With all of this recent talk on Liturgical Reform, I figured I would "calm everybody down" by bringing up another sore subject.

I would like to discuss Church Slavonic.

Is the routine use of Church Slavonic integral to our tradition, or a tool utilized to maintain clericalism, a separation between the clergy and the laity?

John

Church Slavonic, IMHO, is routinely used for non of the above reasons. Again, in my opinion. Is it integral to our tradition? Well it is part of our patrimony. We should remember that Church Slavonic as we have it today represents something somewhat different that what the Holy Cyril and Methodios knew. It was then, and is still now, a sort of 'lingua franca' in use among the Churches of Slavs and some non-Slavs. It was, however, before the most recent 'Russifications' thought of as a form of the vernacular. That was what I think all would agree Cyril and Methodios considered it.

Has it been abused? I don't know. How could it be used to separate clergy and laity or be used to maintain clericalism?

Further comments?

Bob

I don't care to discuss this based on Deacon John's false dichotomy, but I'll offer this instead:

I'd like to propose an immediate moratorium on any further use of Church Slavonic in the Pittsburgh Metropolia until people (certain choir directors come to mind) learn the difference between "nash" (nas~) and "nas". If I hear "Kol' slaven nas" or "...chlib nas nasus~c~nyj" one more time I'll run screaming into the street. ("nash" (nas~) means "our", and "nas" means "us"...)

And the next time I have to endure some off-key RC "cantors" squawking "...smertviju smert' poplav" I'm going to just crawl into our Lord's tomb and die. Then they can immediately start up a "vic~naja jej pamjat'" even though I'm a GUY... :rolleyes:

Let's face it -- the people in charge:
-- don't know Church Slavonic;
-- don't want to know Church Slavonic;
-- are only too happy to try to impress everyone by throwing it all around but end up looking like fools in the process.

Meanwhile, when those of us who don't have grey hair try to offer a correction, we're glared at with a "what would you know about it, anyway, you little whipper-snapper?"

P.S. The Church Slavonic for "Eis polla eti, Despota!" is NOT "Mnohaja, L'ita!"

P.P.S. l'ita = years; vladyka = despota = master... thus, "Mnohaja l'ita, Vladyko!" Ugh.

P.P.P.S. And don't even get me started on the difference in pronunciation between "ti", "ty" "t'i", "mi", "my" etc.!

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Lemko Rusyn ]

'twas of naught importance to the thread....

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Steve Petach ]

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Steve Petach ]

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: Steve Petach ]

I could not have said it better myself!

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
SLAVA NA VIKI BOHU!

Lemko Rusyn

Here at my parish we don't have Svati Boze, we Shati Boze.

I'm expecting tour buses for Divine Liturgy in the near future....

mark

Dear Lemko:

Not to excuse the errors, but my immediate reaction is to be thrilled to hear that singing is being done with such good diction that the errors are detectable. Sloppy diction is tough to correct, mispronunciation relatively easy.

djs

I'm just curious:

I speak Slovak at an intermediate-high level and am wondering how the transliterated Slavonic in latinica characters is pronounced in the following instance, as I noticed a somewhat different pronunciation than Slovak:

I know that t'i = "palatized t" + i
I was taught that ti = t + hard sign + i (in other words, the t is not palatized).

My question is thus: when they transliterate something with "ty", what sound are they trying to convey?

In Christ,

anastasios

[ 07-20-2002: Message edited by: anastasios ]

anastasios,

This represents the original Cyrillic which looks like: Tb|. Using the traditional Rusyn pronunciation of Church Slavonic, it sounds kind of like "tuh" as in "tush". It is NOT pronounced "tee" which is a Slovakism, not as "ti" as in "tip" which is a Ukrainianism.

Unfortunately, this distinction has been lost in most parishes in the USA and has not been taught at the Pgh. seminary at least for the last few decades, since most of our priests under 60 years old do not pronounce it correctly.

In Slovakia, even in Slovak-speaking parishes you will hear the traditional Rusyn pronunciation maintained more or less faithfully. Likewise in Subcarpathian Rus', the natives pronounce it the same way. The Ukrainian imports to the region, or natives trained elsewhere, have lost this distinctive Rusyn vowel sound.

Incidentally, it's only vaguely similar in sound to the Russian vowel written with the same letter b|.

In Rusyn pronunciation this also is why the word "nyn~i" comes out sounding more like "neni" even though that's not completely accurate pronunciation. It's sort of between "ninny" and "nenni".

Lemko Rusyn,

Thanks! The Rusyns in Croatia and Serbia must have lost it, too, because my favorite Slavonic liturgy is in our plaintchant from a priestly family in the former Yugoslavia, under Bp Slavomir (back in 1988), where they pronounce nyni as "neenyee" (ie the y andi are the same).

Would the "uh" sound be the same as an English shwa (like the u in "under")? or is it more rounded like an "ooo"?

Thanks!

In Christ,

anastasios
(always striving to do things right with language!)

PS Question #2: Was Fr. Levkulik right to transcribe "Kol Slaven' nas^" or should it have been "nas"? Because of the unfortunate way he translated the hymns into English (at least he had the courage to do it,though!), I can't figure out what the phrase is trying to convey: "So great OUR glory..." or "so great to us is the Glory"?? please help!

The Croatian Greek Catholics also use the hard 'g' instead of 'h', e.g., "Gospodi" and "mnogaja"... But the Vojvodinian & Srem Rusyns (Serbia & Croatia) don't have that "b|/y" sound in their own language (just like the eastern-Slovak dialects don't), so it's natural that in relative isolation, their Church Slavonic would not have it either.


It's actually like "u" in "push".



