www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization ByzanTEEN Totally Old Church Slavonic Liturgies?

Christ is risen!
Christos voskrese!

The Chuch Slavonic phrase for:
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
Bozhestvennaja liturgija svjataho Joanna Zlatoustaho

The Church Slavonic phrase for The Divnine Liturgy is a mixture of words of Slavic and Greek origin just as the 'English' phrase mixes English and Greek words.

Bozhestvennaja - Slavic; root term Bozhe = God
liturgija - Greek;
svjataho - Slavic; possessive form
Joanna - Greek name retained but transliterated
Zlatoustaho - Slavicized version of 'Golden Mouth' which is what Chrysostomos means. Zlaty means golden, and ousta means mouth. (Possesive form.)

Hope this helps,
Mike O

Thank you, Mike. I was just wondering how those who prefer the Old Slavonic liturgy got "Mass" (Latin) out of what you just gave. Maybe they should take your Old/Church Slavonic class?

Side bar: This somehow reminds me of how we occasionally graft on Latin meanings and theology throughtout history. Here, we may have a theology that can stand on its own two feet, but folks still ignore it for foreign terms, concepts, theology, etc. I believe the Vatican II Fathers called it "inorganic."

Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I just can't ignore the similarities. People 'think' they want the Old Slavonic, but ignore the actual OS terms used to refer to the liturgy. In its place, they adopt foreign terms (Latin) which they might better understand and/or feel comfortable with. Inconsistency is a powerful sign of something discombobulated. OS doesn't seem to be the true goal here. If it was, then they would use OS, not Latin.

Joe

PS: Latin conjugation for 'revenge'

FLUNCO, FLUNCARE, FACULTY, FIXEM

Just a little Latin ...

Dear Friends,

Even though I pray in Ukrainian and English, I love using some prayers in Church Slavonic as they have a wonderful "ring" to them (something like the Old English).

They also remind me of when my poor parents laboured hard to get me to say the Our Father, Hail Mary and Nicene Creed in Church Slavonic . . .

I went back to the house I grew up in and there are RC nuns living there now (they work as volunteers in hospitals).

Where my mother had her seamstress business is now their chapel.

I told the nuns that I learned to pray in that house and they invited me to recite aloud the prayers my parents taught me.

I recited the Our Father and Hail Mary in Slavonic there where I used to play as a child.

Tears came quite copiously . . .

I also find that when I read teh Psalter in Church Slavonic, over time, I understand 90% of it all.

Alex

All of these discussions are NOT about OLD Church Slavonic. They are about NEW Church Slavonic.

Khristos voskrese -
Mark,monk and sinner

>The Chuch Slavonic phrase for:
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
Bozhestvennaja liturgija svjataho Joanna Zlatoustaho<

Unless it's that of St Basil the Great, St Gregory the Dialogist, St James etc., when the saint's name needs changing!


Khristos voskrese -
Mark, monk and sinner

Vo�stinnu voskrese!

Dear Fr. Mark,

Indeed! I made this point in my first post on this thread.

Tony

Tony and Fr. Mark,

I'm glad somebody said it, although I'm guilty of saying "Old" CS when I meant to say just CS.

This raises a question for me.

Not all jurisdictions use identical forms of Church Slavonic. Are these more like "dialects" of Church Slavonic, or do certain groups have a much different form than others?

The Serbian form seems quite different to me than the form used in Ruthenian churches. Have the differences always been there or did they change because of time and distance?

I suspect that there were always differences, even in Old Church Slavonic, between separated Slavic groups.

Christ is risen!

If this is too brief please ask more questions.

Church Slavonic, like Church Latin, was and is pronounced differently in different places. The local language has a lot to do with this. I have talked about this before on this board. Gospodi and Hospodi are written the same way in Church Slavonic. Similarly the yat' has a variety of pronunciations. There is further the issue of softening, palatalization. This is all not very different from modern English or again, Church Latin. So, easily you could give the same exact text to a Ruthenian, a Muscovite, a Bulgarian and a Serb and get 4 different renderings. Even within one group there is a variety, many Russians today apply akanie to CS, this is not standard but it happens frequently. There is also a trend to render Church Slavonic in the modern alphabet, this has caused some standardization which is further distancing. The use of the Latin alphabet among some has also contributed. There is finally the issue of the stress. Some texts have actually moved it. Some groups shift the stress regularly while others are adamant about using the stress as found in the text.

On another level there are textual variations. Basically there are two levels of modern texts, but a third will be brought forth. The "Nikonian" which predominates; orthographic and vocabulary updating has taken place until about two centuries ago. This is by far the most wide-spread form of CS. Then there is the pre-Nikonian or Old Rite form which was in place before the Nikonian reforms. This usage is basically confined to Old Ritualist usage. The Ruthenians present an odd case as they have some usages which are pre-Nikonian but the majority of the texts are Nikonian sometimes without the spelling updates. There are also Ruthenian texts that are neither standard pre-Nikonian nor Nikonian. These must represent a local usage.

