inclusuve of the various ethnic backgrounds within the Church.

Go West, Anthony. Western parishes have a range of racial and ethnic membership that is glorious, and not because of the English. The Church and its spiritual life are the reasons for growth. The spiritual life of our Church is directly related to the relationship the Chuch has had with God since the beginnings of the Church in Slavic lands. That relationship has been preserved unchanged in the Liturgy and belief so that it is our path of salvation today.

When I entered the Eastern Church many years ago, I truly grieved that I was leaving behind old memories of a prayer life rich in Irish and Latin influence. My answer to my earlier ethnic loneliness has been my undying gratitude for the Slavic preservation of a true Church. Our Slavic brothers and sisters have maintained a true Church by NOT losing it all in the translation, so to speak. To eliminate that language of preservation except "On cetain occasions....", would be the end of it. No one would know, "What Does This Mean?'

Slavonic needs to be taught to the Faithful in the schools, and in adult education classes. NOT the Russian, NOT the Serbian, NOT the Ukranian, but the LITURGICAL Slavonic. Unless we can absorb the meaning as it was, we will surely never learn the meaning of it all, and the truth of our Orthodoxy will be lost to future generations.

Should we deny the universality of the Slavonic as the Roman Church did the Latin? How will we avoid the same fate? Are not the actions and the downhill development in this country's Western Chuch not related?

If it is reasonable to use ONLY the English in Liturgical and personal prayer, should it not be as equally reasonable to get local artists to teach our Iconographers "how to draw?" Should we not have Icons that are more relevant to our American experience? DO we need to get rid of the "foreign" and "non inclusive" letters and words. Is What we really need blond and red hair and freckles to adequately represent our current American parishes, and to get those Saints looking real so that we can "relate"?

posted 05-30-2001 08:46 AM               

Points very well taken!

As a matter of fact, when the Eparchy of Eastern Canada used Slavonic as its liturgical language, we could count other national groups among us, including Slovaks, Hungarians and others who used Slavonic.

Once (what the translators say is)modern Ukrainian was put into use, we were divided on ethnic lines.

Slavonic once maintained both our Slavic/Eastern European religious and cultural patrimony and identity as well as a greater sense of the Catholicity of the Church.

God bless,

posted 05-30-2001 08:51 AM            

Maura

posted 05-30-2001 09:48 AM               

Go and make disciples of all nations, but be sure to teach them the right language first.

Right.

Sharon

posted 05-30-2001 09:57 AM               

Actually, what Scythian is referring to is the spiritual/cultural context in which our Liturgy exists and is made meaningful for the people of the Particular Church who use it.

Language is itself an expression of culture through sound and is integrally related to culture itself.

That doesn't mean that no other language can be used, only that Slavonic has a cultural relation to our Church as a medium through the Gospel is communicated within a Slavic context.

This is why Slavonic should be preserved and maintained.

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by maura:
Scythian writes:
"It seems to me that unless this happens, the Church Liturgy and all that makes the Liturgy meaningful will whither away."


Is it language that makes the Liturgy meaningful?????

Maura

[This message has been edited by maura (edited 05-30-2001).]

---

posted 05-30-2001 10:00 AM               

Cyril and Methodius DID teach the Slavs the right language - the language that was right for them then and still has meaning from a Slavic cultural perspective today.

You know that water that runs along the edge of the Eastern board of the U.S.? Well, if you travel East on it long enough you will come to some more land where people speak a whole bunch of other languages, dead and living, and use both kinds in their worship etc.

Ba shana haba bi-Yerushalayim!

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharon Mech:
Those dumb missionaries. If Cyril & Methodius had had any sense at all, they would have made sure those unwashed heathens learned Greek before they let 'em into the Church.

Go and make disciples of all nations, but be sure to teach them the right language first.

Right.

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

---

posted 05-30-2001 10:50 AM               

I have great respect for the huge patrimony of Slavonic music, liturgy, etc. But we DO have a 1000 year tradition of Liturgy in the vernacular, - or at least in a language understandable to the people. At least in Columbus, Slavonic doesn't qualify.

