www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Church Slavonic

Alex et al,

I suggest once again that this thread continue only in Old Slavonic.

Dear Joe Cool

I don't speak Slavonic. I can read it and do read it, just as many in Rome need to read Latin and do.

What I'm suggesting is that we continue to have SOME scholars who specialize in Slavonic and Slavonic liturgical literature and history.

Priests and others of that sacerdotal ilk should have some background in Slavonic as well, just as they often do in Latin and Greek.

We can't prune off our Slavonic roots for then we really will be pretending to be a Particular Church.

And what about the continued role of Latin in the RC Church?

Latin there isn't about a few scholars who have no life other than to natter at each other in funny words.

Everything is proclaimed in Latin and is then translated.

Some have suggested how modern human issues can be discussed in Latin, but yet they are.

That's all I'm suggesting.

I'm not suggesting tying up Dave and forcing him to listen to tapes of Slavonic grammar all night.

Nor am I suggesting the saying of the Anaphora in Slavonic as a trade-off to have it said out loud to make YOU happy.

I don't think that would make you happy, so don't worry.

Hey, if you want the Anaphora out loud and up front, in an understandable, yet dignified language, who am I to stand in your way?

If you can convince the bishop, priests AND the people, then you have my respect.

Anyone who can get that motley crew to agree deserves to have his liturgical reforms implemented! For then you'll be a miracle-worker, as well as a liturgical reformer!

So, you go, Big Guy, loud and clear!

And you won't hear so much as a peep out of me on the matter either.

Alex

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

I respectfully disagree with you point that the translations attributed to SS. Cyril and Methodios do not represent the spoken langauge.

When I studied post-grad 'Old Church Slavic' at the University of Pittsburgh some years ago one of the required texts was "The Dawn of Slavic" by Alexander Schenker. I suggest this book to all interested in the Slav languages' development.

The fact that the language evolved into what is used liturgically today is one issue. However, the 'codifying' of the language that the Brothers did was to make the texts understandable to the illiterate (duh!) masses. We must recall that the Slavs already inhabited a rather large area but, according to the experts, the language was common to all not as differentiated as they are today. Having said that, it is possible to look at early texts and determine the place of their translation/composition by their characteristics.

Church Slavonic (what is now used liturgically) is not what the Brothers translated. It is a much later development and is considerably different from Old Church Slavic which is represented by the corpus of compositions and translations attributed to the Brothers and their followers. If memory does not fail me, OCS 'canonical' texts do not date past the 11th century.

Do you think that if the language the Brothers would have been using did not represent the spoken language the Franks and the others that persecuted the Brothers for their work would have done so?

Bob

Dear Bob,

Yes, I know that source and I agree with what you say. And still I don't see how it contradicts what I've said.

I've indicated that Slavonic has been changed and altered over the centuries - to be sure.

But Sts. Cyril and Methodius were standardizing a liturgical language, just as Latin and Greek were standardized and that is what I mean.

In all three linguistic cases, the languages of the "masses" were such that the liturgically-standardized language was understandable to a great degree, of course, than today.

The Franks opposed the Thessalonian brothers because they promoted Latin within the context of the theory that only the languages used in the Title of Christ on the Cross could be used in the liturgy.

There was also the matter of the territorial expansion of the Latin Church, but we won't mention that . . .

In addition, I agree with those scholars who conclude that the idea that the Popes of their day approved the use of Slavonic in the Liturgy is positively nonsensical.

The brothers were shabbily treated in Rome, they met with active opposition to their mission in the Slavonic territories from the Frankish missionaries and their common cult was not universally approved in the Latin Church until Pope John Paul II came around.

So I'm saying that the brothers standardized a liturgical language, that that language had much more in common with the Slavic dialects of their day than in contemporary times, and that Slavonic continues as a living root of our liturgical and religious heritage.