There are other slight differences, the Bulgarians have slightly different texts but they are basically Nikonian.

I hope this helps.

Tony

Katie, your perspective is an interesting one; I haven't heard it from any other Byzantine Catholic young people. That might have something to do with location--I live in Washington state, where ethnic Ruthenians are scarce, to say the least. There are only a handful of people in my parish who are of Eastern European descent, and most of them seem to be over 50.

Personally, I have no ethnic attachment to Old Church Slavonic whatsoever. (If I really wanted to connect with my heritage I'd be lobbying for the liturgical use of Chaucerian English. )The same could be said for most of my Byzantine Catholic peers in the NW.

I think the use of Slavonic in the liturgy should reflect the demand for it. If a parish is predominantly Ruthenian or if the parishoners want Slavonic, then by all means, use it. But that really is not the case with most Byzantine Catholic parishes in the U.S. If our churches are growing at all, it is through converts, the majority of whom have no stake in Eastern European culture or language. Is it worth it to pacify a handful of ethnic Ruthenians by using Slavonic in the liturgy if its use might be a barrier for potential converts? Byzantine Catholicism is weird enough for most people already!

At our parish, we sing the Eucharistic and Marian hymns in Slavonic as well as in English. I feel that this is a mistake. I don't think it serves any real spiritual or aesthetic need. To me it is more like a vestigal trapping than part of the liturgy itself--hardly anyone understands it or knows how to pronounce it, and when the head cantor starts singing it only a few people try to follow her. So in our parish I would say that the use of Slavonic has indifferent and, very possibly, negative effects. In other parishes the situation might be different, of course. My instinct is that Old Church Slavonic is a non-essential that will probably be shed if Byzantine Catholicism is going to survive and grow in North America.

Katie A,

"But that really is not the case with most Byzantine Catholic parishes in the U.S."

It really is the case in all the parishes in PA, NJ, OH, NY, and New England.

"...if its use might be a barrier for potential converts?"

I do not think anyone serious about conversion is going to see a hymn here or there as a barrier. A significant portion of the Liturgy certainly. A hymn here or there sung in English and Slavonic? Come on.

"At our parish, we sing the Eucharistic and Marian hymns in Slavonic as well as in English. I feel that this is a mistake. I don't think it serves any real spiritual or aesthetic need."

It serves the purpose of reminding you where your faith came from and who gave it to you. Even if you don't have a drop of Slavic blood in you, you are now the spiritual child of the Rusyn people who fought and sacrificed and worked to ensure the survival of the Byzantine Catholic Church in the US.

"hardly anyone understands it or knows how to pronounce it, and when the head cantor starts singing it only a few people try to follow her."

How about learning?

"My instinct is that Old Church Slavonic is a non-essential that will probably be shed if Byzantine Catholicism is going to survive and grow in North America."

That was the same instinct that the Roman Rite had after Vatican II, they have shrunk not grown. Now they have realized eradicating Latin was a mistake and are bringing it back for the Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and short exclamations. We would be wise to avoid their mistake.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Eucharistic and Marian Hymns which Katie A. mentions are not in Church-Slavonic; they are in an Eastern European vernacular language which prudence forbids me to name.

Regardless of who does and who does not enjoy the sound of Church-Slavonic, that language will remain an unavoidable reference for a long time to come, because of the lack of English translations of certain liturgical texts. While it is possible to find most texts in English nowadays, one must know precisely where to look (since no one has yet indexed the various translations in print) and there is no general agreement regarding the principles and/or style of liturgical translation.

The only "principle" that the various jurisdictions who make greater use of English seem able to agree on is that principle that no jurisdiction is willing to cooperate with any other jurisdiction. The result is a bizarre and frustrating combination of tyranny and anarchy. Neither of these characteristics could be considered proper and Christian.

Now back to the joys of Church-Slavonic. Would some computer expert be so kind as to devise and market a COMPLETE Church-Slavonic font? My computer-literate friends tell me that this is a daunting request, because of the overwhelming number of diacritical marks - but surely if they can design programs to enable word processors to handle Chinese ideographs, they can design programs to handle Church-Slavonic, diacritical marks, feast-day signs and all.

By the way, there must be a Church-Slavonic word for "Mass", meaning the Roman-rite celebration of the Eucharist, because that was done in Church Slavonic until quite recently. If anyone can find a copy of the "Glagolitic" Missal used in parts of Yugoslavia until lately, that book would provide the word in question, whatever it may be.

Incognitus

Certain of the hymns in question also do not have satisfactory English settings. I have found them to sound and meter so much better in Slavonic.

As Fr. Deacon Lance has well pointed out, a Communion or processional hymn here or there in Slavonic will not "turn off" someone looking for a spiritual home. There should be some small reminders here and there in the Liturgy of the particular heritage of the parish.

Usually I have found the occasional "mother tongue" hymns to be somewhat of a point of interest, actually.

