How are we to react when some group of Latins does something unfortunate with the best of intentions? We can hardly react with honest appreciation, but if we attempt to correct the error(s), we immediately appear ungracious and give the impression that it's just no good trying to please us.
This is a case in point. By failing to make sure of the pronunciation, this choir has produced a nicely-executed piece of music in no known language! "Tebe" is the Church-Slavonic accusative; "poiom" is a form possible in Russian, but not in Church-Slavonic. It doesn't work.
Sadly, this instance is by no means unique. So my question "How are we to react" is very much to the point.
I thought it was interesting. I guess they have a lot to learn. Maybe they can get translation help from those who produced the RDL? Then they can find words in the Scripture that were never there in the first place.
Maybe they can get translation help from those who produced the RDL?
Does that dead horse need more beating?
I did once hear a visiting Russian choir sing the Cherubic hymn in English but with decidedly Russian vowel pronunciation of the English words such that I initially thought they were singing in a language other than English or Russian. Their intention was good, just the execution was 'off'. It came out somewhat like: leet oos how my-steekly...
From what I hear, the BCC is having "even more Altar Girls". What is wrong with that? For a church that is inclusive in language, it is so exclusive in ministry. The BCC should be congratulated for introducing altar girls in its worship.
Sometimes people uncover something 'new' in the Christian tradition (usually from us Easterns) and they try to make sure that it is use-able for one or another liturgical celebration.
Although the execution of the music or the pronunciation may be 'faulty', we should recognize that 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' - not in the bad sense, but in the sense that it provides the borrower with a new tool for prayer and praise.
Although I'm not in favor of syncretism (free borrowing of liturgical practices and verbalizations), I'm not willing to bash the borrower or file a copyright infringement. My hope is that the Westerners will actually read the texts and learn something from Eastern theology about an alternative Christian approach to salvation in contrast to their own etched-in-stone perspective.
The problem arises when Westerners do strange things (for us) in interpreting the things that they have discovered. I am reminded of a Catholic health care/AIDS conference in Chicago where an icon was 'danced' into the church building to begin the liturgical celebration. I, along with Orthodox participants, left. The Romaniaks were somewhat distressed that we left, but eventually came to at least HEAR what we said about the spiritual signification of icons as windows to the 'other side' and not just statue-esque representations of the reality on the 'other side'. Icons are not symbols; they are spiritual windows open to the believing faithful.
Although there is no specific theology regarding the musical and textual elements of our Eastern worship, I see it in the same framework. Using Eastern texts (and music) to augment the Roman liturgical experience is not a bad thing; but for us Easterns, when we see our traditions co-opted and then used in a way that is anti-thetical to our traditions, it is not unexpected that Easterns get both confused and angry at the 'theft'. That is: the Westerns take one aspect of our spirituality and totally ignore the other spiritual aspects. I.e., the 'dance' with the icon.
At the conference, the Romaniaks didn't understand why the Byzantines were 'upset' at what they did. I think, unfortunately, that the Westerners took too long to understand that there is a whole world-view of Easterners and that taking parts of the tradition and ignoring the other elements would alienate the Eastern folks in the Church. (Being 'mean', I'll point out that many RCs consider the Eastern Catholic churches as a validation of the 'universality' of the Catholic church, without at the same time acknowledging that these independent Churches joined with Rome validate the RC premise of 'universality/catholicism'.) If we were to go away, it would just be the Roman Church.
So, let's watch what the Romaniaks are doing with our Eastern traditions; and when they take our traditions, we need to point out to them what they have done, and - when appropriate - file canonical charges against them for inappropriate usurpation of our Eastern traditions in violation of the canons against syncretism. The Romaniaks have a very keen sense of the canons and the laws; and this is good. But when they take "our stuff" and mis-use it, we have to object. Why? Because it gives the universal Church a false understanding of what we Easterns pracice and believe based upon the 'stolen' elements being practiced in the RC community.
Thus, let the Europeans use the Russian music and hymn as part of their Communion repertoire. But watch them like hawks should they try to integrate our traditions into theirs.
Maybe they can get translation help from those who produced the RDL?
Does that dead horse need more beating?
It wasn't my horse nor was it my translation. I take it that you are in favor of poor or misleading translations. Ed
No, I am NOT in favor of poor translation and feminist agendas. I just don't think that trying to tie all the current and past ills of the BCC church to the RDL have much merit.
This idea that everything wrong with the BCC is because of the RDL, is hogwash. The argument is more properly put that the RDL is a product of what is wrong in the BCC.
The issue of this topic isn't translation, it is pronounciation of a foreign language by people who don't know the basics of how to pronounce that language's sounds. Examples shown as English speakers who woefully mispronounce Russian, and my own obervation of Russians trying to pronounce English with 'interesting' results. In both cases their hearts are in the right place yet they might not realise that because the pronounciation is so far off thet the intended audience actually can't understand them.
From what I hear, the BCC is having "even more Altar Girls". What is wrong with that? For a church that is inclusive in language, it is so exclusive in ministry. The BCC should be congratulated for introducing altar girls in its worship.
Ed
Perhaps this should be the beginning of a seperate thread?
This idea that everything wrong with the BCC is because of the RDL, is hogwash. The argument is more properly put that the RDL is a product of what is wrong in the BCC.
This is THE smartest thing that I've heard to describe the whole situation since the RDL was first introduced last year--and I sincerely mean it. Maybe the bishops and liturgical commission should hear it and think on it for the next 40 days.
This idea that everything wrong with the BCC is because of the RDL, is hogwash. The argument is more properly put that the RDL is a product of what is wrong in the BCC.
This is THE smartest thing that I've heard to describe the whole situation since the RDL was first introduced last year--and I sincerely mean it. Maybe the bishops and liturgical commission should hear it and think on it for the next 40 days.
John K
Steve's post gets to the heart of the problem in our Church.
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
