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

And Christ said to baptize all nations, assuming they were willing to learn Greek first, yes?

Good thing the Greek Orthodox don't see any need for evangelism. It's so inconvenient....

Sharon

One of the reasons I am Byzantine Catholic (though not the most important one) and not some other type of Orthodox Christian is the need to understand services and to participate in them fully. To give you an idea of how important understanding the language can be: a few years ago, after I retired, my wife and I attended some Holy Week services at a nearby Greek Orthodox church. I was considering becoming Orthodox at the time. My wife commented on our drive home at 2:30 a.m. Saturday night after 5 hours or so of ancient Greek, "You need a job." I think that speaks volumes, don't you? I also applaud Sharon Mech on her comment about how inconvenient it is if you want to attract converts. But then, I rather doubt that Greek Orthodox are really much interested in them in the first place. They continue to make immigrant retention their first priority as far as I can tell, as do all the other ethnic-oriented jurisdictions. And what better way to do that than to keep the language the same as the immigrants would hear back home in Greece or wherever?

Dear Jim and Sharon,

Now, now let's not go picking on my Orthodox friends!

There will always be tension between the ethnic Churches and the trai . . er, the ones who want to become more adapted to North America is what I intended to say . . .

Jim, there are Ukrainian Catholics up here who think that "understandable language" is a Liturgy in modern Ukrainian with no Slavonic anachronisms whatever!

And if you told them you wanted to become "Eastern Catholic" they would say, "Shame on you, Yakiv! You are either Ukrainian Catholic etc. No such animal yet, unless you want to be like that parish on the other side of town . . ."

And if you told them you need to have the liturgy in English, they would say, "Then why not become Roman Catholic so as not to torture us any more with your innovations? Or else there is always that parish . . ."

And you know what?

There are those who don't speak Ukrainian at all or very much and who REFUSE to attend an "English-only" Liturgy - on principle.

Don't look at me that way - I'm more confused than you!

The Coptic Church near me handles this nicely - as do others - by having an English Liturgy each Sunday for converts. My Chinese neighbour joined them (she said I helped her convert to Orthodoxy) and she not only attends the English Qurbana, she recites the Agpeya daily.

I don't think being condescending toward the Greeks or others, as Sharon likes to do (love y'a, Mech, just love y'a!) is helpful.

The Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches did much to defend our respective peoples from the kind of colonialism and pressures that you Americans can only dream about.

So, yes, we need da Engleesh linkvage een da Leetoorgee.

But when Greeks and others don't want it - I say leave them alone.

If they want to preserve their heritage, that is their Rite, so to speak. Their Churches have been doing it under the Turks et al. for centuries.

Alex

Those who are spiritually, liturgically, and linguistically challenged certainly would not be happy in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Those of us who are of Muslim Balkan ancestry certainly admire the tenacity and bravery and intelligence that enabled the Greeks to endure centuries of Ottoman persecution and slaughter.

Few have suffered more for the love of Christ than these brave
people.

Abdur

From my own observations (and my sister is Greek Orthodox), I would have to say that spiritually, liturgically and linguistically challenged is a good description of the current state of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese--and I know Greek bishops who would most certainly agree (albeit silently).

In Phoenix the Ukrainian Catholics have an early service in English on Sundays, then one in Ukrainian. A large Greek parish does Liturgy in English, but Matins in Greek. Another Greek parish does Greek and English in the same service, repeating certain parts in both languages. The Serbs use mostly Slavonic, but the OCA and Byzantines use mostly English. So, with patience language can be worked around. I'm not so sure that's true ethnic culture, however. To many Greeks, to be Orthodox is to be Greek, for instance. They have a right to their own priorities, too. I believe that there are ways to express Orthodoxy without old-world ethnicity- it's just that some churches do it better than others. Of course, in the USA plurality of languages is discouraged culturally (English only initiatives come to mind.), where in countries like Canada efforts have long been made to preserve diverse languages. It may not be as economical to do that if you have to create several editions of books, etc. instead of one. No easy answers, I guess.

Parish by parish, some are weak and some strong. But the Greeks live with--to this day--historical baggage uniquely theirs: a blessing and a curse.

Abdur

Hi Everyone!
Praised be Jesus Christ!

Classic vs. Modern Greek??? It seems this issue is no longer new, even to the Western Church. Using the new language will certainly enhance the faithful's understanding of what is transpiring. However, retaining the old or classic form will prevent the contents from getting watered-down. The Orthodox Church has admirably kept the faith, thanks to it s strict adherence to its ancient form of liturgy. Its Liturgy itself is the vehicle fo this tradition of faith. Classic Greek is one of the languages that demands exactness and preciseness in its expression in as much as Latin is to the west. There is no way to interprete things otherwise. But as I have said earlier, excess on this area could harm the faithful's comprehension. In effect, the people will just be there to follow the motion with little or no comprehension.

