www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Church Slavonic in Church.

I agree.

Daniil

I still feel that Church Slavonic ought to rightly be preserved in the Slavic Churches because it is an inteergal part of the Eastern tradition. Also I feel that the comment that someone made earlier about Latin giving a sense of universal continuance to the western mass holds up equally (For me) to our Slavic liturgy. There are numerous people both ethnic and American who do want this tradition preserved to the absolute fullest. But many are afraid to speak out on the topic because they fear ridicule. The ones who are all for english are usually just overzealous Protestant converts who want to make the Church what they want it to be.
Robert K.

My original parish and Daniil's second(?) parish in Indiana uses Old Slavonic, English and Ukrainian.

I really miss not seeing it here in Grand Rapids. Our current pastor here suggested trying it some time here but since this parish changed to Ukrainian about 27 years ago, most of the older parishioners have forgotten it...

Some times I sing Old Slavonic parts of the Liturgy with our two priests for fun in the sacristy.

St. Cyril's Church in Olyphant, PA has a video tape of the Liturgy in Old Slavonic. I sent for one so I can listen to it as often as I want.

Paki i paki.....

It's very nice.

http://members.tripod.com/~stcyrils/

Stefan

Christ, no!

It's enough that the NO departs from the deposit of liturgical tradition by severing all ties with a 2000 year old patrimony (which should be the cardinal point here, not the matter of aesthetics or even the objective worth and quality of the prayers by comparison). Continuity is an essential concept for us Easterners, meaning gradual development as opposed to re-creation.

Things taken out of context are worthless and have no use in any place except in the scrapheap. Easterners should be incensed that what goes on in the Roman Church be done in their name. Standing and the taboo against kneeling on Sundays is a part of our tradition. It isn't worth a copper penny in the Latin tradition. Standing is promoted on our side of the fence to exhibit profound reverence to God and attention to the happenings at the Liturgy, and to show proper conduct for the joyful day of the Resurrection. In the West it's used to undermine every iota of respect owed to God in the Mass. Married clergy: does anyone think the motives for such a thing in the Latin Church are commendable or have anything to do with the basis of our venerable tradition of the married priesthood? The reasons for this drive may even be an insult to the dignity of the married priesthood (I don't think CTA or CFFC have the right motives in mind when calling for the doing away of priestly celibacy). The Latin Mass and the Eastern Liturgies had been formed through time and careful fine tuning all from the wisdom of our ancestors. A comittee created manufacturing product does not even begin to measure up to an Eastern Liturgy. And both species: I don't think passing the "cup" from one bufoon to the next has anything to do with us. A proper application of our tradition would probably be to accurately translate the Tridentine Mass into proper English or to do as the Armenians do in communing under both kinds: intinction. That's legitimate reform. A liturgical upheaval is not, and has and should have nothing whatsoever to do with us Easterners. As for the epiklesis, I support what Serge said once on this. The Roman Mass and the very ancient and untouchable Canon is not to be jettisoned for some stupid, inane ploy to Easternize it. Altering it because it has no 'proper' epiklesis is insulting and rediculous, especially if it means whipping up a new rite of Mass altogether. Bringing what seemingly looks Eastern (I'm no fan of Ikons in Latin churches) into the West, tout suit, up to and including the very Canon of the Mass, is, and I never seem to be able to exhaust the use of this Greek allusion, handing the reins to a bunch of Phaetons who can only cause disaster. These folks don't know what they're doing and have no idea what being Eastern means. They'll only demolish their own Church by incorporating Eastern and not so Eastern stuff like bear hugs at Mass, and the understanding of the Liturgy as a banquet in order to counter their traditional theology, developed over the course of centuries, that is heavily built on the notion of Sacrifice, and helping to nullify any belief in the Real Presence, certainly not its (the idea of banquet) function in our Eastern theology that doesn't need, in order to prevent the faithful from doubting the Real Presence, to emphasize strongly on the static presence of Christ in the Eucharist outside of the liturgical context.