Kol' slaven nas~ hospod' v Sioni...
How great/glorious is our Lord in Sion. Jerry Jumba recently prepared a new English version that's in singable English but more faithful to the original words. I believe it's posted here:

http://members.surfbest.net/patronage@surfbest.net/HTML/Kol\'_Slaven.htm

[ 07-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemko Rusyn ]

Fr Deacon John:

Are you assuming that Church Slavonic is routinely used? Out in our neck of the woods it is not. But in any case, the use of Slavonic fits neither premise. Someone mentioned it is a "lingua franca". Are you sure that is the case in this country. The real issue is that the use of the vernacular is integral to our tradition. At a time when the dominant languages were Greek and Latin, those great Apostles to the Slavs evangelized and laid a foundation of worship in a language that the people could understand. IMHO, the continued use of a language that is no longer the common parlance of a given community should not be used as the language of a worshipping community. Now this is not to say that the language is not revelant to the community, but it is only relevant,IMO,in the sense of historical research and academic studies.

Just like Latin in the Western Church.

Please re-read my post above.

I wrote above "It was then, and is still now, a sort of 'lingua franca' in use among the Churches of Slavs and some non-Slavs. It was, however, before the most recent 'Russifications' thought of as a form of the vernacular."

I thought this would be obvious to most. All the Slav churches used Church Slavonic at their liturgical language until the 20th century. As I said above, it was a "sort of 'lingua franca' in use among the churches...." Church Slavonic was not and is not a spoken language. Everyone should know that. It is in a category something akin to Ecclesiastical Latin, which is not the same as the spoken 'vulgar' Latin.

The point of this thread seems to be the use (perhaps misuse) of Church Slavonic in worship in North America today. As some RCs had difficulty no longer using Latin so many BCs and Orthodox have the same difficulty. It is also, IMHO, invaluable to remember that for some such as the Rusins Church Slavonic is closer to their spoken language than Latin was to non-Romance language speakers.

I am in favor of using the vernacular. To Slavs it should be clear that this is the mind of th church especially since that is what Church Slavonic was intended to represent, a form of the vernacular.

Bob

Sorry, Bob, but when you use the present form of the verbs "to be" and "to use", I take that to mean "at this present time" ("... is still now..."). Out West, in the Eparchy of Van Nuys, you would be hardpressed to hear a Divine Liturgy in Slavonic, outside of a "hospodi pomiluj" on the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, or the hymn after the pre-Sanctified Liturgy. Perhaps I should have written,"Church Slavonic is notthe 'lingua franca' of the Church of Van Nuys."

If any real resemblence of the time-honored Subcarpathian-Rus' Prostopinije is to survive, then the Church Slavonic language will be the only way to recognize what true Prostopinije music really sounds like. How could anybody even with a third grader education in music think that WHAT IS NOW BEING SUNG IN ENGLISH is a good English rendering of Prostopinije? I'm tired of the priests and bishops of the Ruthenian Metropolia in America patronizing we the faithful by saying that "they" are continuing our authenic liturgical musical tradition. The current "English" music is horrible. Why don't they quit playing games and admit that they want to do what the RC's of post-Vatican II did, "make up" their own new "American" liturgical music! Don't patonize me and all of the other educated faithful of the Ruthenian Metropolia who know and love real authenic Prostopinije!

Dear Ung-Certez,

Prostopinije developed over centuries of usage of Church Slavonic. I don't suppose it would ever sound authentic in English, given the different sentence structure and patterns of usage in the two languages.

You are probably right that we will need to develop an English language chant. This will probably take a few centuries, but we can start now. We can call it Pennsylvania Plain Chant (not to be confused with Pennsylvania Polka, we hope}. Five hundred years from now it will sound glorious!

What's a few centuries in eternal life?

Have a Blessed Day!!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I guess then that would mean the canonical establishment of a new "Rite" or Particular American Rite of the Quasi-Eastern Church where anything goes? Then all of the parishes can sing or more likely "read" a liturgy and have a completely American Novo-Latinized 15 minute liturgy that contains no litanies, no singing, etc., etc. Then we would have no need of iconscreens or priests for that matter because in this new American Eastern Rite Church concepts like confession and Holy Communion are considered "old world" and not politically correct but concepts like abortion, divorce and "alternative" life styles are not only accepted but encouraged! Yes I do believe the liberals in the Church would really like that. Then we could petition the newly-excommunicated American Roman Catholic Church for acceptance as they too would have this same mind set and dogma!

Tradition in our Church exists for a reason and not for the sake of keeping a "ethnic" church custom because our parents and grandparents kept these certain traditions. I honestly don't understand the thinking of "the powers that be" (the hierarchy and clergy) of the Eastern Catholic Churches here in America, they are so eager to "get rid" of anything they deem old world or ethnic in order to please the liberals in the Church. How can we say that we are returning to our true Eastern Church traditions and at the same time have such a disregard or dislike for proper liturgical music and liturgical education and cantorial training?

Ung-Certez

Well, as a part-time Cantor, I think part of the problem with Ruthenian Slavonic is how it is written. I feel that if we went back to the Cyrillic alphabet and taught that pronuciation, it would solve some of the problems. IMHO, even though there are some dialect issues between the Slavic States, most of the Chruch Slavonic is constant when written in the original tongue.

Dmitri

The correct Slavonic appears to be "Kol' slaven nash Hospod'..." the key being 'Nash Hospod'' Literally "How (how much) praised (is) Our Lord" Nash (our) modifies Hospod' (Lord).

I have not gone thru the books to check this but "slaven" should be a participle. "Glory/Slava" is obviously related but the difference being a noun or adjectival form (a participle can play this role). The infinitive should be 'slaviti' = slaven(hard sign) in masc/sing/nom. If it were our glory it would be 'nasha slava' or similar and if it were "to us" is would be 'nam' although 'nas' is perhaps possible. If you would like to correspond privately regarding this, feel free.

Hope this helps.

Bob

"I would like to discuss Church Slavonic."


Old Slavonic is a dead language. If anyone really wants to discuss it favorably, I think they should continue the thread ONLY in Old Slavonic and using Cyrillic letters, thus they can demonstrate how relative it is to our society and how it can serve as a medium of communication.

