Dos anyone know if the Greek Catholic Church still uses the beautiful Old Church Slavonic in its divine services? I am Russian Orthodox but used to be involved with them (St. Nicks in Roebling). In the RO, they are slowly trying to phase it out except for folks like me who continue to protest the incursion of english into the service. Perhaps its just my attachment to the use of an ancient language in the liturgy that makes me want to not have our eastern slavic Churches loose this gem of our traditions.
Robert

Yes, some parishes still use some Old Slavonic in their services. At my parish, we use it whenever we find notes that are in that language that don't exist in English. However, English is more commonly used, because everyone understands English.

Personally, I love Old Slavonic. However, although being a native speaker of Ukrainian, I often have trouble understanding exactly what every word means. This is especially the case when stikhyra, Old Testament readings, or canons are being read, particularly at RO parishes where the tradition is to read them very quickly and often un-enunciated.

I always use the argument of "double lives", mainly regarding the calendar question, but it applies here too. We should pray to God in the language that we can express ourselves in, and one that we understand. If you are fluent in or fully comprehend Old Slavonic, then that is great! However, the majority of the people aren't and don't understand what is going on at all.

Daniil

Well, while its true that the Church must embrace all cultures great and small. Non the less youve got to admit that Church Slavonic is an intergal part of the Eastern Slavic faith. To diminish or destroy this holy treasure in any way is, in my opinion, a real disaster for the Church. The Russian Church unfortunatly is every day moving closer to implementing english in this country over this old treasure. Lets not forget that when Rome switched to english, the atmosphere of reverance in her parishes (At least in America) took a 180 shift for the worse. WE should cherish our traditions so that we wil not fall down the same way that the Latins did to that regard. RobertK.

How can one cherish something one doesn't understand?

I love Church Slavonic too, as I have hopefully made clear, but I do not believe it is indispensible to our faith. Jesus did not preach in Church Slavonic. Vatican II's problems are not a result of using the vernacular, in my opinion, but are a result of the other changes that were made.

Also, I do not think there is a great movement to switch to English in ROCOR or the ROC-MP, unless there are new missions or parishes. With the waves of emmigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe, there is probably a move to maintain or increase the level of Church Slavonic in the services.

Daniil

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Daniil ]

While there is much truth in what you say, Robert, I would hesitate to say that the atmosphere of reverence in RC parishes changed because the Liturgy was made more understandeable by introducing the vernacular. Historically, it's been the custom of the Eastern Churches to worship in the vernacular. I guess it could be said that during Vatican II, Rome discovered one of our treasures. The lack of reverence is due to many other factors, I think...liturgical language isn't one of them, although I suppose if you kept everything in an archaic language in which no one really has any interest (at least among the people I know), there wouldn't be as many liturgical abuses.

No, the liturgical problems currently afflicting significant portions of the Latin Church in the United States have their origin in different ideas and "liturgical executions".

I have to respectfully disagree with you here, Mor Ephrem and Daniil. The use of the vernacular in Liturgy is a part of the Eastern Tradition, and, therefore, the vernacular should be used in the Eastern Churches. In the Latin Church, however, using Latin in the Liturgy signifies the transcendant character of the Liturgy above the everyday material world. Latin also brings the Liturgy out the particular parish, town, country, and time frame and shows the Mass's universal nature (for Latin Catholics). I don't want to develop the whole argument here about the use of Latin in Mass, but I do think that when Latin was abandoned, some people lost the understanding that Mass brings them in contact with Heaven, and, therefore, reverence was lost. A lot of people now believe that "Mass should reflect the people," not "Mass should reflect God's glory." I think this idea that Mass should be tailored to what people want and enjoy in their daily lives has been particularly damaging. If Mass simply reflects the daily life of our culture, it cannot help us rise above the moral problems of that culture, much less remind us that God is the reason that we do not blindly follow our society without reference to God's laws. I think that CHANGING the Mass from Latin to vernacular contributed greatly to this sentiment that Mass is now "for the people," without reference to the Tradition of the Church or standards of reverence and piety toward Our Lord.
As far as understanding / interest in the Mass, I agree that there were problems before Vactcan II. I think more education was needed, though, not an abandonment of Tradition.
Using Latin is as integral to the Western Tradition as using vernacular is to the East. It does not destroy the validity of the Liturgy not to follow the traditional practice, but it is damaging to the faith of the people. If we argue that it is good for the West to adopt Eastern Liturgical Traditions, we had better be ready to adopt Latin Traditions into our Churches as well. Same principle.
Sorry, you got me on my soap box this morning. It always frustrates me to see Western Catholics praising Eastern Church's unfaithfulness to their own tradition and vice versa. I hope this thread does not end up miles from where it started as a result of my post. (Sorry, Robert K.)
Looking forward to everybody's thoughts,
Agape

Dear Agape,

I understand what you're saying, especially with regard to the sense of "Mass reflecting God's glory" being missing. I know it's the case up here in the diocese I go to school in.