His Beautitude Maximos IV's aim was to counter the Westernizing tendencies and pressure that had been directed at the Eastern Catholic Churches for a long time. And this is evidenced by his refusing to address the Council Fathers in Latin, but French. He encouraged collegiality and the vernacular. Easternization was his motive (the Orthodox praised him in speaking on their behalf). I personally do not agree with the Patriarch's recommendations to the Roman Church itself (Latinization/Easternization--they're all two sides of the same coin, and undersirable), but am emphatically proud of his standing up for OUR Churches. The Latin Church's affairs are none of our business. But our rights and priveleges as Easterners must be respected, and in that context, the Patriarch's words were thundering.

But to hint that the Council, much less the Patriarch himself (please, no one connect him to that folly of papal decision-making that took the Latins on a roller coaster ride to insanity) would have even contemplated the NO liturgical revolution is quite shivering. A Melkite priest I know well couldn't believe how "the Latins had dumped their own patrimony." And our father, the Patriarch said the following at the Council:

"We must not allow the adaptation of the liturgy to become an obsession. The liturgy, like the inspired writings, has a permanent value apart from the circumstances giving rise to it. Before altering a rite we should make sure that a change is strictly necessary. The liturgy has an impersonal character and also has universality in space and time. It is, as it were, timeless and thus enables us to see the divine aspect of eternity. These thoughts will enable us to understand what at first seem shocking in some of the prayers of the Liturgy - feasts that seem no longer appropriate, antiquated gestures, calls to vengeance which reflect a pre-Christian mentality, anguished cries in the darkness of the night, and so on. It is good to feel oneself thus linked with all the ages of mankind. We pray not only with our contemporaries but with men who have lived in all centuries."


Yes. A liturgical language is not opposed to the vernacular, let's make that clear! A liturgical language is formed when a new nation (and I don't speak in the modern context, such as that multicultural cocktail called North America) is evangelized, a new people with their own language and history and ethnic ties. A new Church is established by the mother Church, or the mother Church gains new territory and jurisdiction. Excepting a few cases in the Old Country, where Slavonic I believe, was replaced by a vernacular Eastern European language, the new language of the Church is either an old form of the vernacular (such as the Fushah Arabic or Ge'ez in Ethiopia) or the vernacular form that becomes archaic in the future. (such as is the case in Greece; A Greek Canadian tells me, watching a TV broadcast of Divine Liturgy, "You think I understand what the heck they're saying?") Amazing! Eastern Churches then must have been violating the rule and tradition of the vernacular even before America and its inculturation of immigrants existed!!! That's silly of course. The tradition of the vernacular as I understand it means the evangelization of new nations in a language other than that of the mother Church. Latin isn't unique in that it is a language "nobody understands". It takes effort for the uneducated ethnic to understand Fushah Arabic or Koine Greek, and there are difficulties to it. The understanding of a "lingua sacra" or language or special form of language preserved for the divine celebrations is not some Latin concoction. What differentiates the Latins from us is that they evangelized nations in Latin only, and there was only to be one Patriarch of the West. No new Churches were to be formed or established under another Western Patriarchate according to the Western model of evangelization. The tradition of the Church of Rome, which included the new nations it evangelized with time, was to be rooted in its Latin heritage and language. The East on the other hand did well in its mode of evangelization that opened the opportunity for autocephalous Churches with their own lingua sacra, which was their own vernacular, and by vernacular I don't mean the colloqial, but what is part of the cultural patrimony of the people, such as Fushah Arabic and Grapar Armenian and Coptic. These languages or forms of language may not be considered vernacular according to some here since they are not spoken, or even understood by some, but they are languages that belong to the culture itself and are of the people and part of their heritage (unlike what Latin is to a Celt or a Scandinavian) But as for the Latin only charge, has anyone considered (and I'm no linguist, so I don't know if this is true) the possibility that the relation between Slavonic and today's Eastern European languages is the same as that between Latin and the Romance languages. Aren't the latter merely Latin dialects? If Slavonic and old Greek is considered a correct example of the Eastern Church's evangelizing in the vernacular in the case of Eastern Europe and Greece, can not the same be said for Latin in the case of what were once Latin dialects? Is not Latin the "vernacular" to those countries as Slavonic is to Eastern Europe?