Oh! I almost forgot. OS is also a good tool to make the silent Anaphora a more mysterious experience. See no Anaphora. Hear no Anaphora. and Speak no Anaphora. Have no liturgy.

Nyardi i moslatu pimi fluponi! Zanesk' po'hil dimi sjahotomukj tysim i flavam.

[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Would somebody please tell me how Church Slavonic helps us to fulfill the commandment to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ to those who do not know Him?


Just wondering.


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Sharon,

It has absolutely nothing to do with your concern about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. It all has to do with other agendas.

Wrong. It has everything to do with spreading the Word of G-d. I like liturgical language. For me, it reminds me that God is more than the ordinary. I think we in the West have tried to bring G-d down to our level instead of lifting to His. The discipline of haveing to study and learn a different tongue used only for Divine Liturgy and ceremony is what leads us into a special mindset in our Theosis. I am trying to incorporate more Slavonic in my own prayer life. For me, the words take on a deeper meaning as I am forced to meditate on everything I pray to the Almighty. Don't get me wrong, vernacular is wonderful; but don't put down Slavonic either simply because you may not like it. Consider, for instance, when Latin was removed from the Roman Church. Church became very ordinary...

Dmitri

Sharon,

Church Slavonic (and Old Church Slavonic before) was a tool utilized by SS. Cyril and Methodios in evangelizing the Slav people. As should be well known they suffered much for putting the worship of the Church and Scripture in the LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE. That is what Slavonic in its various recensions WAS. It is not that now, at least not in the same way.

There are many people who due to nostalgia or other reasons prefer to worship in Slavonic. Should they be worshiping in the language they speak? OF COURSE! Does that mean that Slavonic is bad? Never to be heard again? Not in my opinion. If you are an American BC of Slav background and know the liturgy in Slavonic if you were to travel to many places where Slavonic is still strong (especially Russia) you would be able to participate.

Some years ago I was travelling in Egypt and was in Cairo on Sunday and found a RC church that had mass at a time I was able to attend (I was not RC at that time and am not now)...anyway, it happened that that mass was in LATIN! I am not a fan of Latin..oh and it was the 'new mass' (someone start foaming at the mouth now) but I had studied Latin and was familiar enough with it and the structure of the mass to be able to participate somewhat. Had it been in Arabic I would have been much more a spectator.

Many of our older people feel (likely due to the catechesis they received) that they should or have to worship in Slavonic. Sometimes they even get it wrong! Incorrect pronunciation, etc.

I think that this whole situation is unfortunate but the Catholic Church teaches that one's conscience has a place in moral decisions, is that correct? An older person whose conscience tells him/her than he/she must/should worship in Slavonic is 'bound' to do that, right?

I dunno I dislike the whole ethnic thing some days, it is terribly isolating and I think is disastrous but I am not sure that this agression/negativity toward Slavonic is any answer.

Bob

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

Dear J Thur,

What other agendas does it have to do with?

Bob

Posted same thing twice.

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

Dear Bob,

I agree with you and I think you are making an excellent point.

When we up here had the Liturgy in Slavonic, we had Ukrainians, Hungarians, Slovaks and some others in our Church.

When we got rid of it, we became more ethnocentric with only Ukrainians here, only Slovaks there etc.

Being an ignorant lay person, I don't pretend to understand all the nuances concerning liturgical renewal that are being discussed here.

I think that Slavonic MUST be studied in our seminaries and by scholars so that we can maintain an understanding of the liturgical riches of our Churches from the past.

There's nothing wrong with studying and learning a language like that, including Latin or other more modern ethnic languages. Americans should learn that the world isn't about English only or that different races and cultures don't share American values.

When people say they are learning French or Spanish or Italian, they are, as you know better than I, learning a derivative of Latin which also forms a solid chunk of the English language as well.

But perhaps I'm being silly.

For English speakers only, English must be the Lingua Franca of the liturgy.

But please, there is English and then there is English.

In the rush toward English-dom, one sometimes detects an attitude of modernizing and shortening all things Byzantine liturgical.

We all have our agendas and our gurus whose teachings we push in the liturgical department.

It must all be done with great sensitivity, freedom, flexibility and pastoral understanding.

Imposing liturgical a prioris on everyone regardless is a turn-off in any language.

Alex

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

Church Slavonic is a great subject for liturgical studies. I would like to learn how to sing the Liturgy in Slavonic.

Having said that, the push to retain Slavonic in the liturgical life (aside from occasional usage) of the Byzantine Catholic Church is IMO mistaken. The main effect of doing so is to discourage authentic evangelization.

Church Slavonic is a dead language. To perpetuate its usage as the lingua franca of our people only keeps us from reaching out to the people in our neighborhoods who need the Gospel so desperately. That was the entire purpose which compelled Sts Cyril and Methodius--evangelization in the language of the people.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Dave,

Agreed.

No one should push Slavonic on those who don't relate to it, just as we shouldn't push liturgical reforms, no matter how brilliantly conceived, on people when they don't want them either.

But I think our Churches' scholars and others can and should study Slavonic and no Slavic Orthodox or Eastern Catholic priest's education is complete without Slavonic studies. They know enough Latin . . .

In addition, it is really a myth that Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the liturgical texts into the "language of the people."

The Pan-Slavists and Eastern European nationalist movements were fond of saying that. But it is a myth.

Slavonic was as "dead" a language as Latin and Greek at the time.

The Thessalonian brothers simply introduced another standard liturgical language, like Latin and Greek, that would be closer to the Slavic languages of the people at that time and therefore BETTER understood.

Slavonic underwent subsequent historic changes as was shaped by other Slavic nations to become better understood as their languages developed.

But that goes to show how totally "not dead" Slavonic really was.

And has the Russian Church suffered for its use of Slavonic in Russia?

Not at all.

We need to keep the study of Slavonic, at least by our professional theologians and tradition-keepers.