But, while admitting the value of preserving Latin in the Liturgy for Latin Catholics (I love Latin!), I don't know if we can blame it on the abandonment of Latin, or that alone. Like I said, I love Latin, and those times that I go to NO Masses where Latin may be sung for this or that, I get all happy and belt out all the Latin I know. But I've heard exclusively Latin NO Masses, and though I understood the ordinary parts because I knew their translation, it was hard to listen to so much that you didn't understand. If you have a proper hand missal, I suppose it's alright, but why not have some vernacular in there, and keep the unchanging parts in Latin? Nice compromise, I think.

Unfortunately, we have no idea of knowing what would be the effects of forty years of a vernacular English Tridentine Liturgy. I personally would've liked to see something like that, and still would like to see it now, although anyone I ever ask says that the Tridentine Liturgy can never be used in English. Why not? I think we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we see now if that august liturgy was translated into the vernacular.

My personal opinion, and I could well be utterly wrong on this, is that the way the reforms were executed in some places is what is to blame. First, the Mass that's been in use in the Latin rite for a few hundred years is suddenly replaced by a Mass created at a committee table...and the former Mass is suppressed. I think that was a mistake, if for no other reason, than because they shouldn't have suppressed the Tridentine Liturgy...they should've allowed it to go on, just like when the Tridentine was made normative for the Latin Church at the Council of Trent, they allowed the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Liturgies to continue.

The mentality that says you can create a Mass at a drawing board probably gave rise to the mentality that "we can adapt these 'suggestions' to our local community", and that may have led to people disregarding the liturgical rubrics and ad libbing the Mass. You don't ad lib the Liturgy.

Further, the allowance for lay people to participate more in the Liturgy proper by doing the readings and reading petitions, etc. is good, but not having a clear understanding of which role belongs to which person leads to all sorts of confusion. I've seen it myself.

Now, the mentality that the Mass can be tailored into whatever you want it to be, as well as the confusion of roles, I think, has led to the contemporary blase attitude that many Latin Catholics have regarding church and sanctuary. I've seen people from the congregation walk up to the altar during the Eucharistic prayer just so they could get past it to go to the bathroom. Granted this might have been an emergency, but why don't people go before they come? Or the enormous amount of chatting that takes place before, sometimes during, and after the Liturgy, within the church. Outside I have no problem with, but inside? Cell phones -- my real pet peeve -- going off in church. I hate that. It's what really gets me mad. Unless you're a doctor or something, what's so pressing that you can't turn the wretched thing off for an hour? Or at least put it on its silent mode. Unfortunately, this last thing happens in Eastern churches too...it happens every Sunday now at our church...I'm waiting before I actually say something about it to our priest, hoping he'll pick up on it soon, as he usually does. It doesn't take too much effort to put a cell phone on silent or vibrate or whatever, that is, if you absolutely must have it on.

American culture has also changed a lot since the 1950's. There's no way of knowing how people now would be with the Tridentine Liturgy, as it's always been celebrated. I'd like to think they'd love it, but there's no way of knowing now. The only people who love it are those who have some or the other problem with the NO.

I like the NO. I haven't experienced the old Latin liturgy firsthand, so the NO is really all that I know regarding the Latin rite. I've seen videos with clips of parts of the old Latin liturgy, and I absolutely loved it. I really did. And I wish I could go to one myself. I wish it was allowed more. But what I've pretty much only gone to have been Masses according to the Pauline Missal. And by and large, I've loved them, I've found myself able to pray well in them. Where I haven't had the same experience are in places where things are improvised. And it's more so because of the mentality behind the improvisations than because of the improvisations themselves (although some of these...). In no way am I questioning the legitimacy or validity or what have you of the NO liturgy. Nor do I deny the Pope his right to adapt, change, whatever the rite used by his Church. But I can respectfully disagree with certain things as they've happened, in this country at least, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

Thanks for letting me get on my soap box. :p

In my parish, we use Church Slavonic for the Trisagion (and its substitutes, "All You Who Have Been Baptized" and "We Bow to Your Cross"), the Lord's Prayer, and the Mnohaja L'ita. We also use Slavonic in our hymns at the beginning and end of the Divine Liturgy.

Mor Ephrem,

Although I do not want to go off on a Latin discussion in Byzantine forum I have to say I agree with you. I for moral and theological which I have stated in the past refuse to go to Mass in south Florida due to the errors of the Bishop. Now that we will have a new Bishop I will have to wait and see how things go. At any rate I had to skip the normal Divine Liturgy one week (multi. reasons) and was forced to go to Church elsewhere. I had heard of the SSPX church was excommunicated etc. but I decided to go since the Mass was at the time I could go. Anyway, I have never been to a Trinitine Mass before and was SHOCKED at the number of people in the Church. It was SO PACKED that people had to sit out back even outside. The Women wore head coverings (teen age girls)! No Mini-Skirts! I big sign at the exit read "Judas was the First to Leave Mass". After Communion NO ONE LEFT! They waited till the Mass was Over!

On the entrance of the door was the dress code with Scripture reference to back it up. Basically, it said moderately dress is the only way to dress in church. There was NO GUM chewing or Chatting that took place before the Mass!

To sum up it was on the greatest spiritual experiences I have had before.

