What language should the Divine Services be held using?

Tessa · Post by **Tessa** » Sun 22 January 2006 8:55 pm

First of all, I voted for Traditional languages, Slavonic in my case, to be used in church, but not necessarily at home in prayer, etc.

Firstly, I would like to address Father Siluan and Jean-Serge by saying that I, as a Serbian speaker DO understand very much (about 75-90%) Church Slavonic. I don't know who is always saying we can't understand it! I will demonstrate most simply the similarities between the Slavonic AND Serbian versions of the Lord's Prayer, written phonetically.

Slavonic:
Otche nash, izhe yesi na nebesye.
Da svyatitsya imya Tvoye, da pridet Tsartviya Tvoye, da budet volya Tvoya, jako na nebesi i na zemlyi.
Hlyeb nash nasushni dazhd dnam dnes, i ostavi nam dolgi nashya, yakozhe i mi ostavljemo dolzhnikom nashim.
I no vo vedi nas vo ikusheniye, no izbavi nas od lukavago. Amin.

Serbian:
Otche nash, koji si na nebesima.
Da se sveti ime Tvoye, da dodje tsarstvo Tvoje, da bude volya Tvoja, i na zemlyi kao shto ye na nebu.
Hlyeb nash nasushni day nam danas, i oprosti nam dugove nashe, kao shto mi oprashtamo duzhnitsima nashim.
I ne uvedi nas u iskusheniye, no izbavi nas od lukavoga. Amin.

Even a non-native speaker can see the immense similarities.

Secondly, I would like to also address what someone had wrote about Sts. Cyril and Methodius translating prayers into the native languages. WRONG! They translated from the Koine Greek into what became to be known as Church Slavonic, perhaps construed from the letters of the Greek alphabet, or perhaps a spinoff of a primitive alphabet the Macedonians (Slavs) already had in place. The first bit of Scripture translated by the Holy Bothers was not into Serbian, Bulgarian, OR Macedonian, but into Slavonic.

Thirdly, in the last quater century, when all this pushing for the Slavic churches to have the Services in their own languages has sort of come to head, we have also seen the Church become more and more splintered along ethnic lines.

Finally, I would like to add that I think we as Othodox Christians should be familiar enough with the Divine Services that we should know at least the Liturgy by heart, regardless of language they are presented to us. Thankfully, most of us have more than mere auditory perception-the Services include movements, and smells, and even tastes- that allow use of all our five senses to partake in their Great and Holy Mystery.

Glory to God for All Things!

Tessa

Jean-Serge · Post by **Jean-Serge** » Mon 23 January 2006 6:20 am

Tessa wrote:
Firstly, I would like to address Father Siluan and Jean-Serge by saying that I, as a Serbian speaker DO understand very much (about 75-90%) Church Slavonic. I don't know who is always saying we can't understand it! I will demonstrate most simply the similarities between the Slavonic AND Serbian versions of the Lord's Prayer, written phonetically.

Tessa

I used to be a parishioner in Saint Sava cathedral in Paris. Some people did not unnderstand the Cherubikon (and they were old people). Moreover, people understant the fixed pieces of the liturgy. But what do they understand from the Troparion, from the Canon of the Matins... I thik the understanding is really poor. I spoke with a Russian woman (very church goer) who recognized it was really difficult to understand the Gospel in Slavonic...

In Saint Sava cathedral in Paris, everything is in Serbian excepted what is sung... I think it is a good option.

Tessa said "Finally, I would like to add that I think we as Othodox Christians should be familiar enough with the Divine Services that we should know at least the Liturgy by heart, regardless of language they are presented to us."

This is true and I could follow a liturgy in any language now. But do not forget we must think about those who are outside. If they come in church and find a strange language, they will go out... Even in the so called Orthodox countries, due to communism, people did not go to church and lost this practice of Slavonic... So it is better using the modern languag which is the constant practice of a missionary church.

This fixation on dead languages sounds very catholic or even muslimic... Dead languages are for linguists and philologs...

Priest Siluan · Post by **Priest Siluan** » Mon 23 January 2006 10:16 am

Tessa wrote:
Secondly, I would like to also address what someone had wrote about Sts. Cyril and Methodius translating prayers into the native languages. WRONG! They translated from the Koine Greek into what became to be known as Church Slavonic, perhaps construed from the letters of the Greek alphabet, or perhaps a spinoff of a primitive alphabet the Macedonians (Slavs) already had in place. The first bit of Scripture translated by the Holy Bothers was not into Serbian, Bulgarian, OR Macedonian, but into Slavonic.

Exactly they didn't use the dialects of each tribe but a "common" Slavonic to be understood by all the slavonic tribes. And anyone of those Slavic dialects was much nearer to this "common" Slavonic (Church Slavonic) that any current language of Slavic origin.

Priest Siluan · Post by **Priest Siluan** » Mon 23 January 2006 10:21 am

Also in Russia there have been some priests that serve in Russian, for example the late Fr Alexandre Men.

Subdeacon Joseph · Post by **Subdeacon Joseph** » Thu 26 January 2006 1:34 pm

I vote for the common language of the land. I think many "would be" Orthodox converts, searching for the TRUE CHURCH, may find it difficult not understanding the service. But I guess you's have to weigh it against what the congregation speaks. Ive seen the Gospel read twice, one in Church Slovonic and once in English.

my humble opinion

sdc joseph

Reader Nicholas · Post by **Reader Nicholas** » Sun 29 January 2006 5:15 pm

Knowing how HORRIBLE and Theologically incorrect many of the "English" interpretations are that are floating around the "Orthodox" world at the present time, I vote for Slavonic or Greek. If a person really wants to convert the language should not be an issue. I converted in an Albanian Parish in 1979. There wasn't any English used.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 30 January 2006 2:51 am

If a person really wants to convert the language should not be an issue. I converted in an Albanian Parish in 1979. There wasn't any English used.

I cannot begin to contemplate (let alone explain) how disconnected such a view is. I think at judgment day there will be a special set of questions for people who made it harder for others to convert, who put stumbling blocks in front of would-be children of God, and brushed aside the possible stumbling as not their problem since, hey, THEY didn't have a problem with that particular stumbling block. So you think that a language that is incomprehensible is better than a language that might have some theological flaws in it (which can be corrected through teaching)? Unbelievable. No wonder most people dismiss us as quaint, backwards people who are out of touch with reality, probably from spending too much time in our more-pious-than-thou, more-ornate-than-thou Churches, where we do everything perfectly, even if we have to keep the people ignorant to do it. I suppose it is more important for the liturgy to be acted or (best case scenario) prayed beautifully, but incomprehensibly, and remain theologically ignorant, than for someone to learn a thing or two, but fall into the horrible, terrible situation of--gasp!!!--reading "hell" in an English translation when it should be "hades" (or some similar mistake).