Remember also for all the rhetoric about understandable languages, Latin is still the official language of the Roman Catholic Church.

You can go to an ATM machine in Vatican City and withdraw money in Latin.

My history is a little rusty, but I don't think the Romans had too many ATM machines back then

And if one studies theology at Rome, at least so I was told, the lectures are, by and large, in Latin, although one may write one's exams using Italian.

Alex

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

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

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

Approval by whom - those who will be singing it?
Why aren't the completed manuscripts available on-line for scrutiny and comment? Please tell me this is in the hands of singers experienced in our chant.

Lance, you did us all a great service by posting liturgical texts. Can you do the same with this new chant?

A century ago, when Bishop Firczak was working to bring better "organization and uniformity" to our practice of the prostopinije, he sent out Father Bokshaj and Cantor Malinich to "to gather and copy the local melodies of the entire liturgical cycle." (quotes from Roccasalvo's opus). This grass-roots approach lead to the publication of Tserkovnoje Prostopinije, which set the tone, so to speak, for the next hundred years. Top-down mandated chant is hardly our tradition, and is likely to meet with limited success. The time for broad input is before approval, not after.

djs

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

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

In 1934, when the National Socialists (Nazis) came to power in Germany, the Ministry of Propaganda decreed that all "non-Aryan" words were to excised from German and replaced by Germanic/Aryan words. Thus, "der Radio" became "Rundfunk", "das Auto" became "der Wagen", "das Telephon" became "Fernsprecher". Those who dared to use the "old" words were taken into custody and 'questioned'. And sometimes sent to confinement for being "enemies of the Reich".

In 1946, a year after the Third Reich fell, all the Germanic words disappeared for the most part and the older 'European' words came back into general use (with a few exceptions).

The point is: although the most powerful governmental and military forces can impose their will upon the people, the fact remains: what the people want and do will win out in the long run.

"Those who do not know history are doomed to re-live it." --Churchill.

My point is: there are those who will impose their will/scholarship upon the practices of the community. There are those who would try to meld English language with rhythms and cadences of Slavic melodies. This is an extremely difficult task. And I would question how far one should go in determining whether the decent English rendition of the texts needs to be melded with the traditional 'prostupenie' melodies.

Does one really need to be totally faithful to the musical tradition when rendering melodies for English language liturgical worship?

While I very much appreciate the problems that the musicians face in rendering any and/or all English language texts in Ruthenian melodies, I am not quite convinced that being forced to do so is a really important element of our liturgical/missionological endeavor. (The same principle applies to any other "ethnic" group that attempts to meld English language with non-English musical forms.)

Yes, use the Ruthenian melodies as a baseline. But make sure that the texts have primacy because the texts are our primary catechesis. And the texts should be singable and rememberable by the congregants because the people NEED to know what is being taught liturgically.

Blessings!

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Why should we be committed to keeping the Prostoponije music? Why not, since it is our tradition? Because if we don't, all hell breaks loose and parish choirs begin to use any music including Protestant and Roman Catholic music. Is this being true to our Eastern Christian traditions? I think not! In the Johnstown Deanery (i.e. Protopresbyterate) a choir has been using Roman Catholic and Protestant music instead of Eastern Christian music even though Eastern Christian Choir music is readily availablen for over 14 years! You don't hear Roman Catholic and Protestant church choirs using Eastern Christian music? If we are not committed to perpetuating our Eastern Chritian liturgical music, who will?

Ung-Certez

Dear Bob,

Let me go over a few points you made here . . .

I never said that the translations of the Brothers did not represent the spoken language.

All I said that what they codified or standardized was one thing, and what the people spoke in their daily life was another, even though the two were, at that time, quite similar and the liturgical language was quite understandable.

There were dialects and differences, as there would have been, among the Slavs, but written records of these just didn't come down to us, that's all. That they were similar to each other is a given, especially since Slavic tribes were not yet divided into nations etc.

I did not mean "dead" in the conventional sense, only that there was a literary, codified language that was intended, as you say, to allow the "masses" to understand the liturgy.

The whole purpose of this standardization was to help ensure that the language was, as much as possible, shielded from the ongoing development and variations of the developing dialects spoken by the people. Rev. Dr. Yurij Fedoriw makes this point a number of times in his work on the liturgy and Slavonic and it is mentioned elsewhere as a prime argument for having a standardized liturgical language.

We know that the liturgical language itself also undergoes change, but not nearly as quickly or frequently as the 'common tongues.'

A standardized language is only "dead" insofar as it is not intended for it to undergo the same process of development and change through outside influences as secular languages do. To standardize a language is to try and keep it fixed in a point in time over succeeding generations. That doesn't work, ultimately, but it does slow down the way in which a language develops and changes over time.

Your point on Latin is well made. Latin continues to exist in the Romance languages and in the bulk of English words and references we have today.

The Suschchu (what a mouthful!) issue can be quite emotional for some priests.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that one may easily fall into "heresy" if one doesn't use these anachronistic carry-overs from the Slavonic.

Even the Ukrainian Orthodox who have a much longer tradition of using the living Ukrainian language in their liturgy now often insist on these words.

Apart from meanings, the words can express theology with a certain perceived "dignity" that contemporary words, the language we use in daily life, just don't.

Rome allowed Slavonic in its Roman Rite locally. This was not done throughout most of the Roman Catholic Slavic nations, something that later reformers like Jan Hus in Bohemia decried as contributing to the moral decay of society in the Western Catholic Slavic lands.

That is hardly an official, wide-open policy for Slavic Roman Catholic lands, however, that were obliged to use Latin, in some cases as in former missionary territories of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, having to give up Slavonic for Latin.

As for transliteration, I don't follow any set pattern, but try to do a phonetic transliteration as my colleagues would often pronounce "Ch" as in "Cha-Cha."

I've also seen the "X" used for the Ukrainian "Ch."

