How prevalent is it's use today, and how commonly was it used in the past ?

I better stop there before my next batch of questions.

It was in wide use through about the 1960's by The OCA, and Ruthenian BCC. It now sees little use by the same churches.

The Serbian Orthodox, and the ROCOR still use alot of Slavonic.

X. B! (Christ is risen!)
C. I. X! (Glory to Jesus Christ)

Slavonic is good for �high church/cathedral� as the best musical a� capella coral compositions were written for it, so it fits and it flows (Resurrection exapostilarion / Plotty).

Slavonic is good for �salt and pepper� as a seasoning especially when a prayer is to be repeated three or more times (Svyatiy Bozhe).

Slavonic is good for a repetitive �common denominator� beyond English for a mixed crowed (Khrystos voskrece). Everyone may have their own pronunciation, but It really isn�t Russian, it really isn�t Ukrainian, it really isn�t Bulgarian, it really isn�t�

Slavonic is a just payback, we had to learn Semitic (alleluia), we had to learn Greek (Theotokos), we had to learn Latin (Kyrie eleison) [forgive me father, but it makes the point] so Slavonic is ours; Belarusian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Dalmatian, Lithuanian, Moldavian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Ukrainian [who did I forget?]. So let us and others honor our ways, we are as equal, as good and as relevant.

Slavonic is a dead (closed) language so meanings will not change (Symbol = replacement / symbol = representation). The Vulgate was translated first into Hieronymia an early form of Slavonic by St. Jerome of Dalmatia, in preparation into the Latin.

Slavonic was codified from Ss. Cyril and Methodius� Scriptural and Liturgical translations. Although I can swear in Belarusian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Dalmatian, Lithuanian, Moldavian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, or Ukrainian one can only praise God in Slavonic.

I see a parallel here (not that I'm the first to notice) between the disuse of Latin in the RC Church, and Slavonic in those Eastern Rite Churches where it was previously used.

Was there any opposition when Slavonic was eliminated from the Liturgy ? Talk about restoring Eastern traditions, why the heck not Church Slavonic ?

Some of us have never abandoned the use of Slavonic, and have no intention of ever doing so.

Alexandr

Some of us have never abandoned the ideals of Our Fathers Among the Saints, Cyril & Methodius, and are enthusiastic proponents of evangelizing in the mother tongue of folks who - like every soul under the sun - are in need of Christ's healing Truth. And we always will be.

Simple

Yes, the vernacular is important. But not at the expense of the complete disappearance of the sacral languages (which, I'm sure, is not your position)

X. B! (Christ is risen!)
C. I. X! (Glory to Jesus Christ)

This is a matter of historic perspective. In 873 Pope John VIII and Saint Methodius agreed scripture during Slavonic Liturgies would be read in tandem with the vernacular following the liturgical. Back then the liturgical was Greek and vernacular Slavonic, locally today it is Ukrainian and English. You would have to determine what which language means to a particular community.

Before Vatican II the only promotion of English I know of, but there may have been others was the Carpathian Greco Catholics. The US prayer books of the time carried English informational translations to one side next to the Slavonic. In a 1954 edition by (Metropolitan) Bishop Ambrose (Senyshyv) it had the Slavonic rendered in subsequent lines of the Ukrainian and English alphabets syllable by syllable. The best way I have ever seen for teaching the English alphabet to Ukrainians and Ukrainian to Americans. The readings of scripture and sermons then were usually half and half. English translations of Orthodox prayers were originally done by English evangelicals as the Reverends Wesley and Neale. In the US I believe the Antiocians were the most active, but this is redirecting your Slavonic based question.

The Orthodox in Ukraine Major were promoting the Ukrainian language in sympathy with nationalistic resistance to Russiafication where the Ukrainian language was legally suppressed. All these groups were correct in accordance with true Orthodox missionary mentality. The Russian Orthodox in Alaska allowed Aleut.

In the Eastern US the Russian Orthodox retained Slavonic which is still their common usage amongst the non-Russian peoples in Europe. Using Russian could have cause resistance with the Carpathian immigrants who being Slavic are not Russian. There is a undercurrent of European nation building at work here. In the turn of the XX century US history this movement can be referred to as the �Slavophile� movement. They were members of intellectual movements from the 19th century that wanted the Russian Empire to develop as a big brother.