So two choices present themselves. Either the vernacular must always mean a language the populace at large understands and speaks in (and if they are raised to understand the old "church" tongues, they will, believe you me), in which case the Eastern Church as a whole has flouted the Eastern guidelines and violated the Eastern ethos for centuries with Slavonic and old Greek and old Armenian and Syriac, or it means a language that belongs to the culture and land in question, which allows for the "Latin" notion of a lingua sacra, an archaic old, sometimes unintelligible form of the mother tongue. I am partial to the latter. I wouldn't have Liturgy celebrated in an old Damascene dialect if I had a knife to my throat.

As for English, the reason that invoking the magic word "vernacular" in the case of America is ineffective, I believe, is because of the misplaced context in which it is used in addition to the fact that it is a gross anachronism to make parallels between conducting the Liturgy in English on this continent and Sts. Cyril and Methodious evangelizing the Slavic nations in Slavonic.

To face America, one must realize and confess that it is essentially a cultural and historical abberation by its own nature, and an absolutely artificial society, by the standards of any normal development of "nations and peoples", as understood by historians and sociologists (had they existed back then) throughout time (I'm sure Ibin Khaldoun would have passed out at the thought), or as understood by the Church in its mission of evangelizing and "preaching to all the peoples and all the nations". America is certainly not a civilization, but a pocketful of ethnicities that are melted down into a lowest common denominator--a bunch of mutilated subcultures, and hence an anti-culture. [Hope you Irish are enjoying St. Paddy's :-)]

As much as one would like to ethnically compromise a Church abroad and turn it into an ethnic melting pot, that Church is not an American autocephalous Church. It remains a Church whose very identity rests on its point of origin, and whose existance on this soil is initially owed to the task of providing for immigrants in the diaspora. This abnormal situation lends itself to all sorts of problems such as the overlapping jurisdictions, some of which strangely enough, probably are no longer consitituted by the ethnics or nationals that identified the uniqueness of those Churches and jurisdictions to begin with. Needless to say, these Churches, much aided by the Roman Church's going kaput, went far beyond mission parameters when the floodgates from disoriented Latins, amongst others, broke open (Antiochian Orthodox in charge of a Western Orthodox vicariate; I can still hardly believe it. His Beautitude Ignatius wouldn't conceive of such an idea). America is a disfigurement of the normal development cycles of nations and peoples. As a result, these abnormalities will spill over to our Churches and its peoples. Over here identity, nationality, origin, history all take a whole new spin and meaning apart from what us Old World folk understand them to be (hence people seeming to believe a Church is Slavonic because of its traditions, not because it is actually based across the Atlantic and NOT an American Church, and not because of its ethnicity, the PEOPLE, as Dr. John says, that make it up, the ones who are the bearers of that tradition to begin with). Therefore to suggest that the Eastern Church abroad that exists first and foremost to serve its flock in the diaspora without prejudice to the occasional convert, and that insists on using the liturgical language, the proper vernacular if I may (whether the descendants pick up on it or not), exclusively or to some or an overwhelming degree, is so clearly violating the Eastern custom of evangelizing or conducting Liturgy in the vernacular, and to suggest that this is clear cut, inisinuating that there is a clear parallel between Sts. Cyril and Methodious evangelizing the Slavs in Slavonic, and having the Antiochian Orthodox faithful discard Arabic to the scrapheap because their 3rd generation American children katapulted their language and heritage to the realm of obscurity, is breathtakingly nonsensical.

(No wonder there is a push for autonomy; the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church abroad seem to have nothing in common.)

There can only be one acceptable resolution to allow such changes, an American autocephalous Church. But I am of the opinion that Rite is rooted to culture, hence ethnicity and a people and nation, hence geography. As I said on another thread, I am not happy with Latin or Hellenic Christianity in Africa. The Rite is not compatible with the culture. Thus the Alexandrian tradition has a designated geographic scope, Africa. So with the Byzantine Church: an autocephalous Eastern Byzantine Church in America, in the West, composed of Western ethnicities? It seems illogical to me, cementing a Rite of a certain cultural mindset with peoples retrospectively of Western European descent that is not compatible with the Rite, and establishing this as an independant Church. Excepting the Alaskan missionary work amongst the Inuits, I've always seen the land of American natives and Western immigrants as traditional Jesuit territory. Of course given the Roman Church's state and the wreck of the Jesuit order, a lot of those gains have been lost and I don't see the Jesuits of old reclaiming it back.

