www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Church Bans Modern Greek in Liturgy

I think it is a great decission not to permit the use of modern language.
The modern language is not the problem, but it would definately lead the Church to do more changes (like in the RC).
The beauty and splendor of the liturgy must be preserved. I think it is a mistake to think that a "modernized" or "inclusive" liturgy will be the way to atract young people. After all, adolescence is a passing stage. Making changes is an easy and false solution. It is better (but more difficult) to try to explain young people the meaningful symbols of the Divine Liturgy and the beauty of the prayers.

While I applaud the desire to use modern Greek in the Divine Services (thus following the example of SS. Cyril & Methodius), I do think that the Greeks should work together to produce a single translation for use by all Greek speaking Byzantine Christians. Since the good bishop appears to have only been experimenting with the translation and has not blessed it for general use in his eparchy I do not see any harm.

A dozen or so years ago a friend brought his Greek Orthodox mother (who speaks fluent Greek) to a Sunday Divine Liturgy at our Byzantine Catholic parish here in northern Virginia (where English is the primary language of worship). After the liturgy she commented that after 75 years this was the first time she actually understood what was going on.

Byzantine Christians are primarily catechized by our liturgy. It must, therefore, be in a language they can understand. This does not mean dumbing down the translation to second grade English (or Greek). It also does not mean rendering the translation in a format of those English Christians in 1611. There is much food for thought in Liturgiam Authenticam.

You could probably consider me ultra-Traditional but when it comes down to understanding the Liturgy or providing it for the people in a way they can fully grasp that is much more important. I�ve been looking into the revived Western Rites of Orthodoxy and have high hopes for it in the future. The Old Sarum Rite is truly a beauty.

http://www.odox.net/Liturgy1-Sarum.htm

Thank God I belong to an Orthodox jurisdiction that is very supportive of the Western Rites. Is there a Western Rite that Byzantines Catholics use?, or have interest in?

+Odo

Western Catholicism uses the Western rites (Ambrosian, "Novus Ordo", Tridentine, Sarum, and Mozarabic, etc.) and Eastern Catholicism uses Eastern liturgies/rites/whatever.

I agree with the words of our Administrator. Liturgy must be understood by those attending it or it is not living worship. Symbolism too must be able to be recognized without resort to textbooks or exegesis. A living symbol is meant to convey that which it represents. They are not there for the purposes of "beauty" or "splendor" but to express that which makes up the essence of our faith.

One should not have to take a class in religion before experiencing the faith during worship. The words of the liturgy cannot catechize if they cannot be understood. The stichera of vespers and matins alone are worth more than any catechism book could ever be. How effective are they if they are not understood?

The liturgy has historically been the context in which believers are reared in the faith, nurtured in it and from which all other ministries flow. As is well known, it was at the liturgy that the catechumens were instructed, through scripture, preaching and prayer. Nothing of this nature was done separate from the Eucharistic assembly and all other ministries took their impetus from it. For those catechumens to be instructed, the liturgy obviously must have been intelligible to them.

I don't know how the Byzantine Catholic Churches could have a segment which uses one of the Western Rites. How would this fit in with the reality of being a particular church within a communion of other churches, including those of the Western Rites? Even in Orthodoxy this notion is controversial, at best.

Eastern Christianity especially, should not be afraid to translate the liturgy into as many language as are spoken by the people worshipping within its churches. This is the tradition of our church, not the concept of a universal "liturgical" language that is superior or more splendorous than that spoken by its believers.

Jesus did not teach his disciples or the crowds in a language they did not understand. The church fathers did not preach or celebrate the liturgy through interpreters. Rather than being a "similar church" to the Roman Church of ages past, we are a living reality, with a ethos all our own, including the vernacular liturgy. Some contemporary bishops have mistakenly taken on the Latin notion of a "sacred, universal language" and applied it to Eastern Christianity out of fear of change. Change is not always inherently evil, but often for the good of the living church and guided by the Spirit who is Life. How can we be the church of the vernacular liturgy if it is not what is being used. To think that people go through their whole lives not understanding a word of the divine services is a great loss indeed.