My parish is largely non-ethnic. Yet we persist in celebrating two more-or-less Slavonic Liturgies each month. On those Sundays there are fewer children in church, and some families don't show up at all. There are probably a dozen (mostly elderly) Ukrainians who pretty well understand it. WHAT SENSE DOES THIS MAKE????? The catechetical value of the Liturgy is lost for most of the parish. Wanna talk about evangelism? How accessible is the message of the Gospel, the message of the Liturgy to any outsider who should happen to wander in? Or to "insiders" who aren't either Slavs, or linguists? I don't buy the "well gee, the English is on the other side of the page" argument. Yes it is. So what? The Liturgy isn't to be read or translated, it is to be participated in , and to be prayed! My husband calls Slavonic Sundays "hum-along-Sundays." Why should he or my children be expected to learn Slavonic? It's not our ethic heritage. It is NOT irretrievably bound up in our theology, our faith or our worship. We are in America to stay. Isn't it about time that we made provision for that?

Or aren't we "real" Byzantine Catholics?

Sharon

posted 05-30-2001 11:33 AM               

You are truly one of the most real persons I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, if only over the internet!

I agree that it doesn't make sense to have Slavic language liturgies when people no longer "speaka da language."

I take it what is done where you are is done as part of a vestige of cultural patriotism since the Church was not only a spiritual institution, but also a defender of the cultural and language rights of the people.

For example, Father Markian Shashkevych was a Greek Catholic priest living in Western Ukraine at a time in the nineteenth century when all the sermons were given to Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholics in Polish.

He dared to do his sermons in Ukrainian. Yes, he did this to better communicate the Gospel to his flock. But he also did this out of a sense of true patriotism and his actions were and are greatly appreciated by all Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholics.

He was personally persecuted for his actions until he died at an early age. There is a three bar Orthodox Cross that marks his grave.

The language may become an anachronism. But I know many in Canada who speak it barely, yet demand that the language of their fathers and forefathers be maintained in the liturgy.

Perhaps if they were really serious about it, they would learn the language so as to understand it better?

I mastered Ukrainian in two years, read and write in it and have way more to learn.

If you want the language, learn it, I say!

You are so wonderful, what can I say?

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharon Mech:
Alex,

I have great respect for the huge patrimony of Slavonic music, liturgy, etc. But we DO have a 1000 year tradition of Liturgy in the vernacular, - or at least in a language understandable to the people. At least in Columbus, Slavonic doesn't qualify.

My parish is largely non-ethnic. Yet we persist in celebrating two more-or-less Slavonic Liturgies each month. On those Sundays there are fewer children in church, and some families don't show up at all. There are probably a dozen (mostly elderly) Ukrainians who pretty well understand it. WHAT SENSE DOES THIS MAKE????? The catechetical value of the Liturgy is lost for most of the parish. Wanna talk about evangelism? How accessible is the message of the Gospel, the message of the Liturgy to any outsider who should happen to wander in? Or to "insiders" who aren't either Slavs, or linguists? I don't buy the "well gee, the English is on the other side of the page" argument. Yes it is. So what? The Liturgy isn't to be read or translated, it is to be participated in , and to be prayed! My husband calls Slavonic Sundays "hum-along-Sundays." Why should he or my children be expected to learn Slavonic? It's not our ethic heritage. It is NOT irretrievably bound up in our theology, our faith or our worship. We are in America to stay. Isn't it about time that we made provision for that?

Or aren't we "real" Byzantine Catholics?

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

---

posted 05-30-2001 12:15 PM               

Currently our Church performs the matins in Church Slavonic and the Liturgy mostly in English. It seems to be a good compromise.

However, what does a guy like me do? I have learned over the years the traditional greetings and the basic reponses in relation to the Liturgy but I do not know the language.

I don't know who even teaches Church Slavonic. I have a friend who is Ukranian Catholic and speaks it fluently. He learned it from his grandmother. My grandparents came here from the Carpathian Mountains. However, these relatives have long sinced passed on leaving me with no relatives who speak the language. How do I learn?

This is the problem. We want people to stay with the traditional liturgical language, but don't take the time to set up opportunities to teach them. I would be the first to attend such classes. I speak only English, I would love to learn a language that would be useful to me.

I just think that in order to be against using English as the main liturgical language, you must also supply a service to teach the members Church Slavonic.

Just my thoughts,

erik

posted 05-30-2001 12:22 PM               

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

Church Slavonic isn't something that one can learn to speak, but, like Latin, to read.