And as for India, with all due respect to St. Francis Xavier, we should make it all Thomist. Funny, those Jesuits. I take much pride in their evangelizing in the lands West of Europe in the Americas, but am shocked and infuriated by what they did when they came into contact with Eastern Churches. The Spanish Americas may be valid lands of Trent and counter-Reformation, but please leave the Easterns out of it. I have quite a hate-love-hate relationship with the Jesuits. That's two hates because of their doings amongst Easterners and because they self-destructed and sold out in the 20th century.

Some of my candid opinions. Excuse the sharp tone.

In IC XC
Samer

Ilya, Daniil and others,
I prefer Ukrainian rather than Old Slavonic because I can understand Ukrainian and only part of Slavonic. I think Ukrainian flows better when sung rather than Slavonic. Ilya, I thought in Slavonic, Lord was Hospodi not Gospodi. Isn't Gospodi the Russian use of Church Slavonic? Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks
-ukrainiancatholic

Dear Samer,

It is easy for a Chrictian to look upon America as some kind of cultural disaster. I suggest a different view.

This land began with settlement by various protestants who were protesting the church/governmant of the protestant lands of northern Europe. These predominantly English, Dutch and German. Later came Scotch-Irish (also protestant). They built a sort of hybrid protestant-protestantism, and began to separate into multiple church fragments, which still continues.

Later, immigration included more and more Catholics and more and more people from southern and eastern Europe. They changed the culture from a British one to dare I say a "Catholic" one, whether you see a "mixing bowl" or a "salad bowl".

The problem is that the wide open spaces and opportunities that the immigrant found grew into a freewheeling capitalist economy and a social environment that encouraged concepts like "bigger is better" and "new and improved actually is".

The result is a society where we have a new sort of dual nationality. One part of nation is family and church oriented, based on a generic Christian foundation. The other part is a new variety of paganism and celebrity worship. This is done mostly in the English language, with Spanish in some regions.

The task of the Church is to evangelize this new nation in the vernacular of its culture, English.
They don't understand older or other languages and have the attention spans of blinking Christmas lights. We need to blink our message at them when we get a chance, between the other noise. We need not to spend our energy in despising the despicable, that we despise it is known to Christ.

What we need to do is show the love of Jesus Christ to the unbelieving part of society. I don't think we can reach them by only doing things the way they were done in Europe or Syria or India or wherever a hundred years ago. Respect for traditional way is important, but cannot be allowed to keep us from the work we need to do.

Just a few thoughts.


John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I would still be leary, if I were you, of all this "Americanization" stuff that gets forced down our throats by those who propbably dont understand what it will do to the Church in the long run. Personally, I am 100% dead set against the use of english for the Divine Liturgy. If the priest wants to give the homily in that language then he should. That goes for religious instruction as well. But I see no reason why we should endanger the sacred rites with the uninspired language of our common "Boobus Americanus". By our holy language, we shall transcend the mundane world and carry the souls of our flocks to spiritual hieghts of wonder and perplexity through the ancient services and traditions.