The Roman Catholic have had a bad and good experience with the implementaion of the vernaculars over the Latin language. Yes it was good because the people understood more what was transpiring, hence actively participated. But, obviously there were also drawbacks like of losing the sense of universality and oneness throughout the world, losing the sense of mystery, and worst of all---innacurate or bad translations of the original Latin into the vernacular. E.g. the original Latin puts it: " Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis " but the Enlish text renders it inaccurately as "Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth". Obviously, where did the "bonae voluntatis " (men of goodwill) phrase go? This is just one of the many flaws, there could be a lot more. If the Liturgy is a great vehicles of tradition, then the vehicle must have good tires. I guess the language it uses are those wheels. It could go the same with the classic Greek within the Orthodox Church.

I think everyone agrees with me that "true strengh lies in moderation" ( Virtus in medio stat ). The question here is how can the Church, be it Greek or Latin impose its theological language that is accurate but at thesame time enhance the participation and comprehension of the assembly? How can it stand between tradition and obvious practical consequences?

I guess we have to invoke the light from on high: Come Holy Spirit!

Pray for me a sinner!
Antonio Domenico

Dear Remie,

You say that "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")". I agree completely with you. I think that there are as well very good English translations of the Catholic Mass (those of the Cartholic Church
in the UK for instance). I do not know the English translations in America but I think that the translations for Asia and Africa are not so good.

Dear Abdur,
You say "Parish by parish, some are weak and some strong. But the Greeks live with--to this day--historical baggage uniquely theirs: a blessing and a curse". Well, you know Greeks very well, I could not express it better. As descendent of a
Muslim Balkan family you will probably know (I am sure you know about this topic more than me) that the "Greek Muslim minority" (Thrace Turkish, Pomak and Gypsy minorities)had a lot of problems with their Turkish Muslims brothers because they refused the introduction by Mustafa Kemal of the Latin alphabet because they did not want to loss their Othomanian heritage, an heritage that had got not only Turkish but also a lot of Arabic and Persian elements. Here the problem was not the language but just the alphabet.

Dear Antonio Domenico,

We are not talking about Classic Greek, we are talking about the Biblical, Patristic and liturgical traditional Greek that is much nearer to Modern Greek than Aristotle or Homer.

For everybody,

Please do not forget that (although members of the same family) Spanish, French, Italian, Rumanian and Latin, are completely different languages (lingustical systems). I can say the same abouth Old Slavonic, Russian, Ukranian, Bulgarian... Modern Greek and Ancient Greek are not members of the same family but two different historical fases of the same language, their vernacular language. Liturgical Greek (the Greek used at Church), although different from Modern Greek (evaryday's language), is not a foreing language for any Greek. They just have one language, the Greek one, with 4000 years of history. That is a blessing and a curse, as Abdur has said.

Alex dear,

I don't discriminate - I think *Catholic* parishes which don't see the need to evangelize nor to show hospitality to strangers are equally out of the loop.

Everybody,

Can I ask a fundamental question? Can ANYTHING be translated without "irreparable harm?" Assuming that Liturgy must be in __________ (fill in your pet authentic language) in order to be mystical, holy, whatever, what about Scripture? Are all ________ (fill in your modern language of choice) less worthwhile because they aren't in ancient Greek?

In either case (Liturgy or Scripture - remembering of course that Liturgy is inextricably linked to Scripture of course!) at what point does the believer's need for catechesis and faithful understanding override the requirement for a "pure" Liturgy?

I'm not trying to stir up trouble - I'm ***REALLY*** trying to understand. I believe that the ultimate currency of Christianity is the human soul, and the aim of the enterprise is to help as many as possible (including one's own) to find salvation in Christ. Keeping the Mysteries needlessly super-mysterious doesn't help matters much in my book - after all, worship is supposed to engage all the senses and faculties. What sense does it make to chop off understanding? We humans have a huge portion of our brains dedicated to language processing. Shouldn't that be used in worship?

Still "not getting it"

Sharon

Dear Mother Sharon,

Baruch haShem Adonai!

(What does that mean again? )

I never said you "discriminate" Mother Dear!

And I'm with you on the language thing.

It's just that I still have to put up with all these Ukrainian-speakers up here.

And we in Canada live in a society where learning a language is not only common for one's community/personal life, but for one's business life as well.