Most Churches in Canada have brought in modern Ukrainian and the other languages that are used, including English.

The way I learned to read Slavonic is by studing the alphabet where there are different letters from the modern Slavic ones.

Then I used a dictionary to check out the words I really didn't have any idea about.

What I found is that the study of Slavonic is an aid in getting a better grasp of a modern Slavic language.

But what you say is true (about learning resources).

That you would want to make that time commitment is to your great credit!

God bless,

posted 05-30-2001 12:43 PM               

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I wish I had your gift for languages. I don't. (It would make my life easier if I could read Cyrillic easily, since most of our liturgical source materials have yet to be translated.) 5 years of Hebrew gave me the ability to read, to speak a very little bit, and a little understanding. To be absolutely honest, even if I had the inclination, I don't have the time to try learning yet another language. (If I had more time, I would spend it with my family, and maybe my house would be cleaner.)

There's nothing inherently holy about any specific language. God is holy. God dwells in the praises of His people. I'd rather praise Him using words I know than in a language I've learned to parrot. No matter how good my pronunciation is, beyond about 20 words, I really don't know what I'm saying when I pray in Slavonic.

And again - I must come back to the issue of evangelism. We are COMMANDED to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ. How are we to bring new souls in if we insist on using a language which nobody speaks? (Mebbe it's different in Canada) Or are we sent only to evangelize Slavs and linguists?

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

posted 05-30-2001 01:01 PM               

Yes, in Canada, perhaps owing to multiculturalism and other factors, the ethnic language is still big, especially in the East.

I'm certainly not suggesting (Heaven forbid!) that God can only be approached in some languages and not in others.

But for Slavic Churches in particular, it MAY be the case that people may want to keep a vestige of the Church Slavonic.

It used to be that in Eastern Canada there was a movement against Church Slavonic and in favour of modern Ukrainian.

We didn't get the familiar modern Ukrainian liturgy here until 1970.

I had to learn the Creed off by heart in Church Slavonic when I had a poor understanding of modern Ukrainian. Now that was insanity!

It would depend on the parish, on the people, on the perogies . . .

I find the more sour cream and fried onions I have with the perogies, along with the odd shot of vodka, the more understandable Slavonic becomes . . .

I don't disagree with you. You are right. You are always right!

posted 05-30-2001 01:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharon Mech:
There's nothing inherently holy about any specific language. God is holy. God dwells in the praises of His people. I'd rather praise Him using words I know than in a language I've learned to parrot. No matter how good my pronunciation is, beyond about 20 words, I really don't know what I'm saying when I pray in Slavonic.

---

Dear Sharon,

posted 05-30-2001 01:17 PM            

I personally don't know much about Church Slavonic, as I'm a Melkite, but I do know a little about language problems in our Church. For this reason, I think I support Sharon's position.

A recent article in Logos Journal of Eastern Christian Studies by Bishop Nicholas Samra had the bishop quoted as saying that at least 60% of Canadian born Melkites no longer attended the Melkite Church. I was very shocked to hear that the number was so high!

I think one of the problems, as Sharon noted, is the sheer difficulty of learning a new language. The Arabic which is used in our liturgies is literary Arabic, which is a great deal harder to understand than the vernacular Arabic spoken in the home. Consequently, even those who speak fluent Arabic may only be able to understand a bare minimum of the liturgical service.

One possible answer to this is Arabic school, but even this isn't the best solution, because to learn a language one has to be commited, which many kids who are surrounded by all English-speaking people in schools and neighborhoods are not. There just isn't the incentive to learn.

I have been told by a person fluent in Arabic, among other languages, that to master Arabic in North America, without the benefit of being able to use the language frequently, it would take at least ten years. Should this be what is required for someone to have a life in the Church? Somehow I don't think this is right.

Sadly, it appears that many people, not being able to understand what is going on when they go to Church, just start going to a Roman Church, or worse, stop going at all.

Sorry for prattling on. Just thought I'd share my experience with this.

posted 05-30-2001 01:34 PM               

I agree with your points, absolutely!

I am just saying that there are Churches which still hang on to the original ethnic and even Church liturgical languages and that they will continue to do so until the socio-cultural circumstances change for them!