I would still be leary, if I were you, of all this "Americanization" stuff that gets forced down our throats by those who propbably dont understand what it will do to the Church in the long run. Personally, I am 100% dead set against the use of english for the Divine Liturgy. If the priest wants to give the homily in that language then he should. That goes for religious instruction as well. But I see no reason why we should endanger the sacred rites with the uninspired language of our common "Boobus Americanus". By our holy language, we shall transcend the mundane world and carry the souls of our flocks to spiritual hieghts of wonder and perplexity through the ancient services and traditions.
However what many constantly propose is for us to sweep it all under the rug and switch to english only for "the sake of the children"!!! Personaly, I always preffer to attend a good old fashioned ethnic parish (any ethnicity) anyday over your atypical convert one with all its assorted oddballs and cranks. Take an Antiochian parish around Topeka Kansas that Im familiar with and which is made up of practically all converts. They always seem extremely strict and up tight about everything just like Protestants. They are all novices to sacremental Christianity and dont know how to adapt to it like we who were born into it do. THese people are definatly not my cup of tea and if the new Orthodoxy/Eastern Catholocity is going to be like they are then perhaps I should move down to Australia where they still are pretty ethnic I hear.
Do us a favor folks and realize what your doing by advocating the destruction of our glorious Byzantine traditions and heratige? You going to let people like these protestants take over the Church and then youll see what will happen. Why, well be clappin our hands and saying hallaluija like the holy rollers before you know it.
Sorry if this post offends anybody but I feel that the purpose of a public forum is to state your opinoions and, believe me, Im good at that!
Robert K.

Sammer,

"In the West it's [standing during the Mass] used to undermine every iota of respect owed to God in the Mass. "

I find that impossible to beleive. Every iota of respect?

"Married clergy: does anyone think the motives for such a thing in the Latin Church are commendable"

Even the Archdiocean newspaper in Boston is now willing to encourage a civil discussion of this topic. I'm not suggesting the Roman Church need to change anything, but if I read you correctly, you'v edecided the 'motives' of one side put them outside any civil discussion.

" And both species: I don't think passing the "cup" from one bufoon to the next has anything to do with us."

I managed to go my whole life without every collectively refering to Roman communicants collectively, as bufoons. It is a good discipline to follow.

Axios

Robert, I believe that is too strong a reaction and not an attitude I share with you, despite my understanding of your fortress mentality.

I am not against converts. Some of them prove to be better than cradles and ethnics, especially those who may be indifferent to the heavy Latin influence that may exist in their Churches. I speak of serious converts who actually make the mature decision to take the step eastwards, (Take Bishop Kallistos Ware, or Fr. Seraphim Rose, or John Tavener), not those who are only or mostly motivated out of their disappointment with the Roman Church. I hold that the considerable influx of Christians to the East, even from Protestants, is due in a good part to the changes the Roman Church underwent (helping to create an unmet spiritual hunger�which Bishop Ware talked about--that it failed to fill for many people), and the ties Westerners had to any concept of ethnic culture dissolving. But there are those who truly have the new culture adopt them or create a genuine bond with it (I mention Lord Byron and Greece, as well as Lawrence and the Arabs; the latter's encounter with us was quite bittersweet, I should think.)

What I find uncomfortable is having a jurisdiction or parish of converts that become the majority and tremendously alter the church's demographic background, leading eventually to changes that may jeapordize the ethnic community and call the identity of the Church itself into question. I recall someone on the forum mentioning how the English Liturgy, which I presume was brought about from the influence of non-Arabs in an Antiochian Orthodox parish, drove the Arabs to the Maronites(!) [Let me state that where I come from, that is very serious, and big news!] The situation must have been very unfavourable for them if they found themselves forced to go there. (The Maronites and the Melkites aren't necessarily the best of friends either).

Arabs are very clannish, and if there is any ethnic Church that does not need to lose its identity, it's the Antiochian (one that, along with all other Christians in the region, is a minority in its own country, and trying to survive; We Arab Christians are disappearing in the Levant we don't want to disappear in the diaspora as well), but I was surprised to find out that it is doing things in America that give it an entirely different face from the one I am familiar with back home. Arab Orthodox immigrants don't care about ties with their brother Slavs or Russians or Greeks. They are very isolated and expect an Antiochian Orthodox parish to be an ethnic Arab parish. I had a friend come from Beirut temporarily; the Antiochian Orthodox parish here is not ethnically heterogeneous, far from it. It is comprised totally of 3rd, 4th generation Arab immigrants (many of whom don't speak a word of the language) whom I couldn't recognize to be other than American or Canadian converts until they told me of their background. I perceived this Lebanese friend as uneasy and uncomfortable, with the community, and I believe, with the English services, and there were no Western converts whatsoever in the equation.