While you don't discriminate, there certainly is pressure put on us English Canadians to learn French.

If you want to get ahead in government, university etc., you better know French!

So we're not there yet, I mean, the American English-only cosmopolitan model.

Personally, and without tooting my own horn, I now enrich my prayer life with the Psalter in Slavonic, Akathists in Russian and other devotions in Latin.

And I find the few Hebrew prayers I know to be breathtaking such as the Sign of the Cross:

B'shem haAv v'ha Ben v'Ruach haKodesh Elohim echod Amen!

So a lot of this has to do with the American experience.

The language thing is really only in Canada - pity!

Alex

Alex,

Blessed be the name of the Lord indeed.

Naw, I don't think it's just an American thing - this thread began with Greeks who don't understand ancient Greek.

I'd be pretty lost in Quebec. Didn't know there was Francophone pressure in Ottawa too.

God bless you in your multilingual prayer life. Me, I still retain enough Hebrew to get a ghost of understanding, and a lot of pleasure from the rhythm of the Psalms of Ascent in Hebrew, but both of these are our private preferences - which are a differently dyed equine from public liturgical worship.

Ain't diversity grand? *sigh*

If'n I'd spend half as much time considering my sins as I do on this burning issue.......

Sharon

Dear Mother Sharon,

Shalom Aleichem!

Being a mother of three and always having to keep abreast of them . . . well, you've expiated for your sins, Lady!

That's at least three plenary indulgences without having to go to the Uniontown Odpust, supererogatory works of satisfaction all present and accounted for!

Yes, I agree we have to make room for converts and English and all that.

But for a Church like the Ukie Church up here, "outreach" means churching the immigrants from Ukraine who aren't even baptised, but are sending their unbaptised children to our Catholic schools etc. Our parishes are now full of them and we have our hands full with them too.

And their Ukrainian is much better and much more advanced than ours - dialect free as a matter of fact.

So improving my Ukrainske is more of an outreach priority for me now than anything to do with English language issues.

As is making sure the Crosses the iconographer is currently painting in my in-laws' church are straight. We've already gotten complaints about the circles at the ends of the Greek Crosses - don't people have anything better . . .

I'm really into the Hebrew Catholic Association in a big way right now and love learning all about Judaism and its enduring impact on our traditions.

I think I'll celebrate Chanukah as well as Passover this year!

Ba shana haba bi-Yerushalayim!

Alex

CIX!

Um, Francisco...

Liturgical/Koine/Patristic Greek is MUCH closer to Classical Greek than Modern Greek. In fact, anyone who's learned Classical Greek can read New Testament and the Fathers with no problem, whereas anyone who only knows Modern Greek will have a very difficult time with Koine Greek. Don't forget that the Greek Old Testament is in very pure Attic Greek.

Just my two obols,

Edward

Dear Edward,

I can assure you that most of my professors at the University would have a lot of problems to understand the Divine Holy Liturgy in a Greek Orthodox Church. Do not forget the problem about the traditional or byzantine vs. Erarmus of Roterdam pronunciation of Greek. When the Byzantine Scholars came to Western Europe Universities after the Fall of Constantinople they used to pronounce (Ancient)Greek in the traditional way Byzantines used to do (that is Modern Greek pronunciation), afterwards Erasmus realized that Ancient Greek was pronounced in a very different way from Modern Greek. Erasmus's pronunciation of Greek, or better the different Erasmian pronunciation of Greek, are used in all Europeans universities (except in Greece). For example letter "Y" is pronounced in Greece like ee, in Spain and France like French u, and in Germany like oo. From the linguistical point of view New Testament Greek is much closer to Modern Greek than Ancient Greek, for instance in the Gospel we find already the Modern Greeks words for
mountain "bounos" toguether with the Ancient Greek "oros", or the word for bed "krabation" ("krebati" in Modern Greek). In NT Greek we find a lot of phonetical (in this period H is ponounced like ee and not like e) syntactical (genitive instead of dative )and morphological changes (two forms for the word Jesus or Thomas instead of five morphological cases). Some of Church fathers used a language much closer to Ancient Greek, like Saint Gregory the Theologian, specially in his poems, where we find homeric elements, or Saint John Damascenus in some of his kanons. May be Attic Greek and Koine Greek are for many apparently the same, but do not forget that 4th century BC Athens is quite different fron 1st century Jerusalem. Aristotle used a literary language, whereas the Apostles used a lunguage nearer to everyday's speech. Sorry for so many linguistics in a religious forum.
In Chist,
Francisco