I will not go back because I attend the Divine Liturgy and now feel closer to Eastern Theology (Alex would be proud of me - I got an Icon corner with a vigil candle and my wife and I venerate all the time ). But as a 30 year old male who was an altar boy and has only know the NO I have to say the Latin Church has lost something I don't think they will ever be able to get back.

So what does this have to do with Old Church Slavonic. Well this is a tough problem. At one hand you want to evanglize the Un-Churched (i.e. English speaking) at the same time you want to Preserve your Traditions. I think it should start with the Deacons of the Church. I think the Deacons should offer a Church Slavonic class and incorporate it into the Liturgy a little bit at a time. So the Liturgy should have Church Slavonic and English. With the ratio being towards English.

My Humble Opinion!

Dear RC@W,

I too don't wish to prolong this subtopic more than we have to, but hopefully with this I'll shut up.



Where's your hope?

You're right, the Latin Church has lost something that it might not ever get back. But would we want to? I'm not talking about the Tridentine Liturgy, which from all my exposure to it I love. I think it would be great if we got it back in. But perhaps we don't want the other things to come back. What was lost was a mentality, a way of doing things, that belonged to another time, another age. Things have drastically changed since the 1950's (I use that number since I was told once that it was the Golden Age of the Latin Church in the US). Since things have changed, and people have changed, perhaps we should find another ways to reach them? I think the Tridentine Liturgy is good, and probably would do this...but for many people, it might not. Perhaps the Tridentine will come back, but we still need a way to reach those people for whom it may legitimately do nothing. I know of people who only like the Tridentine, and those who only like the NO. That's not the issue so much with me...it's how holy one becomes because of it.

To extend this digression a little farther . . .
An interesting aspect of all this is the effect that the greater appreciation of the Eastern Churches and Eastern Catholic Bishops had on the revision of the Latin Liturgy. I recently read "Eastern Catholic Churches and Christian Unity" (sorry, I borrowed it and don't have the publisher's info right now). It is a collection of articles by the Eastern Catholic, mostly American, Bishops just before and during Vatican II. While rightly arguing that the Eastern Churches should be upholding their ancient traditions with regard to Liturgy and Ecclesiology, the Bishops also touch on the fact that some Latin Catholics were leaving Latin Parishes for Eastern ones, upsetting the Latin Bishops. Liturgy in the vernacular is mentioned in particular as a reason people were leaving the Latin parishes.
Do you think it is a coincidence that many of the changes between the Tridentine Mass and NO (vernacular, sign of peace, mini-Epiclesis, receiving the Eucharist under both species, more standing / less kneeling, greater participation by the laity) are also elements of the Divine Liturgy? I have a working hypothesis that the NO is so misunderstood by many Catholics because many of the elements in it are actually Eastern in origin. These elements are integral to Eastern forms of worship; they engender reverence and faith in congregations formed by the Eastern Churches. For those formed by the Latin Church, the introduction of these elements in the Mass causes a "rift" between the Mass and the faith they have been taught, and it is assumed that the faith has changed as well as the Mass (with the result that reverence in dress and behavior are associated with the "old ways" and abandoned). Also, these elements taken out of context simply do not mean the same things, e.g. standing has much different connotations in the West as in the East.
I agree that the Mass in Latin can be hard to understand if you are not accustomed to following in a missal, etc. Divine Liturgy, even in English, can be equally overwhelming for the first few times. In both cases, I think RC@W is right, education combined with a low-stress environment for newcomers (i.e., "First time here? Enjoy the Liturgy and don't worry if you get lost. I certainly did when I was learning, and I'll be happy to show you where we are in the book . . ") works well. I don't think that compromising the Liturgy to fit our generation is the answer; we have to transform ourselves into children of the Church, and part of that process is learning and becoming comfortable with the Liturgy.
Thoughts, anyone? I am enjoying this thread.
Agape

Dear Agape,

Nothing to add, really, other than that your working hypothesis is a very interesting one, and it has me thinking...it'll be one of the things I think of when I get on the bus to go home...four hours of thinking. :p

I tend to agree with agape. I see many parallels between the NO Mass and the Divine Liturgy. I was always taught that many Eastern Catholics participated in the changes made by Vatican II. I beleive there was even input from the Orthodox Observers.

As to Slavonic, I personnaly love it. I think it is important to have a liturgical language. However, I would like to point out that neither Slavonic nor Church Greek are vernacular languagues per see. Although Byzantines in this country use English, in the old country it is the Church languages that are used. I know many Greeks and Russians who can't follow the Litrugy without help. Just my thoughts..

Dmitri

I've heard some people say irreverence started when latin was abandoned. I've heard others say it when the 'colored' seating section in Roman Catholic churches was abandoned.

I don't quite agree with either.

K.

Gospodi khrani svyatuyu tserkovno-slavyanskuyu movu, vo vek veka!

I go to the same church as my cousin Daniil, whenever we get a chance we use church slavonic, as my father would say "it reminds older people of when they were children".
It is a lovely poetic language that would be a shame to loose.

Ilya Romanovich Galadza