As for English Liturgies, I do not mind having them conducted if there are a number of foreigners or a considerable number of ethnics that have started to lose touch with their language and roots. My cardinal rule though, is for the ethnic parish to not be compromised in any way. The liturgical language should remain, and the identity of the parish should be clear. The English Liturgy is to me like an extraordinary minister, used as an accomodation for extraordinary situations where it is necessary, but not at the expense of the norm (2nd generation ethnics should not be encouraged to let go of their own tradition). The Coptic, Abyssinian, and Syriac Churches by the way are founded on ethnicity and nationality. You think they'd be crazy enough to replace their Churches with a multiethnic smogazbord?!

I cite only one exception to all the above: the OCA. An autocephalous American Church, even if it has its origins in Slavic roots, can do all the English and have all the multiplicity of ethnicities it wishes. America is its territory proper, despite my unease with such a concept as I explained it in my previous post.

I believe that church Rite, culture, nationality, ethnicity, and geography, all are linked with each other. There will always be converts who become adopted, which is not a problem, but an upheaval of this state of affairs, these ties, these elements inextricably linked with one another (like dreadlocks *G* ) , meaning a genuine change in demographics with all the interminable results that come about afterwards, is a red alert situation for some people.

Because of this chain, I believe that those of Western descent belong, in the majority, to the Latin tradition and Church, as that is the tradition their ancestors were evangelized in (Prots were once Latin Catholics), again without prejudice to the occasional convert. [A small number of Swede or English Orthodox, or a small number of Latin converts from Eastern origin, each making his own trek to the other side]. However, not a many people on this forum, Serge and myself namely as far as I can tell, believe that the Roman Church is in a presently unacceptable situation, in a state of emergency, in need of a liturgical restoration (and possibly a subsequent proper reform afterwards), and far from its Latin Rite traditions in a sense that Western ethnics would recognize it or some young generation American Catholics or high-Church Protestants would even accept it. Hence, despite my belief that Western ethnics have their proper place in the Western church tradition, I feel uneasy saying it because I don't believe the Western Church overall is even providing them with it. Had the Western Church remained solidly grounded in its traditions, without introducing its new liturgy, I wouldn't be at all accepting of Latins jumping East (and all this within the same communion of Churches) in the droves they are coming in today. I still don't, but my conscience starts bugging me with a dilemna similiar to what the Lebanese face with the Palestinian refugees today. Should I disapprove because I wouldn't want my Churches to be jeapordized with a naturalization and identity crisis? Or should I approve because I wouldn't want to send these folks back to the many problems in the Roman Church and the spiritual trials and intense difficulties some may be facing and suffering? This latter question wouldn't have to be asked were we dealing with the pre-conciliar Latin Church. If so, then I would expect it in that situation (within America) to convert the Prots (bringing them back to their mother Church), evangelize the natives, and win back the unchurched amongst its Western European flocks while a few occasionally seek a home in the Eastern Church. But given the Western Church itself is one of the causes of so many unchurched people, we have a conundrum tossed in our laps.

Also, in the situation involving a pre-conciliar Western Church, and unchurched Westerners, I do not believe in that situation, we have any mandate to evangelize these unchurched folks as a primary mission; rather our main task is to serve the diaspora community, the objective that gave birth to the jurisdiction's existance on this soil in the first place--at least I speak for my own Melkite Church. My barely self-sufficient and healthy Melkite parish (which is still looking for a church of its own) here is not looking to destroy its identity and bring in foreigners; our second generation kids are foreigners enough as it is, and we Arabs as a tightly knit community, and regardless of what our hierarchy may wish, would not stand for anything bordering on being outnumbered by people we have no relation with--and anyways, if we are to evangelize, the aim would again, be to create a new autocephaous American Church for such folks, and not out of pieces of us Antiochians and other ethnics.

Dear John,

Thanks much for your strong remarks.