A bishop I know has tried to get all his parishes to have one English-language Liturgy and he has met with stiff opposition in some urban parishes.

Everyone should worship in the language that they understand and that resonates in their souls the best!

Sharon, don't even say that I disagree with you, don't even think it!

Do you want God to punish me?

posted 05-30-2001 01:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Everyone should worship in the language that they understand and that resonates in their souls the best!

---

So Alex,

posted 05-30-2001 01:46 PM               

One more time, I will quote the great Archbishop Tawil. Please respond to what he has to say:

"One day all our ethnic traits - language, folklore, customs - will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, primarily for the service of the immigrant or the ethnically oriented, unless we wish to assure the death of our community."

posted 05-30-2001 01:49 PM            

I agree absolutely. No one should feel that they are not welcome in their Church. Though difficult to accomodate everyone, it is certainly something that should have a good effort put into it.

"Do you want God to punish me? "

Absolutely not! Rather that He blesses you!

posted 05-30-2001 02:08 PM               

Alas, I have no faculties for granting such permission.

You will have to write His Beatitude Catholicos Mor Ephrem who is also the permanent King of Mardi Gras with respect to all that jazz

I have an uncle and aunt who are Orthodox and who were honoured for all they have done in their lives for their Cathedral.

They are from Western Canada and their friends are all from the "old country" as well.

They can barely say "Glory to Jesus Christ" in Ukrainian, but tell them they should have the liturgy in English like sensible people, and they will say, "If you want to destroy our Church, become a Greek Catholic!"

Doesn't make any sense, but I told them that while I am a Greek Catholic, at least the language used at our liturgy isn't "Greek" to us!

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by RichC:
So Alex,

Do I and many other American Ruthenian Catholics, then, have your permission to worship at home?

---

posted 05-30-2001 02:10 PM               

Alas, I have no faculties for granting such permission.

You will have to write His Beatitude Catholicos Mor Ephrem who is also the permanent King of Mardi Gras with respect to all that jazz

I have an uncle and aunt who are Orthodox and who were honoured for all they have done in their lives for their Cathedral.

They are from Western Canada and their friends are all from the "old country" as well.

They can barely say "Glory to Jesus Christ" in Ukrainian, but tell them they should have the liturgy in English like sensible people, and they will say, "If you want to destroy our Church, become a Greek Catholic!"

Doesn't make any sense, but I told them that while I am a Greek Catholic, at least the language used at our liturgy isn't "Greek" to us!

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by RichC:
So Alex,

Do I and many other American Ruthenian Catholics, then, have your permission to worship at home?

---

posted 05-30-2001 02:28 PM               

Bishops make excellent leaders of their Churches and religious communities. I have met precious few who are good social scientists though

The good Bishop outlines one perspective on the life and death of an ethnic community, however, there are others and other processes which allow ethnic communities to persist.

Immigration from the mother country is one of them. Strong institutionally complete ethnic communities is another. Solid mechanisms in place for handing down the ethnic culture another. Guilt mechanisms work as well .

Up here in Canada (just look up from your computer and you might see some of us!), there is this policy of multiculturalism where festivals and the like ensure the prosperity of ethno-cultural groups.

Sometimes, as is happening in the West, people of the fifth or sixth generation go back and learn about their ancestry and even pick up the language!

These phenomena are strange but true.

But we need to adapt.

One problem that works against this in our community is that people see the Byzantine Church as a Ukrainian cultural expression. In other words, if you get rid of Ukrainian and the Ukrainian culture, you might as well become Roman Catholic!

Strange, but true . . .

We're not at the stage you are at in terms of being "Byzantine Catholic." There is one parish that calls itself that up here, and I have heard people say that it is a "de-Ukrainianized parish, what do you expect from them . . . "

Ethnic culture is a BIG part of one's Eastern Church identity up here. With respect to the rest, they say we'll cross the bridge when we come to it.

Hopefully, we'll know how to swim just in case . . .

Sorry for the double posting in reply to RichC!

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragani:
Scythian and Alex,

One more time, I will quote the great Archbishop Tawil. Please respond to what he has to say:

"One day all our ethnic traits - language, folklore, customs - will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, primarily for the service of the immigrant or the ethnically oriented, unless we wish to assure the death of our community."

Anthony

---