For my immediate purposes, a close phonetic translation is always best.

Alex

Dear Lance,

Historical records, Schmistorical records

It's all in the interpretation . . .

The permission to use a Roman-Slavonic liturgy in a few dioceses of Croatia can HARDLY be called an open-door policy on Slavonic for Slavic Roman Catholics.

We know that the mission outreach of Sts. Cyril and Methodius went into Bohemia and elsewhere.

Yet, there is no record of a "Roman-Slavonic" liturgy ever used in those western Slavic lands which was largely limited to the Adriatic coast.

In some cases, the Slavonic-Byzantine liturgy was suppressed and the Latin-Roman Rite imposed.

Jan Hus and other later Slavic reformers decried this as a contributing factor to the religious decay of western Slavic society since the "masses" didn't understand the language they prayed in, stopped reading the Bible and, in one instance, thought that "Sviata Troytsa" was a female saint!

So, yes, Slavonic was used in the Roman Rite locally. But it was not widespread nor was it a Roman Church policy toward Slavic Roman Catholic countries, especially Poland.

The liturgical angle is only one angle here. We would need to see why the Roman-Slavonic liturgy was limited as it was. Was it because it met with opposition on the part of Frankish and later RC missionaries? Was it even more political than that?

Just because Vatican II approved of a new theology concerning the Eastern Churches, doesn't mean it is implemented throughout our Churches. If it were, we wouldn't be having conversations about our rights to nominate our own bishops or worry about our priestly candidates being able to be ordained in the married state.

The history of the Hussites in Bohemia sheds much light on how the imposed Roman Rite and Latin reversed the missionary gains made by the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition there. Matthew Spinka's works, done in a very irenical spirit, review this whole period of western Slavic history. Russian Orthodox theologians have also said that the Hussite period was an attempt by western Slavs (including many Poles in the Cracow area) to return to the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage of the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite.

This is why there was even talk of considering Hus and Jerome of Prague as possible "heralds of a return to Orthodoxy."

As for the history of the veneration of the Thessalonian brothers, Fr. Holweck's entry in his 1923 edition of "The Dictionary of Saints" summarizes it with references.

In historical terms, 1959 didn't happen yesterday.

It happened early in this morning!

Remember that calendars are one thing in hagiography and don't tell the whole story.

Blessed John Duns Scotus and others were beatified locally by bishops (even against Pope Urban's decree). Rome accepted them into the calendar, and created all sorts of rules about their veneration.

The fact a saint is in a calendar, doesn't mean their cult is approved universally or even regionally.

Their feast (July 5th actually ) was celebrated but without official Roman approval.

This approval was given by the Slavic Pope John Paul II who also declared them patrons of Europe with St Benedict.

Remember that St Josaphat, when he was canonized in 1875, had his cult "limited" to the Eastern Catholic Churches ALONE until later in 1888 (?) his cult was extended to the entire Catholic Church.

Metr. Ilarion Ohienko also does an excellent job of reviewing their lives and treatment by Rome in his two volume Ukrainian-language "Constantine and Methodius" (Constantine being, as you know, Cyril's original Christian name).

Remember also that for many RC's in the hey-day of the Union of Brest-Litovsk, the Byzantine-Slavonic liturgy itself was considered an accommodation to the people, the ultimate later aim begin to fully Latinize them, despite "official policy."

Alex

UC:

I'll take the bait. Several questions:

What do you mean by "instead of":
"to the exclusion of", or an do you simply mean the addition of a few weil-known pieces that are not from our tradition? Do you object to Chritmas-time singing of universal favorties like Pridijte Vsi Virni, and Ticha Noc in addition to our own?

What exactly is Roman Catholic or Protestant vs. Eastern Christian in choir music, anyway? The introduction of choir singing into Byzantine-Slavic practice was a definite mimicking of Latin and Polish practice that we adopted becuase we found it irresistible. So what is Eastern about it? I am not an advocate of choir vs. congregational singing but I understand its appeal, and I don't think it's a disgrace.
And if some choir director introduces some irresitable piece from the "West", again I wouldn't do it myself, I wouldn't encourage it, but I don't think I would kvetch about it very much, particularly as a visitor to a parish.

14 years? There has been choir music available since Bortniansky. In at least one choir in the Johnstown deanery (possibly the one you have in mind) choir settings of Prostopinije pieces have been in use for 25 or so years.

djs

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Alex,

On 07-24-2002 at 02:22 PM you wrote "In addition, it is really a myth that Sts. Cyril and Methodius translated the liturgical texts into the 'language of the people.'"

Bob

OK. Scratch above. Checked some Cyrillic Slavonic last night...this latinica transliteration in some books is bad. Should be mn'i and hr'ishnomu in Ung's original post.

The jat' cannot be represented in the same way either of the two -i- are since the jat' 'palatalizes' (sort of) without the use of the soft sign while the -i- does not. Using a soft sign where there is not one in the 'original' seems risky. Further using -ch- to represent two different sounds--let's see like the -ch- 'church' and the -ch- in 'Christ' is problematic and leads to what was discussed above, people who sing in incorrect Slavonic. Now that cannot, by any stretch, be good! You wanna use Slavonic? Go ahead, but pronounce it properly. If people mispronounced English like they do Slavonic in the Liturgy people in the pews wouls be horrified. I will not even try to give an idea of what that might sound like...that would be blasphemous.

Bob

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Bob, Bob, Bob.

That should be dorohyj !!

Back to Cyrillic, then, OK?

Дорогый Лемко,

Щастный?

Пріательу,

Як хочеш таким способом можем �пост-овати.�

Bob

Лемко,

Ґде в Карпатскои-Руси есте?

Bob

Dear Bob,

I give thanks unto the Lord that at the Last Judgement it will be God Who will judge me and not you, Friend!

I was simply differentiating between the language spoken by the people and the standardized liturgical language of Slavonic.

