www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Candidates for the Slovak Catholic Eparchy, Toronto

I suppose thats true. I would love if my church did a ukrianian liturgy once in a while. I'm not ethnically Ukrainian, but I understand and can sing a Ukrainian liturgy. But, the liturgy should be done for the people. So if they prefer Ukrainian or some other language, then that's fine. But if they want English, do English.

I suspect that the overwhelming majority would never have been converts without hearing the liturgy in a language they understood . . .

Personally, I would have recognized my first eastern liturgy as something beautiful and reverent had it been in another language (such like I did the only Latin Mass I ever attended), but I likely never would have returned (much like the Latin Mass).


It was the full statement of the faith that left me in awe, though, and led me here.

I'm sorry, but it isn't the purpose or mission of the Church to sustain language or culture, it is the mission of the Church to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ "to all the nations." In fact to do otherwise is the heresy of ethnophyletism. Check it out.

How do you proclaim the Gospel to Arab Melkites if you can't speak their language?

How do you proclaim the Gospel to the children of Arab Melkites if they don't speak Arabic?

Use both languages. It's what the priests at the Tridentine Mass do.

Protopappas76 stated that he does not know Arabic so how can he use both languages?

But I agree ast82401. Both languages are needed to fulfil pastoral responsibilities.

That presumes some superiority associated with the Tridentine Mass. As one who grew up in that regime I completely disagree with that presumption. If you want to argue that you should go somewhere else.

I'm not saying its better than the Divine Liturgy. I'm saying that it's not hard to proclaim the gospel in more than one language. It used to be and still is in some places where more than one language is spoken.

Tridentine Mass talk has no place on this forum.

Simple - you do both languages. You are in the house of God - is the one extra Gospel reading going to take 10 minutes? I doubt it. In a parish situation, mitigated practice is the norm.

Middle-Easterners are still migrating in droves so this issue of language will be pretty thorny for awhile. However, the Melkites will be the first to say "let's have another Liturgy for them" so as not to alienate the non-Arabic speakers.

This defeats the rule of having one Liturgy on Sunday, but it works for most people and it keeps the people coming. So why not?

UkrCathLDN:

Christ is in our midst!!

Forgive me, but the moderators and administrators will decide what has a place on this forum. The posted comment had nothing to do with bringing that topic up. It was simply a reference to something done in a parallel situation. In any event, pastoral practice--IMHO--needs to take into account the needs of those being served. If language is a barrier, then the point has been missed.

Did not St. Paul say that he would rather someone speak so that others could understand rather than go on in a way no one could? Even though it was in a context of speaking in tongues, the point is the same.

In any event, this topic seems to be moving from the topic heading. If you wish to discuss liturgical language usage, please begin another thread on that topic.

Bob
Moderator