Moderator: Mark Templet
It seems to me that Metropolitan Vitaly was phyletist. Indeed in a French anti-ecumenist paper, I read he advocated for the use of slavonic only, said that the ROCOR was for Russian people only and forbid Bishop Kallistos of Dioklea to serve (whereas Saint Philaret of Moscow granted him authorization...) because he was not Russian.
Is the ROCIE (ROCOR-v) phyletist?
So I am looking for sources (on the web) about this issue...
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
I have read an old article of Metropolitan Vitaly about the use of the liturgical language as sacred and he considered that the profane languages (among them English) they should be used little by little and this way little by little would be sacrelized in the Church.
I found this way to see the things more Catholic Roman (lefevrist) than orthodox. Because it is far from the ideals of St Kirill and St Mefody and their diciples.
However I don't believe that the concept of that article is philetist
First, this looks like an old article.
Second, understanding the article may depend heavily on who translated it and how it was translated.
Third, and foremost, the experience of priest which Met. Vitaly ordained and sent to Edmonton to serve in English shows that he was not against English at all. Metropolitan Vitaly enjoyed his visits to Edmonton's St. Vladimir's Cathedral and could be heard praising the choir and saying things like we each prayed in our own language but we prayed together. He also expressed the idea that English wasn't yet on the same level as Slavonic, but that we would need to continue to pray with it to sanctify it and deepen its expression.
So my answer from my experience is that Met. Vitaly had his language of chioce, but was not opposed to other languages being used liturgically.
==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==
Priest Mark Smith
British Columbia