At THAT time, the two were quite similar and the people of the "Great Unwashed Masses" understood it, as opposed to the "Great Unwashed Masses" of today who don't.

Sorry if I was imprecise.

Alex

djs,

The Johnstown Deanery choir started in 1987 under the direction of Paulette Parlock. She is a high school Spanish teacher and not a Music teacher. She insists on using Roman Catholic arrangements for the "Holy, Holy, Holy...", "One is Lord...", the "Our Father..." etc., etc. While the Deanery Choir no longer sings in the Johnstown Parish, they manage to suddenly appear at Christmas time and Pascha in the Windber parish and continue to use these Roman Catholic Choir arrangements. In August of 2000 when Dormition of the Mother of God Church (Windber) celebrated her centennial celebration, the Parlock choir was assisted by the choirs of Sts. Peter and Paul Orthodox Church (Windber) and Christ the Savior Orthodox Church (Johnstown). These Orthodox Choirs brought their Eastern Christian Choir music with them and taught them to this "combined ecumenical choir" and they also brought their English and Church Slavonic Prostopinije four part harmony arrangements. It sounded great thanks to the our Orthodox brethren bringing their music along with them! As I recall the only part that sounded like Roman Catholic Choir music was when they sang the "Alleluija" after the Gospel reading. I guess the Orthodox "guests" let Ms. Parlock use her "Roman" arrangement for that part of the Divine Liturgy. The priests of the Deanery do not make waves about what the choir sings, even if it means that they continue to use these Roman Catholic arrangements. While this may seem perfectly harmless and sound "ecumenical", it has no place in an Eastern Christian Church, especially since there exists (in the English-speaking parts of North America)numerous Eastern Christian Liturgical musical arrangements used by many Uniate and Orthodox Churches of North America.

Ung-Certez

??? - ? ?????? ???????? ??-?????? (???????). ? ????? ??????????? ???? ?? ???, ??? ? ????????? ????? ??????????. ????? ??????!

Clearly, although I can type in Cyrillic, for some reason on this message board it doesn't "take." Anybody know why not? I don't have problems posting using Cyrillic on other Windows-based message boards.

I wrote in Word then copied and pasted into this forum window.

Alex,

Dude, chill out! I am merely trying to follow your posts. You clearly were imprecise or changed your tune without making it clear. Can't anyone disagree with you without you calling it 'judging' and getting all dramatic about it?

Bob

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Dear Bob,

Sorry if I appeared "unchilled"

That's a quip I say often . . .

I was just calling attention to your very precise exactitude and you are right.

I am in seventh heaven right now during these WYD.

Some young pilgrims are looking over my shoulder as I write this and are shaking their heads at your dismay with me .

How about we both chill out and pray for the success of World Youth Day? And that I don't swoon at the idea of having so many Cardinals and you know who all to myself tomorrow morning?

And how come you know so much about Slavonic languages and have such a non-ethnic screen name?

Is that a cover up?

O.K. you guys, move away from the computer and stop laughing . . .

God bless, Bob, and forgive me!

Alex

Of course it is!

Dear Bob,

At least four of these World Yoots here (I think they are much too young for their parents to allow them to travel so far from home - and now they are shoving me around the little . . . can you imagine? ) want to know why the Ruthenian Church wanted to de-ethnicize itself.

I guess it's a valid question, coming from "Yoots" who "no speaka da (English) language."

Sorry that I have to cut this post short. I'm under attack!

Alex

Dear UC:

Wow, I am fascinated by this.

I had no idea that there was a Deanery choir exclusive of the choir in Johnstown, out of which it emanated. In J-town, through the seventies, we never used any RC setting of liturgical pieces, and had our own arrangements for a lot of Prostopinije pieces. I wonder to what extent the Deanery choir still uses some of this. The last time I heard the J-towners sing, it was pretty much the same as repetoire that we had when I left in the early eighties, including well-known Russian settings of Our Father; Holy, Holy, Holy; Jedin Svjat; and the Gospel Alleluia.

I am shocked to hear the extent to which RC settings are employed. But I am not surprised, under the circumstances.

First, in trying to find people to carry on this work - with talent, time, knowledge, and willingness to do it all for free, we often find no one. And thus we are happy to have someone who may be lacking in one or another category. And if the the work becomes too demanding - do this, not this - and if people are hyper-critical ... then we again have no one. (I believe the end of the line for a certain director in a certain parish came when, given instructions, on short notice, for Good Friday vespers, responded to the priest: I'm a musician, not a magician).

Second, a major problem of the not-too-distant past, was the availability of music, and the access to knowledge of the repetoire. The internet has made this so much easier, now. But our Ruthenian church still has next to nothing on-line. (I have asked about this several times on this forum, but have not gotten a nibble. Is it band-width, copyright, money, territory?) As a result, it seems to me, a well-meaning volunteer can even today run into trouble finding the most suitable music. It seems to me latter problem could be so easily fixed (trivial to make pdf's out of existing sheet music), and, in turn, help to solve the former.

djs

I am no one to ask this question to. Although I posit that the Ruthenians never had a concrete ethnicity. It was somewhat fluid, hone in on
'somewhat fluid' before you foam at the mouth at me folks. Magocsi talked about this in '96 in Uzhgorod if I am not mistaken. The text was reprinted in the BCW, I was not there for that event.

I mean what flag was going to be hung in the BC churches? Also, it must be recalled that the Brothers did not force their own ethnicity (which is, IMHO, merely a vehicle of the Gospel) on the Slavs. Yeah sure there was some borrowing but it apprears there was more adaptation (like in music).

Unfortunately many would not have that same thing happen today. They want a Ruthenian church (read parish).

Ask someone else why the Ruthenian church in the USA wanted to shed its ethnicity. Also do you mean just the Catholics or the Orthodox as well? Oftentimes the 'Johsnstown' diocese is called too "Greek." I have no opinion about the latter, just throwing it in the mix.

Bob

[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Dear Bob,

You are very erudite!