Among Ukrainian Greco Catholics Slavonic even complemented or replaced the languages of usurped Roman devotions. For instance the rosary was often recited locally in alternate decades of English and Slavonic. Vatican II gave the Greco Catholics a mandate to change to a vernacular �fides ex auditu� (faith from hearing). [Otch Serge your recreation suggestion at work.] By now the third and fourth generation Greco Catholics were using Slavonic often written in the alphabets of Ukrainian, Slovak, English or the like.

World War I stopped immigration so with many these languages were a phonetic retention of sounds not a conversational language. The introduction of real Ukrainian was considered unpastoral as it would be merely substituting sounds. To this day in many �first wave� parishes the priests uses Ukrainian with the people responding in Slavonic. In parishes with World War II refugees the change to Ukrainian was virtually overnight, as in Canada. The Ukrainian Orthodox made it a priority after their beloved Bishop John received his reword. The Bulgarians and Serbians locally have retained Slavonic through a strong choir tradition including concerts, competitions and recordings. Their local Tsar Lazar Choir has a reputation for excellence in the US.

The Slavonic word for orthodox �pravoslavnikh� translates to true glory. So as indicated before Slavonic is not vernacular but a meaningful retention of ones roots. The choir my wife sings in uses Slavonic as it is not only the language our apostles Saints Cyril and Methodius enlightened our ancestors, it is the language the best music is written for. In 1988 our bishop gave them new music for a Liturgy composed for Ukrainian. They learned it, sang it with his cathedral choir there and again locally for our Millennium of Ukrainian Christendom celebrations. Out side of those two �performances� they never used it again. Last Sunday they sang Slavonic with a smattering of English Ektenyas (petitions) and changeable parts in Ukrainian. The priest used Ukrainian or English. Locally.

Those who wish to defend Church-Slavonic should learn that beautiful language - the best way to support any language is to learn it and use it.

Are unrequested nicknames really appropriate on the forum?

Fr. Serge

Xpucmoc Bockpec!
Father.
Sorry, I will remember you council.
Mykhayl

If I may mount my hobbyhorse: While deeply attached to the Slavonic elements of the Byzantine traditions in which I have worshipped for nearly half a century, I am acutely aware:
(a) that there seems to be considerable divergence in the way it is pronounced, even by those schooled in it;
(b) that these divergencies are even greater among those who no longer speak their mother tongue (if they ever did) and whose pronunciation is being affected by the regionalisms and outright mispronunciations of those around them;
(c) that the result of this clash of pronunciations among priests, deacons, cantors, choirs and congregations can be disedifying, to say the least;
(d) that disparities of pronunciation seem to be particularly acute in some BCC parishes; and
(e) that my own efforts to find an accepted and authoritative "standard" of pronunciation for use in a BCC parish have thus far been fruitless.

Was there much opposition in the churches that eliminated Slavonic ?

My impression of UGCC parishes has been that replacement of Slavonic by Ukrainian was well accepted, possibly for a variety of reasons, some pastoral, some nationalistic, some practical. In the case of non-Ukrainians and non-Ukrainian speakers, it was less contentious where English was also introduced (or had been already). The introduction of English (which lagged behind the practice in BCC parishes) may have been more contentious where Ukrainian was not also being introduced. One unfortunate side-effect in some parishes, as I see it, has been the tendency towards scheduling at least two Sunday Liturgies (one in each language). But it must be remembered that, unlike most (if not all) BCC parishes, UGCC parishes were 'blessed' with at least two additional waves of immigration after WW II, which presented unique pastoral challenges.

Let me address these individually.



As in English, or any other language, ones local intonation and accent is readily apparent. A Bostonite and a Mississippianite might sound like they speak 2 different languages. The same holds true for Slavonic. One can fairly quickly be reasonably sure where the priest or deacon comes from by his sccent. A Russian sounds different than a Serb, who sounds different from a Lemko. Bulgarians have a very gutteral G, Sibernaks have a long O, Carpatho Russians tend to take the long E and turn it to more like a soft U. Same language, different pronounciations.