Yes, I know all of this (all they ever taught me in history classes in Saudi was American history). I certainly believe America had a culture at its genesis (natives and the Europeans who first settled). I still think the South has a culture (God bless 'em) and heritage. But as for the second culture you speak of, I suggest a Church of their own if one wants to bring them into the East. As I said before, in the ideal world, I would have the Latins sweep them up into its fold, as these folks generally do not have an Eastern background, and would do well to regain their cultural patrimony (it's not just a matter of religious Rite, but also of their own national roots), Western civilization (which includes Roman Catholicism). I am very concerned about the prospect of Russians becoming RC's (Tridentine or NO) with the latest matter regarding the Russian issue and Cardinal Kaspar, and I am assuming that the Vatican includes non-churched Orthodox in its official policy of non-proselytism. I do not like the same thing happening in America, spotting the large number of unchurched Westerners and picking them off. The difference in this case however is that though Western civilization is the rightful inheritance of many of these unchurched Americans, this civilization's longtime patron, the Latin Church, has joined in broomsweeping much of that away in practice. For the Russians, there is an Orthodox Church intact with all its heritage, waiting for them. Not so in the Latin Church. So both sides of the fence are unfavourable to me, the first involves turning Westerners into Easterners (which is not proper in the context of a majority. Again, occasional pilgrims to the East are never a problem). The second involves leaving them without a place where they can nourish themselves in their Western spirit properly, given the problems of the Latin Church in America.

It is ultimately a dilemna, and I can find no better metaphor for it than the Lebanese's moral dilemna with the Palestinian refugees. It is difficult to perpetuate the states of these impoverished people, but it would be suicide to naturalize all of them in the country and destroy the country's very fragile equilibrium and balance and unique population makeup. I've seen Lebanon die and it is still dying as it slowly changes. I do not wish to see this happen to my Church which is nothing without the descendants of those who had been its members for two thousand years.

I know a lot of Easterners of Western descent make up the number of forum participants, and I know much of all this sounds like a slap in the face. Please don't take this as a personal affront. Your spiritual lives are yours and what paths you take in it are up to you, but I've been a son of the Antiochian Church for centuries and I do not enjoy seeing the path it has taken abroad. I'm making a criticism of an aggregate effect and general, collective outcome that I am convinced is not a favorable one, not of your own personal spiritual decisions. I naturally have very strong attachments to my Church and the Churches of Antioch in general, and have to be candid about what I believe.

Dear Axios,

No matter what the intent is of introducting standing in the West, it goes against Western tradition and piety. This is a simple application of the Golden Rule. I don't want alien things shoved down my throat and my Church either. Nor do I wish this for the Latins whose Church seems to look like some lego set to play with for many of the bishops. Objectively, there is no wrong in looking at the Eucharist or wearing shoes to church. However, amongst Ethiopians, the pious religious sensibility makes this taboo. An "Ecce Agnus Dei" may serve a very good purpose for a Latin; it would horrify an Abyssinian, and an Ethiopian prelate making incorporating these things, I'm sure, would not be doing so for any good reason. Kneeling being discouraged by those who try to enforce a taboo against it in the Roman Church, has no good reason or good will behind it. Rather it is to discourage piety and humility. It also reinforces a general indifference or disbelief towards the Real Presence. I've heard of some priests refusing to commune those who wished to kneel (I believe one even forced a person up). For people to take so much trouble to prevent people from kneeling doesn't indicate good intentions on the part of the parish Fuhrer.

On married clergy, I am of the opinion it shouldn't be changed, at least not at the moment, as the Romans have built up much theology around the celibate priest. I certainly believe it could be changed sometime in the future. But bad motives indicate a deficient purpose for carrying out such a change. A change must come about for the right reasons. And at this point I think the Latin Church is in a state where it can't afford to make any changes to long-standing disciplines. It has a crisis to resolve, a restoration to undertake, and sanity to restore before it can go about making slow changes and creating gradual developments in disciplines, theology, and liturgy.

About my unflattering comment, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy or respect for communicants, who drink from the chalice and pass it around from one to another, often with unpleasant results. I stated that I have no objection to the Romans returning to both species, but there's a right way to do it, and it's not through pandemonium and gross violations of liturgical norms.