One problem they tried to avert by standardizing a liturgical language (which did change with the times nevertheless) is the problem of the continuing changes to languages as such and the resultant change in meanings of particular words.

For example, "Our daily bread" in the Slavonic of today is "Klib nash nasuschny."

But "Nasuschny" in modern Ukrainian means "Immediate" rather than "Daily."

One way of getting around this problem is to just leave the Slavonic words AND meanings alone as anachronisms in the liturgical texts.

Words like "Nasuschny" or "Suschu Bohoroditsu" etc. are left alone since modern Ukrainian words just don't do justic to the rich nuances of meaning that the Slavonic lends.

The Thessalonian brothers were right that a standardized liturgical text will encapsulate and maintain a more precise theological meaning for all time.

This is also why Churches in the Middle East often used the original Greek for the Eucharistic Canon or at least the Words of Institution.

The fear was that the original meaning would somehow be lost.

Alex

Actually G-d did that on His own initiative- G-d became man.

In arguing for a liturgical language, some have maintained that the only appropriate liturgical languages are Latin, Greek, and Hebrew(actually Aramaic)because it was in those languages that the inscription "King of the Jews" was wriiten upon the cross (Alex, I'm sorry I did not see your post about the Franks). This is quite a stretch, and where does this put Church Slavonic. But to say that the Liturgy is somehow more meaningful or spiritual or (you-fill-in-the-blank) because of a liturgical language seems to contradict the miracle of Pentecost, where the crowd heard the disciples speaking in their own language (Acts 2:1-13).

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

Alex,

You say that you agree with what I say yet you said earlier that "In addition, it is really a myth that Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the liturgical texts into the 'language of the people.'" and "Slavonic was as "dead" a language as Latin and Greek at the time." I posit that thi is not accurate. I don't know if you now disagree with what you wrote earlier or not.

You also say "just as Latin and Greek were standardized and that is what I mean." when comparing Slavonic to Latin or Greek. Well other modern languages have been standardized, like for instance Ukrainian or the other spoken Slav languages. Are they dead because they were standardized/codified? I don't think so.

Latin evolved into Italian; in other places where Latin was forced on the inhabitants/brought to them it developed into other modern Romance languages. OCS (or something similar) evolved intot the modern Slav languages.

Your 'nasuschny' and 'sushchu Bohorodicu' points are well taken. However, the nasushchy problem is old...apparently inherited from the original text(s), it is an issue of a word difficult to translate. Sushchu Bohorodicu is an issue of Church Slavonic being artificially inflected to match the Greek it was translating from.

Bob

Alex,

Wasn't there a document issued from Rome allowing for use of Slavonic in the Liturgy? I recall that at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary in Pittburgh there is a stained glass window showing the Brothers in Rome and the pope with a scroll in his hand and the title of some document was on it (the initial words I would think). Something like "Industriae tuae"?

Bob

Alex,

When Ukrainians transliterate into English are the -K- and the -X- represented both by -K-? I ask just because you wrote 'klib' above. I, because of my background, would write chl'ib. The -ch- representing the -x- of the Slavonic in the Cyrillic and -'i- representing the "jat'" this is of course influenced by the modern Slovak orthographic practices and the Slavonic transliteration established by Grigassy in the USA in the early->mid 20th century (also based on Slovak).

I remember seeing Ukrainian transliterated in different ways, perhaps you can shed some light on this?

Bob

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Alex,

You state: "In addition, I agree with those scholars who conclude that the idea that the Popes of their day approved the use of Slavonic in the Liturgy is positively nonsensical. The brothers were shabbily treated in Rome, they met with active opposition to their mission in the Slavonic territories from the Frankish missionaries and their common cult was not universally approved in the Latin Church until Pope John Paul II came around."

I must disagree with you friend. The historical records don't support the scholars you agree with.