Yep, I agree. One speaks as one is taught, coupled with bad grammar techniques and errors in pronunciation. Same holds true for English.


How many translations of Otche Nas are there in English? Ever hear a congregation and Choir sing 3 or 4 different ones? In Slavonic, there is just one.


If you listen to recordings from Kiev, or south central present day Ukraine, you will hear what most consider the mid ground in Slavonic pronounciation, without the pronounced regionalization of the southern, western and northern Slavs.

Alexandr

Alexandr:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

How true. As an English teacher by first training, I can attest to that. And some of the worst mistakes are those which are learned so young that people cannot seem to overcome them even with years of training in what is considered standard language.

BOB

There have been many helpful insights in recent posts.

My point, however, is that, if there is a desire to encourage more widespread use of Slavonic in the liturgical celebrations of the BCC, it would seem a good idea:

(a) to identify a suitable "middle-ground" of pronunciation as a standard,
(b) to prepare (or identify the sources of) printed and recorded materials using that standard of pronunciation, and
(c) to encourage strongly (but in a less top-down manner than was adopted for the RDL) the use of that standard by clergy, and by laity of the Metropolia, especially choirs and cantors.

I fully appreciate the many reasons for the present confusing state of pronunciation in the US, but that does not mean that nothing should or can be done. If the Metropolitan Church really values this element of its liturgical heritage, it seems worth the effort to try to make the use of Slavonic as edifying as possible. An effort to standardize pronunciation could have a unifying effect on the Church by giving everyone, clergy and laypeople, Slavs and non-Slavs, an opportunity to learn to worship together more harmoniously.

This may be a bigger task than I imagine, of course. Perhaps a linguistic "beachhead" should first be established with cantors and choirs. (The Metropolitan Cantor Institute might have a role to play here.) Parish singers can then teach by example both the clergy and the congregation. When cantors and choirs of the Metropolia stop singing "Shvyatee Bozhay" and the like, and adopt a more consistent and authentically Slavic pronunciation style, I believe congregations will follow. And I suspect that parish clergy will appreciate this effort by their people.

Tim, my friend, you're missing my point. One can no more standardize Slavonic than one can English. When the old ladies at the church a mile away from where I am typing this sing "Veee who meeeesticly rrrreprrresent da Xeruveem", do we correct them and encourage them to learn to speak better English? It is all a part of the subtlety of flavor that makes for a better stew.

Alexandr (who would love to learn of a way to make Ukrainians stop automatically accenting the next to least syllable when reading Slavonic!!!)

As in 'NU KEW LER'?!?
(aka: 'nuclear')

God bless the President, but no amount of retraining could undo that! Atleast he could laugh at himself regarding it..it takes a big man to poke fun at himself.

Alice

Alexandr,

I have heard different corrections from Ukrainians and Russians on how to pronounce Christos Voskrese-Voistinu Voskrese.

My St. Vlad's Resurrection Service tape seems to sound like 'Christos VoskresE', 'VoIStinu VoskresE' (I can't tell if it is an 'eh' or an 'ee'), but my Ukrainian friend says that there should be no sound after the 's'.

Please, somebody HELP!

Thanks,
Alice

Dear Alice,

If one were speaking Ukrainian, Chris-TOS VOS-kres would be correct. However, in Church Slavonic, it most definitely is Chris-TOS Vos-KRE-se. But in practice, either exclamation will get you a Voi-IST-inu Vos-KRE-se/VOS-kres and 3 kisses!

Alexandr

Alice,

Chritos Voskrese is Church Slavonic spelling and usage.

Christos Voskres is the literary Ukrainian and Rusyn spelling and usage. Some churches only use the Slavonic spelling and usage, some use both. There is a difference.

X.B.! B.B.!

Ung

They say great minds think alike!

Alexandr

Christos Voskrese! Voistinu Voskrese!

I LOVE you Russians! Did I just receive three virtual Resurrection kisses?

Speaking of the Russian Church, did I ever tell you that in February we attended the OC feast day of St. Xenia of Petersburg at the Synod headquarters in NYC? --Didn't understand a word, but we definitely understood the piety and the Holy Spirit around us. We also were blessed with an annointing. It was beautiful.