In IC XC
Samer

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: SamB ]

Well Sam, I generally agree with what you say and feel sympathy that your Church seems to be filling up with foriegners. However, on a personal note, I myself am a convert to Russian Orthodoxy from the Latin Church. I left not only because of many of the things a saw going on liturgically over there as wrong, but because I had a genuine love for the Byzantine Slavic tradition of the Russian people. I have adapted that Church as my own and will fight to the death in order to preserve its puis customs and rites from outside influence's that seek to destroy or alter them. However I am not against the Church reaching out to make converts from the surronding community. WE Russian Orthodox, after all, are probably the most open group in Orthodoxy towards recieving converts and establishing foriegn missions. THe Church must continue to do that because she has a divine impaerative to, but it should be with a genuine liturgical language that expresses theological truths and bestows sanctifying graces onto the flock.
While many groups such as the Ukrainians and Serbians are almost completely closed off to outsiders, I think you will find that we Russians are very friendly and renowned for our hospitality. Case in point: When I was baptised into the Russian Church in Philadelphia, despite the fact that I knew practically no one there,I still remember an old man who could not speak english or barely walk come up to me and, as a gift, give me a small cross which had been blessed in various holy places of Jerusalem. THese poor people have been literly through hell itself in order to come to this country and partake of its rich and abundent blessings. Yet, though you would think that they would want to be isolated from the society that was completely foriegn to them, none the less, I assure you that the doors are always open to all in their parish.
Sure there may be times and places when you will not be welcomed because you may not be one of the boys from Belgrade or Beruit, but so what does it matter anyway if you can freely worship God in the eastern way. Perhaps such problems with ethnich Churches dont bother me as much since I, being a former RC, am used to just going to Church for Mass and leaving without having any sort of social contact with the surronding congregation. Sure its nice to if possible. But then you could get one of those crazy protestant convert parishes where the priest practically lives under your bed and sends spies out to follow your every move. Let me tell you brother, I would rather attend a Church where I was completely ignored then one where everybody was in my buisness because they thought that I wasent "true enough" of an Orthodox Christian for the litle self enamored community they run.
So, in conclusion, I am not against converts and preaching and evangelizin gthe Byzantine Orthodox message but I still feel that, like our Latin neibours, we can still keep our customs whilest doing it.
Robert K.

Listen here ukrainian catholic, you are wrong
If galicians want to pronounce it in their dialect, thats fine by me.
How do the Serbs, Bulgars, Belarusins and malorusins prononce it, now who is the odd man out?

Ilya

Ilya,
I am sorry and I stand corrected, I like to know whats right rather than going around believing otherwise. Church Slavonic is nice but why have it in a language that wasn't spoken by the people and hard to understand, like latin too, when you can have services in Engligh or ukie or French or a language that people can fully understand and pray to God too. Also knowing that you are Ukrainian Catholic, I would have figured you would have used the Galician pronunciation.

Slava Ottsu i Synu, i sviatomu Dukhu, i nyni i prysno i vo viky vikov. Amin.

standing humbled,
-ukrainiancatholic

Dear Ilya Romanovich,

When you made the statement you did in Church Slavonic, you used the Russian pronunciation with the hard "G."

But I'm not raising this to argue for either Russian or Ukrainian pronunciation.

In fact, Church Slavonic as we know it today is highly "Russianized."

In the 17th century, Russian bishops often asked their faithful not to use the hard Russian "G" in Church Slavonic, as this was not the original usage.

The modern Ukrainian "H" is actually the ancient Old Slavonic usage.

As you know, the Ukrainians even developed a separate "Bukva" or letter for the hard "G" in the form of a Slavic "H" with an upper lip (stiff, I suppose!).

The Russians forbade this Ukrainian "G" but Ukrainians in Russia used it in private writing to call attention to their Ukrainian background.

St Herman of Alaska actually uses it in his signature.

Your uncle told me that that signature is what convinced him of St Herman's Ukrainian ancestry.

Alex

That is interesting.

And if it makes everyone feel better, I must sadly say that when I pray in church slavonic bothin church and privately, I pronounce it with soft h sound.

P.S. God speaks church slavonic

ilya