www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology moderator please allow me a little room here.

Dear Dr. John,

I never said that we shouldn't evangelize in the language that people can understand.

I was only pointing out a fine point on what Cyril and Methodius did.

The liturgical language they constructed on the basis of a living linguistic tradition was, in fact, very close to the Slavic dialects and led to the development of Slavic literature etc.

John Hus and his followers made the argument that the introduction of Latin into Bohemia led to the lowering of religious and moral life there since people didn't understand it.

My church uses an anachronistic form of Ukrainian with lots of Slavonic thrown in. The Bishops in Ukraine approved a modernized version, but this is not being accepted by many parishes in the West.

It was ludicrous for me to have to have memorized the Slavonic version of the Creed without a complete understanding of its meaning.

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

You raise a very interesting question!

Although our parishes up here use modern Ukrainian with a growing number of English-only Liturgies, there are those who prefer the Slavonic.

Some even write books in its defence who says that it is better to pray to God in a language which is not "of the streets", that is set aside and dignified etc.

This adds to the "mystery" of the prayers and invocations and some might say better defines an "in group" versus the "out group."

I don't agree. But Latin hasn't fallen by the wayside and neither has Church Slavonic.

I think this could have something to do with modern people's desire and immense appetite for mystical experience and the feeling of being a member of a "special group" etc.

Early Christians, as you well know, had their system of secret signs and symbols which they needed, of course, to keep their faith well hidden from the eyes of a persecuting society.

There is a great attraction for mysticism and secret rites today. The answer to this lies not so much in our Church but in the processes of the greater society in which we live.

Or something like that . . .

Alex

Dear Joe,

That's because whenever someone posts something on a Western topice, we always steer it eastwards, in one way or another!

Salaam Alekum, Brother!

Alex

Of course, I think a very practical explanation for the basic attraction many have towards an esoteric language, especially in religion is the soul's natural instinctive urge to search for and experience the transcendant. Now that can be sought out in the context of language, either incorrectly and dangerously ("mystical" or "magical" languages or incantations to tap into the storehouse of the supernatural) or correctly as from a Christian perspective, where a sacred language or old form of a spoken language, meaning anything but the vulgar tongue, is maintained for the purpose of consecrating a specific form of vocal communication to God in the form of worship and religious expression. In general, common speech is (or was; nowadays anything goes) scoffed at as a medium for a poet in striving to reach those lofty heights of expressive eloquence. In a similiar fashion, religion, occupying the summit at which all man's creative energies should be directed towards, is seen by many, predictably enough, as deserving no less royal treatment from every aspect.

It's quite a natural direction that Man, being endowed by nature to lean towards the aesthetically beautiful, takes when he sees the common as an inadequate tool to use for clothing what he believes should be enshrined with glory. Of course, the common, too, sometimes has a beauty that we all too often fail to glance at. Still, beauty is accentuated in the rare, scarce, and unique. I don't find it unusual that that perception finds its way into the management of things such as the language of prayer.

In IC XC
Samer



[This message has been edited by SamB (edited 06-12-2001).]

Wow! Samer! Finally someone has tackled the issue of 'non-extant' languages as an approach to God.

You have obviously spent some time in thinking through your perspective on this.

Your distinction between using the 'best of common language' and the second perspective: "where a sacred language or old form of a spoken language, meaning anything but the vulgar tongue, is maintained for the purpose of consecrating a specific form of vocal communication to God in the form of worship and religious expression." is a good one as far as I can understand.

Now, our conundrum comes about: if we use the best of the common language that people can readily understand, then we should expect that this formulation of our beliefs should NOT stand in opposition to our evangelization.

But then, as you have noted, we have either the sacralization of the old form of the secular language or the use of the 'sacred language'. Can we expect that these verbalizations are going to be meaningful for those outside the community of the linguistically competent?

There are indeed a number of folks who are perfectly comfortable with verbalizations in whatever tongue; but there are others who insist that every utterance have meaning both to those in the community as well as to those OUTSIDE the community.

I can proclaim: Glavi Vasha Gospodevi Priklonite! For those in the know: 45 degree bow. For those not in the know: Hunh?

But, in America and Canada (except Quebec): "Bow your heads to the Lord!" 45 degree bow from everyone.

Let's make sure that the outreach to the unchurched is the primary endeavor of our community. They need us waaaaay more than we need them.

Blessings, y'all!