Our Bishops could use you in their public relations and communications offices, to be sure!

And theological advice and guidance to them would also be appreciated!

Have a great weekend. I'm off with these "Yoots" who will not give me a moment's peace!

Alex

You gonna write back? BTW, I thought twice about my spelling of ґде instead of где; it seems no matter how we spell it we say ґде, right?

Umm, no, "hde" is either a Russianism or Church Slavonicism. Rusyn dialects only show "de".

Trying again with Cyrillic:
? ????? ???, ???? ? ????!

Well, I give up. I did what you said, Bob, and got the same result. It looked fine on my screen, but after I submitted it, it poofed into ??s.

Unable to resist another bad joke, I have to say that attempting to use Slavonic in an English-speaking nation is "questionable"??

????????????????????????????????

Not attempted Slavonic, just question marks.


Have a Blessed Day !!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

And more ?'s!
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????

It's bad enough that the discussion has actually stayed on topic so long that with those of us whose computers insist on rendereing cyrillic characters as question marks makes the discussion truly impossible to follow!

Steve

[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: Steve Petach ]

The discussion above about 'dialect', 'diacritical marks', and transliterations is quite fascinating. But it makes me wonder, if we are an American (and Canadian) Church, then why are we arguing about these linguistic elements that are really 'fine points' for native speakers of whatever Slavic tongue? I can read OCS (thanks to Boston College and Harvard Univ.), but I don't know Russian, Ukrainian or Carpathian. So, I can't really follow the fine points. And I ask myself: should I have to? It's really the spirituality, isn't it? (Although as a linguist, I am professionally interested in this!!)

I must, however, comment on the point made about the Carpatho-Ruthenians: when I joined my Ruthenian parish 27 years ago, I heard the unique music and the unique liturgical customs (including the traveling troitse) and it became clear to me that the Ruthenians are INDEED a unique people and not some sort of mutant Ukrainians or Slovaks. And, I'll support the Carpatho-Ruthenians all the way because I can see that they are a unique people and because they (in contradistinction to other Slavic groups) have been incredibly hospitable to outsiders like this wandering Greek. A nation? You bet!!

Blessings!

Then as a linguist, you shouldn't take offense at a few gentle corrections. No offense is intended.


No such language as "Carpathian." You should know it is called Rusyn, if you consider it a language, which many linguists now do.


Ch. Slavonic: trojca / troitsa

Rusyn: trojcja / troitsia


Thanks for your support. I feel the same way about the Greeks. (And I absolutely *loved* "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" - and as a Rusyn I identified with a lot of it. )

Dear Dr John,

I think there's a lot of debate because the topic is fun!

Also, as far as translating the music from the "old language" to the new": no compromise has to be made. Prostopinije is based on patterns which can be perfectly and easily fashioned for English without doing any damage to the text (which, you are right, is the most important part). In fact, every once and awhile I will spontaneously translate Prostopinije into Spanish (which I speak fluently) just for fun (this is in my mind, I don't have that much time on my hands to compose it!!! And I am by NO means even an intermediate-level chanter!)

Byzantine Chant can be easily transferred into English as well--it was transferred into Arabic and Romanian without many problems. When I learn a pattern for Byzantine Chant in Greek (I am studying Byz. Chant with a Greek Chanter), I then try to put it into English to see if I can do it on the fly--if I can, it means I have captured the essence of the tone.

In Christ,

anastasios

CIX!

Dear Tasos,


I'm even nuttier than you. I'm currently working on a Latin translation of Agni Parthene to fit the metre... it's coming along nicely. I think while I'm at it, I should translate the Theotokaria of St Nektarios into Latin too.. or should I do English, since no one's translated it into English yet?

Decisions, decisions.

Yours in Domino,

Edward

English, please! I think it's great that people have interest in certain theological and liturgical texts and are "doing them" in the original. But it would be a great service if renditions in English were available; even if they're not up to the "Harvard Classics" level of translation, their mere availability would be a godsend.

OK, pencils sharpened, ......begin.

Blessings!

Dr. J--

I am an "english" guy and agree with you. My friend and I were discussing how nice it would be to put the Anastasimatario (Greek book of 8 tones for Vespers and Matins in Byzantine Chant) into English. Problem is, which translation to use, and would other chanters accept it, etc. But it will never get done on the official level, at least this century...

That's what's great about learning the patterns of the music first--then you can chant anything in any language!

In Christ,

anastasios

Great! Now that Dr. John is on the job, we'll have "Falls Church Plainchant" in about, maybe three weeks???

Have a Blessed Day !!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I'd like to propose an immediate moratorium on any further use of Church Slavonic in the Pittsburgh Metropolia until people (certain choir directors come to mind) learn the difference between "nash" (nas~) and "nas". If I hear "Kol' slaven nas" or "...chlib nas nasus~c~nyj" one more time I'll run screaming into the street. ("nash" (nas~) means "our", and "nas" means "us"...)
*****Please excuse my last attempt to post a reply without the reply! OK, here's the reply: as a RC and newcomer/visitor to our local ByzCath church and a 4th generation Slavic-American who speaks Russian, I am quite interested in the use of Ch. Slav. but immediately noticed that the liturgical service book (pub. by official people, not just some photocopies) had a most unintelligible transliteration that would be impossible for non-slavic-language-speakers to decipher and sing accurately (thus Rusyn's frustration...)...a little better chance for us speakers of Ukr/Russian/Polish/Czech, etc., but still hard. For example, in one hymn the transliterator writes 'vo slavi idet' for 'comes in glory'...but anyone who knows about these things knows that the pronounciation would be 'idYOT' (3rd person, to come), not the apparent 'EEdet' (letter 'yo' = e with two dots over it, which are often omitted in less formal writing or indeed most of the time leading less experienced people to render 'yo' as a simple 'e'; this is why most people think the name of famous icon writer RublYOV is pronounced as usually written, RublEV)). I share the frustration of the member quoted above, but this problem is understandable due to the strange translit'ns made. It's due to different factors such as diff. /arbitrary systems used (same problem in Russian, but not as bad), strange diacritical marks, and also I heard due to different dialects, (heard from a choir member)...but if this is Ch Slav.,isn't that like Church Latin? (i.e., unchangeable)... please enlighten me!