Fr. Joe

I'll follow the Golden Rule: I wouldn't want classical Arabic abrogated for any convoluted reason.

Let's hope the Greeks feel the same way about Koine, assuming the distance between it and spoken Greek is anything similiar to that between our classical and our spoken tongue.

In IC XC
Samer

I do understand the predicament though, in which we become very attached to our liturgical languages and have a very emotional need for them and we could probably say that these languages do actually fulfill our own spiritual needs. I have a love for Church Slavonic too and would not want it to completely disappear. But what to do? There's a large abyss between what we feel the need for in the liturgy and what is actually the truth about the liturgy. It can be a love/hate type of relationship as well.

Perhaps the great extent to which I celebrate now in Ukrainian has helped me to deal with an initial lack of Slavonic, because it allowed me to fill a necessary cultural need that is expressed with Church Slavonic among we "Ruthenians - Rusyns." For my own style and preference, if I personally had to only celebrate in English it would take a lot of adjusting.

So I see where we all are and the tension that exists between the two poles, ie: (a) only traditional "liturgical languages" and (b) the vernacular of the majority of the congregation with no interloping of ecclesiastical languages. This tension could translate into something positive in the Latin Church, if a proportionate amount of traditional language could be interspersed with contemporary liturgical forms. This seems to satisfy some.

In our churches it is somewhat harder because of the close historical connection between our liturgical languages and our vernacular. Although they are allegedly "not understood at all" by the people, they maintain a cultural, historical commonality with the current vernacular, enough to even mistakenly equate the two. So it is even harder for us to reach a happy medium in regards to the "ecclesiastical languages."

When your heart tells you one thing and your mind another, it is never easy and I believe that this is where it lies with regard to this matter for many, above any theological explanation. There is no easy solution, but it is an ever-occurring theme.

Fr. Joe

Dear friends,

Well, I suppose that most of you already know that i am living in Greece now. Well, first of all I would like to say that it is absolutely false that Greek people does not understand even one word, as bishop Apostolos said. Most of them know the liturgy by heart and most of them will be very happy to take have more active role in liturgy. The preach is in modern Greek but in most churches the priest does not preach even on Sundays.In some churches the Symbol of Faith and our Father are recitated by the singer,while in other churches priests ask the fathful to say all toguether the Symbol of Faith and Our Father, well you realize that they understand when you give them the oportunity of proving it. In the (Byzantine Catholic)parish I attend Holy Liturgy and in other Orthodox Churches all the faithful sing the whole Holy Liturgy, that is wonderful. I think that language is not the problem. Greek is a liturgical language, modern Greek has never been a liturgical language. That is quite easy to translate Holy Liturgy from Greek into English, Spanish...but to translate the Greek of the Gospel and the Fathers af the Church into Modern Greek is not so easy. As licenciate in Greek philology, I could not do it. The translation of the Bible into Greek I know are realy bad. The translation
of the Latin Mass into modern Greek is just awful (Latin Church in Greece never apreciated Greek language very much). The liturgy in Modern Greek will mean more empty churches. You tell me about the tradition of saint Cyril and Methodius,well Greece is not a "mission country", like the "Barbarian" and "pagan" Moravia where Saint Cyrill and Methodius preached the Gospel, Greece is a Christian country with almost 2000 years of Christian tradition, that has sent thousands of missionards to so many countries (Armenia, Slavic Countries, ...). I think that language is not the problem, but I firmly support a more active participation of the faithful in the Liturgy. I think that Greek bishops should pay more attention to the Christian and liturgical instruction of the faithful and STOP SPEAKING ABOUT POLITICS in the Church. Less NATIONALISM/FANATISM and more GOSPEL in Greek Orthodox Church. Greek people could show their bishops that they understand and they can even sing the whole Divine Liturgy with the choir only if they give them the oportunity.