I am hoping and praying to get to St. Petersburg one of these days on pilgrimage to the tomb of the wonderful and miraculous beloved saint of mine, St. Xenia of Petersburg!

BTW- Bishop Antonios of the GOA co-officiated at my parish's Resurrection Service this year, and he announced 'Christos Voskrese' to the congregation. There have been years where only I and perhaps another one, or at most-- two, knew to respond, (since we generally have a seminarian from St. Vladimir's present, Father makes sure to exclaim it in Slavonic) but this year there seemed to be a native contigent in the crowd that responded loudly and enthusiastically: 'Voistinu Voskrese'!

In Christ,
Alice

Again, let me say that the insights offered by contributors to the thread have been most interesting. Their genuine love for the Slavonic heritage of the BCC is apparent.

My problem, however, is a practical one, perhaps more related to choirs and cantors than to individual clergy or laypeople. Tapes and CDs produced by choirs in Eastern Europe, while they may reflect accepted differences in pronunciation from country to country, and even from region to region within a country, nevertheless seem to be "internally" consistent. Each group sings with one voice.

For all the reasons cited in various posts, such a "single voice" seems difficult for some choirs and cantors in this country to achieve, in part because there is no single pattern of pronunciation within the average parish to which the director can point. Any professional choirmaster to whom I have spoken, however, firmly maintains that the beauty of choral music is lost when individuals or sections of a choir are pronouncing words differently. The same seems to be true when a group of cantors is leading a congregation in liturgical song.

Whether "Shvyatee Bozhay" or "Svyatiy Bozhe" is "correct", the effect of members of a choir or cantor group singing both, and perhaps others as well, at the same time, is musically chaotic, aesthetically disturbing, and spiritually counter-productive. The same is true of singing vowel sounds as both long and short. The list could go on.

I have a separate concern about cantors (individually and in groups): I have always thought that cantors perform a triple service: to God (first, and above all), to the celebrant and other altar clergy (with whom they cooperate in the great work of Liturgy), and to the congregation (the silent among whom they 'represent', the active among whom they lead, and all of whom they inspire and 'educate'). Particularly in this country, as the Slavic roots of the BCC become more attenuated, this task of educating becomes more important. Cantors are often the only 'model' on which non-Slavs and the descendants of Slavs who have no grasp of their vernacular mother tongue, still less of Slavonic, can try to base their use of the ancient liturgical language. Disarray in the cantors' pronunciation frustrates this effort.


P.S. UGCC folk with whom I worship pronounce the Easter Greeting in Slavonic as "KhrySTOS vosKRES" (XpuCTOC bocKPEC).

Please forgive me if my comment is stupid, but I think there has always been inconsistency of pronunciation of liturgical Church Slavonic throughout Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe. That is why scholars talk about the Serbian recention of Church Slavonic, the Ukrainian recension of Church Slavonic versus the Russian pronounciation of Church Slavonic.

According to old timers there were also even regional distinctions within Ukraine itself.

In our modrn age we have access to CDs or tapes of Church music from Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Russia and so forth so the differences are noticeable to all of us laypeople who buy CDs.

Could we send a rep from this forum to Tver????

I thought I had made clear that I know there are differences, and I respect them. I'm trying to find a way of achieving uniformity within a single parish, choir, or cantor group.

Was there a particular time period when Slavonic was eliminated, and was it mandated ?

So far as I am aware, nobody has formally eliminated or prohibited Church-Slavonic, unless perhaps in Hungary. Such linguistic shifts usually occur gradually, almost imperceptibly.

I've run into people who think that Church-Slavonic is "Old Russian". Earlier, I used to run into people who thought that Church-Slavonic was a form of Ukrainian. And so it goes.

Fr. Serge

Fr Serge

So where Slavonic was eliminated, it was done on a parish by parish basis, beginning in the 1960's perhaps ?

I have noticed implications from some, that use of Slavonic is some proof of a church's orthodoxy and strong ties to tradition. Not that I'd disagree with that.

Generally in a regular liturgy we have one to two hymns in Slavonic. Greetings are always in both. Holidays and special occasions usually see the use of Slavonic go up. There is no rule about how much or how little is used. The choir director and cantors usually can pick what they want to do.