Can anyone in a Byz. Cath Ch confirm what language is normally used in church other than English? Is it maybe some strange Ruth./Ukr. dialect, not Ch Slav.??

Where can I learn more about the actual language used (not transliterated) so that I could sing/pronounce things correctly?

Does anyone know why <if> the language in BCCh truly is Ch. Slav. it differs from all the Orthodox Ch. Slav. I heard recently in my first few Orth. liturgies as well as the beautiful Rachmaninov Lit. of St John Chrysostom? There you hear 'Gospodi' but in Byz. Cath Ch it is strange that they turn all the Gs into Hs, thus 'Hospodi', 'Blahoslavi', etc. - very strange to my ear - almost like lisping the Gs.

Would appreciate hearing any authoritative answers.

-Slavyanskiy

You obiviously aren't familiar with the South-West Rus' (Galician Ukrainian, Kyivian Ukrainian, and especially Subcarpathian Rusyn) recension and pronounciation of Church Slavonic. While Muscovite (Great Russian)and modern Bulgarian pronounciation and recension of Church Slavonic has a "G" sound for "Gospodi and Mnogaja", the South-West Rus' DO NOT PRONOUNCE THE SOUND AS A "G" BUT AS A "H" SOUND. It is a matter of recension and local pronounciation variations of the Church Slavonic language. Contrary to those who think that the Muscovite Church uses the Great Russian langauage as their liturgical language, they are not. They really are using Church Slavonic rendered in their peculiar Nortnern-Rus' Moscovite recension!

Ung-Certez

I'd concede the point that most people in our churches no longer realize that the transliterated into Latin alphabet "j" is pronounced like "y", nor any idea how to pronounce c~, s~, z~, ch... maybe if we switched to a more phonetic-based transliteration (ch, sh, zh, kh) we wouldn't have as much trouble.


The transliteration is absolutely correct. The problem is that you are imputing the Russian way onto our correct native pronunciation. There are not hard "g"s in words like Hospodi or mnohaja (as Ung-Csertez noted), nor are there unwritten changes of pronunciation the way you've described above. The correct pronunciation of idet for Rusyns and Ukrainians is ee-det.


Buy a cassette of the Liturgy from St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Presov, Slovakia:
http://www.iarelative.com/music/sacred.htm

You can listen to part of it here:
http://www.lemko.org/lvpro/liturhia.html

This seems to have been responded to rather well but I would like to add the following.

Indeed there are many who cannot pronounce Church Slavonic any more. Sad but true. The system of transilteration is based on Slovak and worked well since many BCs came/come from what is now Slovakia. However, nas for nash and similar are at best very abrasive to my ears.

Church Slavonic is pronounced in many ways 'in accordance' with the local Slav language. So those East and West Slavs who use -H- will say "Hospodi" will most others will say "Gospodi" both are right, this is true in Orthodoxy as well, it is not a Catholic phenomenon.

Slavyanskiy your comment about -idyot- as apposed to -idet- is noted. If you refer to Archbishop Alipy's (ROCOR) book on Church Slavonic he makes quite the point that the e=yo is incorrect. Also the 'akanie' of modern Russian is incorrect in Church Slavonic, so 'atets' is wrong, 'otets' is correct. Now these seem to be exceptions to the rule of the local pronunciation influencing Ch. Slav.

The Slavonic texts used in the BC churches are basically the same used in Orthodoxy...they are pronounced differently that is all. Go to a Ukrainian Orthodox parish that celebrates in Slavonic and you will hear the same pronunciation, or go to a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parish to hear the same meoldies even.

Bob

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ung-Certez:
[QB]You obiviously aren't familiar with the South-West Rus' (Galician Ukrainian, Kyivian Ukrainian, and especially Subcarpathian Rusyn) recension and pronounciation of Church Slavonic. While Muscovite (Great Russian)and modern Bulgarian pronounciation and recension of Church Slavonic has a "G" sound for "Gospodi and Mnogaja", the South-West Rus' DO NOT PRONOUNCE THE SOUND AS A "G" BUT AS A "H" SOUND.
*********************************************************
Thank you, all who replied and educated me about these obscure linguistic points. You are all quite the scholars here, it seems. I thought, however, that I made it clear that in fact I do NOT know much about this subject. In fact am in my 3rd week of being exposed to all this from the point of having absolutely no knowledge of Orthodoxy or ByzCath stuff but I can already recite a few of the Slavonic prayers such as 'slava otsu i synu i svyatomu dukhu...', so please give me a break about how I obviously don't know about this. You're right! I don't...but thanks once again for the help.

-Slavyanskiy
-PS - about the comment from another poster about different dialects being used to pronounce the ChSlav texts, that is very interesting...but seems almost as bad as people mispronouncing Church Latin and calling it a dialect. Just an off the cuff thought, not being disrespectful, but seems that it would be good to have it said the same everywhere if possible.

Hospodi pomiluj!

djs

CIX!

Just a thought - Church Slavonic has never been pronounced uniformly in history. Is there a need to start now?

Also, there is no such thing as "Church Latin" - the Church simply used the Latin around it. The so called "Church Pronunciation" of Latin is simply Italian, and until the 20th Century, was never used in the history of the Church, except in Italy from the late Middle Ages onward.

Of course, this is all coming from a fellow who uses an Anglican pronunciation of Latin and used to drive the other members of his former SSPX parish nuts with it.

My two cents!

In Domino,

Edward

All, thanks for the interesting and erudite replies...this is really an education. You should all be contestants on 'Church Jeopardy'.

-Slav'skiy