Dear Francisco,

I'm curious, why is it easier to translate a text from patristic Greek/koine into English or Spanish than it is to translate it into modern Greek? I would think that it would be easier to translate from patristic Greek/koine to modern Greek than it would be to translate into English or Spanish, or at least as difficult.

Dear +Odo,

Yes, we Byzantine Catholics do have a particular Western Church that is in communion with us - the Roman Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Western Rites are an "oddity" for Eastern Orthodoxy only insofar as a Western Church in communion with Orthodoxy was not to be found after 1054.

Since then, Eastern Orthodoxy tended to associate Western Rites with Western heresy and so developed something of an aversion for them.

Add to this the imposed Latinization in other parts of the Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches and you have the culmination of a paranoia of sorts, like my father had . . .

When I attended a Western Rite Orthodox conference, it was interesting to see that Western Rite Orthodox have similar attitudes toward the Eastern Rite majority, as Eastern CAtholics have toward their Western Rite brothers who are in the majority.

The Western Orthodox sometimes poked fun at the Eastern Rite and noted with concern issues such as "poaching" of Western Rite priests by EO's and comments from certain EO's "putting down" the Western Rites or else seeing them as "stepping stones" to future and integral union with Eastern Rite Orthodoxy - "true Orthodoxy."

Creeping Easternization, I say . . .

Alex

Dear Remie,

It is often said that if your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail. You tend to prove that point by framing every situation you come across in terms of the current liturgical situation of the Latin Church in North America. You might be surprised to know that Orthodox and Greek Catholics Churches have for some time now been using the vernacular with great success and without any of the problems to which you refer. There would be, oldest of all, the Syrian Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which long ago abandoned the exclusive use of Aramaic in favor of Syriac and Arabic. Then there are the Melkite, Antiochene and Maronite Churches, which replaced Greek with Arabic centuries ago. The Coptic Church of Alexandria still uses Coptic, but supplements that with Arabic. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine and out, has transitioned to modern Ukrainian--one reason it is attracting many adherents away from the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, which insists on retaining Slavonic. Here in the US, almost all the Orthodox and Greek Catholic jurisdictions, with the exception of some Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Greeks themselves, have transitioned to English as the primary liturgical language (and since many Ukrainian parishes are first generation immigrants, their use of Ukrainian could and should be considered "vernacular"). Again, I haven't seen any of the problems to which you refer.

On the other hand, I see a lot of problems in the Greek Orthodox Church from first-hand observation: the increasing alienation of the congregation from the liturgy, their relegation to passive participants, the incomprehensibility of the liturgy even to middle-age Greek Americans. Greek schools aren't bridging the gap, and young people are staying away in droves, since they see themselves as Americans and not as Greeks.

Interestingly, the Greek Orthodox community in the UK is increasingly composed of English converts (Bishop Kallistos, Lady Longford and the composer John Taverner are just among the most noteworthy), and there English has reached co-equal status with Greek. The Antiochene Orthodox Church in the US is now mainly a convert Church, and Arabic and Greek are being relegated to fixed parts of the liturgy, with readings and moveable parts in English. Again, I don't see any problems with this.

The very great Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV, even before Vatican II, was a champion of vernacular liturgy. In a famous plea to the Congregation for Worship, he stated succinctly, "In the Eastern Traditions, every language is a liturgical language"-and so it should be, because liturgy is the work of the people, and the people have to be able to understand what they are doing. Lex orandi lex credendi is more true in the East than the West. For us, theology and spirituality emerge from the liturgy, and the liturgy is the principle source of catechesis. In the West, theology and spirituality became separated from liturgy, with consequent dislocations for each. Sacrosanctum concilium was an attempt to reintegrate the three within the Latin Church. It has had variable success in different countries, and even when dealing with the English translation of the Mass, one must distinguish between what has been written and done here, from what has been written and done elsewhere. For instance, having just returned from the UK, I can tell you that the Mass as celebrated there, particularly at Brompton Oratory, is very different from what may be seen in the typical American parish--but then, the same was true fifty years ago, before the changeover to the new missal. The fact is, American Roman Catholicism is an anomaly, with its own ideosyncratic quirks and problems resulting from its own particular history. You cannot generalize from it to the Latin Church in general, let alone from it to other, non-Latin Churches.