I suggest the book: The Glagolitic or Roman-Slavonic Liturgy by Stephen Smrzik SJ published by the Slovak Institute/Vatican Polyglot Press, 1959. It is probably the best, if not only (in English), critical historical look at the introduction of the Glagolitic alphabet and Old Slavonic language into the Liturgy.

The fact that there is a continued use of a Roman-Slavonic Liturgy apporved by Rome in eight dioceses of Croatia till the modern day helps disprove the scholars you cite. The oldest complete Roman-Slavonic manuscripts and missals we have date from the 14th century. And you will find this interesting, the oldest partial manuscript is the Kyiv Manuscript discovered by Archimandrite Anthony Kapustin in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai which he sent to Kyiv Theological Academy. It is dated to the late 11th century. The point being the only way Slavonic could have been used in the Roman Rite is with the Pope's approval.

The fact that St. Catherine's has a manuscript from the 11th century, and given how slowly uses traveled, the evidence points to what many scholars and the historical records show: Pope Adrian II and Pope John VIII not only approved the use of Slavonic for the Byzantine Liturgy and the evangelization of the Slavs but its use for the Roman Liturgy as well. The only approved venacular until Vatican II. Can you tell I love my Slavic ancestry?

Also, my St. Joseph Daily Missal from 1959 lists on its universal calendar, SS Cyril and Methodius. It was a memorial of double rank using the pre-Vatican II terminology, although it was celebrated on July 7th(?) It is now a mandatory memorial on Feb 14 for the Roman Rite.

In Christ,
Lance

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

Oooh! Oooh!! I wanna do that!!!

Everyone seems to be missing the point. I only advocate the use of Church Slavonic WHEN TRANSLATING THE ORIGINAL MUSIC THAT WAS WRITTEN IN MUSICAL NOTATION AND RENDERED IN WHAT WAS THEN ONLY ONE OF THREE LITURGICAL LANGAUGES ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR THE DIVINE LITUGRY (C.860's during the evangalization of the Slavs by
Sts. Cyrill and Methodius) INTO ENGLISH! Our clergy and bishops are just being lazy when they whimsically translate the music and fit it into THEIR preferred English words. Just as St. Jerome went back to the original Greek translation of the New Testament when he compiled the Vulgate Bible, so too should "THOSE CLERGY THAT BE" should go back to the original liturgical Prostopinije music written in Church Slavonic when compiling new English language Plain Chant!

Bozhe, milostiv budi mnhi hrishnomu. Bozhe, ochisti hri'chi moja i pomiluj mja. Bez chisla sohr'ishich Hospodi, prosti mja!

Ung-Certez

Ung-Certez,

You will then be happy to know that is exactly what Professor Thompson is endevoring to due as we speak. The Resurrectional tones and, I believe, Great Vespers are completed and awaiting final approval. The restored music will be as true to Mukachevo Prostopinije as possible in the English language.


In Christ,
Lance

I'll believe it when I see it, or better yet, when I "hear it"! If it is anything like the "new and improved" Topars, Kondaks and Prokimens,(which have been needlessy overly-simplified??)it won't sound anything like Prostopinije. I just wish the so-called Liturgical Commission would admit they just want to "invent" a new chant and quit calling it Prostopinije in English. I've been a craddle Byzantine Catholic and member of the Pittsburgh Metropolia for over 35 years and haven't heard good Plain Chant rendered in English since June '91 when Metropolitan-Archbishop Kocisko retired. I'm sorry, I like to believe it will sound like Prostopinije, I really would, but I know our Liturgical Commission does not care about preserving an authenic Eastern Christian plain chant tradition and that really is sad! God forbid that a humble indigenous liturgical music tradition survive!

Ung-Certez

Dorohy Ung,

1) Are you of the opinion that the Carpathian Prostopinije is from the time of Saints Cyril and Methodios?

2) Why do you write 'mnhi' above? Shouldn't it be "mňi" or even just "mni"?

Bob

I wrote the "h" because I don't have a Cyrillic keyboard.

Ung-Certez