I do enjoy an occasional hymn in Slavonic, even though I don't understand a word of it. The Slavonic words fit the music better than English does. I have noticed the same thing with Gregorian chant. English must not be a very musical language. But if we follow the logic of "heritage" then we need to put everything back into Greek - 10th and 11th century Greek to be exact. Danged revisionists have messed up everything.

Deacon Lance:

"It really is the case in all the parishes in PA, NJ, OH, NY, and New England."

Are those parishes growing? Are most of the Ruthenian people older, or are there lots of young families with kids? My point is that Ruthenians are probably not going to be the church's future, and there is really no way to change that. They're going to assimilate (or have assimilated) just like every other immigrant group has. Taking the Eastern Catholic Slavs that I know as an example: most of their adult children and grandchildren are not Byzantine Catholic at all. I think it's a matter of survival. Byzantine Catholic churches are few and most of them are very small. If they are going to grow it will be through non-Slavic converts. The sooner we stop presenting Byzantine Catholicism as an ethnic package, the better, in my opinion.

"I do not think anyone serious about conversion is going to see a hymn here or there as a barrier. A significant portion of the Liturgy certainly. A hymn here or there sung in English and Slavonic? Come on."

Well, at my parish we sing more than a hymn "here or there." People who are very serious about converting probably will not be dissuaded by that, I agree. But what about people who are simply curious? If we're deciding whether or not a particular practice is inviting to outsiders or if it is alienating, I think we should err on the side of being inviting.

"It serves the purpose of reminding you where your faith came from and who gave it to you. Even if you don't have a drop of Slavic blood in you, you are now the spiritual child of the Rusyn people who fought and sacrificed and worked to ensure the survival of the Byzantine Catholic Church in the US."

I know that. Appreciating our forebears is a good thing, one that churches in general don't do enough of. I think we should be very hesitant, though, about the degree to which we make the Byzantine Catholic church an ethnic instead of a universal faith. Don't we owe a debt to those Ruthenian immigrants to keep their churches growing and thriving? We need to start distinguishing between the necessary, integral parts of Eastern Christianity and their cultural appendages. Eastern Christian spirituality should not be inextricably linked with Eastern European culture anymore. We aren't in Eastern Europe. If the Byzantine Catholic churches don't find a way to resolve this soon, it will be too late.

"How about learning?"

Why? Honestly, I haven't heard any compelling reasons to do so. Maybe if I were a philologist or a liturgist it would be profitable for me to study a very old liturgical language that I have no connection to. But as a layperson? How is knowing Church Slavonic going to make me a better Byzantine Catholic?

"That was the same instinct that the Roman Rite had after Vatican II, they have shrunk not grown. Now they have realized eradicating Latin was a mistake and are bringing it back for the Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and short exclamations. We would be wise to avoid their mistake."

There were all kinds of problems affecting the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II, all of which contributed to their decline in membership. Replacing Latin with English was hardly the deciding factor. The number of people who had no qualms about the Mass being in English far outweighed the number who opposed it. I also think it's a mistake to consider our situation analogous to theirs. The RC Church had a long history of using a liturgical language in place of the vernacular. We do not. Also, they eliminated Latin all at once, which was bound to result in some disgruntled laypeople. In Byzantine Catholic churches, the use of Slavonic has fallen away gradually as the Slavs themselves started speaking English.

Forgive me if I sound abrasive about this. I don't mean to. It's a subject about which I have strong feelings, and I've been bothered by it lately.

Katie A. inquires "How is knowing Church Slavonic going to make me a better Byzantine Catholic?" Well, I never said that it would. Ultimately, that's a question which Katie will have to answer for herself. If she feels it would be a bother, or that her talents do not go in that direction, then it might be perfectly sensible for her to conclude that learning Church-Slavonic in her particular case would be more trouble than it's worth and therefore would not make her a better Byzantine Catholic. Nor am I about to criticize that decision.

To some extent, it's like asking whether learning New Testament / liturgical / patristic Greek would make someone a better Byzantine Catholic. In the abstract, an abilitiy to read the stuff is certainly beneficial, but people have many demands upon limited time and can reasonably decide that philology is not the most important pursuit for them. However, if NOTOBY learns New Testament / liturgical / patristic Greek our Church will assuredly be worse off.

The same applies to Church Slavonic. If no one learns it, we shall have lost something worth having, but that does not mean that particular individuals should feel obliged to learn it, or under pressure to learn it. Some of us enjoy it, and even find it pleasant to discuss different forms and variations of the language. I hope that we don't do anybody any harm that way, although I've occasionally encountered people who find it a nuisance when some busybody (such as your humble servant) explains that the Church-Slavonic (or Greek) text doesn't really mean what this or that translation would have it mean.

But that's life. So if Katie A. doesn't want to learn Church-Slavonic, my best advice to her is not to give it another thought; it is possible to lead a full, rich and holy Christian life without even knowing the Slavonic alphabet.

On the other hand, I have no hesitation in urging those who are interested in Church-Slavonic to learn the alphabet without delay.

Incognitus (Slavophile and Proud)