Because no matter how hard you pound some things with your hammer, you will NEVER make them into nails.

Dear Francisco,

Number one - the Greeks will ALWAYS be nationalistic. Get used to the idea and observe them while you are in Greece.

Secondly, nationalism expresses itself in different ways with respect to liturgical language.

In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Slavonic was kept, in my Eparchy, until 1970.

I learned the Creed in Slavonic, barely understanding it . . .

Ukrainian nationalists insisted on modern Ukrainian and liturgists pointed to VAtican II etc.

Patriarch Josef blessed a translation that kept many Slavonic anachronisms - but it was understandable and the nationalists were placated that Slavonic was ousted.

100 years ago, the nationalists would have been in favour of Slavonic and Russophilism as a way to curb Polonization and Latinization (an uncle of mine was like this).

And now, with the new Ukrainian liturgical translation out, nationalists and the "nationally-minded" are opposing it (even though it is like the translation the Orthodox use - always touted as the "most Ukrainian of the Ukrainians").
They oppose it because, to them, it offends the memory of Patriarch Josef who brought the old translation in.

Priests and others oppose it really because it lacks the "dignity" of the old translation, is "too close" to the Orthodox translation and because they feel the liturgical language should not be "the language of the streets." They even develop arguments like the "bad translation" of the doxology ending "Vikiv" versus "Vichny."

Anyway, there is politics even when it comes to liturgical translations . . .

Alex

Dear Stuart,

"B'shem haAv, v'ha Ben, v'Ruach haKodesh, Elohim echod, Amen."

Yes, the modern Ukrainian used by the Ukie Catholics across the pond is modeled on the modern Ukrainian liturgy of the authocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Churches beginning in the 1920's.

That (uncanonical) movement even originally held to the principle that praying in a language the people did not understand was sinful.

The movement of Ukies away from the Moscow Patriarchate-controlled Orthodox Church toward the Ukrainian Catholic and (again uncanonical) Ukrainian Orthodox Churches is related much more to the slow but sure cultural reawakening among them.

Certainly, as you say, the use of literary, modern Ukrainian in the liturgy is a strong attraction that also enhances that process.

Shalom Aleichem!

Alex

Dear Alex:

I have downloaded the audio of a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgy in modern Ukrainian, and although it sounds a little bit different in the pronnunciation, it still looks very much like Church Slavonic, and I've seen that the forms, the rythm and everything has been respected.

Dear StuartK:

As I said before, the vernacular language is not a problem itself, the problem is the nature of the translation. If the translation is not faithful to the original text (and the true meaning) it would not be a good translation.
There are words that cannot be "vernacularized" or that cannot be changed without affecting the meaning, for example, the word "consubstantial" in the Creed (the modern translations of the Creed in the Churches are a good example of this).
In my country, Spanish is used by all the Eastern jurisdictions (except the maronites, who still use a lot of Syriac in the liturgy). In the Greek Church, the traslation of the Divine Liturgy by Bishop Paul de Balester is still used (it is a good trasnlation but: the Bishop was Spanish, and the translation has a lot of archaic words and words from Spain that arent understood here). The Mexican Exarchate has also prepared a translation by Exarch Dmitri which is totally faithful to the Slavonic text (it is not an indirect translation from English) and there's never been any trouble with the vernacular language (because the traslations preserve the esence of the liturgy).

About the Spanish translations of the Catholic Mass, there are very good traslations that are totally faithful to the original texts. The problem is that most priests make personalized changes to the texts (the "inclusive langage").