Sunday, 30 January 2011
Greek Orthodox vernacular row
Recently, Metropolitan Ignatios of Dimitriados was celebrating Vespers at Volos for the feast of Saint Anthony the Great. For part of the readings, he used the demotic (popular) form of modern Greek rather than the Greek of the Septuagint, the New Testament, and St John Chrysostom. There was something of a popular protest with people saying things like "Your Eminence, not in the demotic. Read the reading in the ancient language."
Last April, the Greek Orthodox Holy Synod condemned the practice of using the modern language in the Sacred Liturgy, citing the importance of the Church's unity. (See article on Mystagogy) Metropolitan Ignatios argues that it is the young people who want the vernacular, demotic liturgy. Things may be different in Greece, of course, but I think he may find in due course that just as in the West, the young people who actually attend the Divine Services will want the whole deal of traditional Orthodox liturgy, not a watered-down version.
Metropolitan Ignatios also justifies his practice by saying that the passages from the Old Testament have a didactic purpose rather than being prayers addressed to God. This is surprising from an Orthodox prelate since many in the West are beginning now to realise that the lections at Mass in the traditional form are chanted in such a way as to underline precisely that they are not simply didactic texts but are part of the worship of God. The strictly didactic dimension of the Sacred Liturgy is incidental - the sermon is where the didactic element finds its proper place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Best example of active participation I've ever seen!
...and the Orthodox accuse US of being 'legalistic'.
This is very common in the Orthodox Church.
From the Calendarists in the Russian Orthodox Church to the monks on Mount Athos condemning any deviation from Koine Greek into vernacular Greek.
Sheesh.
In English-speaking countries, aren't Orthodox liturgies in English? And if so, is it a lofty kind of English (Shakespeare, Douay-Reims, etc.), or the bland sort of ICEL stuff we have?
I must say that, although I can sympathise with the cause, that does not immediately strike me as the most appropriate way to protest the issue in terms of respect for the liturgy....
When it comes to including the didactic aspect at times when the congregation may not be expected to know, understand or be able to follow along with the readings in a missal, I think a happy solution is found in the practice adopted at some traditional Masses of repeating the readings in the vernacular from the pulpit as an introduction to and part of the homily. This wonderfully brings out the didactic aspect in a manner which does not in any way compromise or encroach on the prayerfulness of the liturgy itself.
In English-speaking countries, aren't Orthodox liturgies in English?
In Australia it depends on which church you attend.
Do we qualify as English speakers? lol
Ah, yes. There is only ONE Greek version that can be used, but there are a couple of hundred English translations, 95% of them ranging from bad to execrable, and it is the GREEKS who insist on old-fashioned Greek who get uptight about "thy" and "thine" in English versions and want modern English, even if it is so bad that it is meaningless.
I agree with the Holy Synod. The vernacular has been a disaster in the Latin Church. I suspect most Greek young people want no such thing.
Vernacular was promoted in the name of the people here in the West, yet the same people were not consulted about its introduction! I suspect were you to have taken an opinion poll in 1964 most lay people would have been resolutely opposed to the idea.
Consider this letter published in The Furrow in February, 1973, by JF Foyle, discussing his experience of the vernacular:
"[...] When things were in Latin, we followed the words in the vernacular in our missals, often pausing to reflect even if that meant not being in line with the priest's words, though we made sure to be in line for the three peaks --- offertory, consecration and holy communion. Sometimes we filled in, in between the peaks, with Rosary-reciting, favourite prayers (often from prayer-books or leaflets).
Reading, informal praying and reflecting, in between the peaks, played dominant parts in our Mass participation. We had tremendous scope for using our own individual initiative to fill the in-between spaces. The vernacular changed all that and what was designed to increase our participation in the Mass has, in fact, made it awkward for us to participate to our satisfaction.
We were suddenly left without missals and expected to attend to the priests' words all the time. This ruled out reflecting, as we were kept going keeping up with the words the whole way through Mass. Also, we had little to reflect on --- we are far from expert in catching a series of sentences while they are flying. We were virtually forbidden to switch off the words (to reflect or pray via reading or thinking parallel to the priest). It was uncomfortable deliberately switching off, anyway, since the words, being in English, kept obtruding in snatches, something that didn't happen with the Latin (except with some students of the language, and then only when words were said specially loudly). We felt obliged to attend to English words, whereas it was optional with the Latin. We felt inferior at being unable to attend, whereas we felt superior when we succeeded with the Latin.
This was, and is, a far from pleasant Mass experience. It also resulted in the three peaks ceasing to be peaks in the Mass --- they are just parts of the series of words, almost, often (especially the middle one) passing unnoticed, as our minds wander.
What this suggests is that the liturgists equated the scope for being aware of what was being said with scope for participation. Apart from the Latin allowing for similar awareness (even for illiterates), the equating erred in wrongly estimating the strain going with non-stop listening. It did not allow gaps for reflecting, nor for having another look at the words for that purpose. Nor did it recognize that participation is very much an individual matter, made-up around the priest's Mass words but not rigidly tied to them. The Latin facilitated such individual participation. The vernacular hinders it.
Liturgists ought to have been aware of such effects of the change-over, since they were predictable from awareness of how those in the pews participated in the Mass. [...] Those in the pew automatically, now, mind-wander most of the time when subjected to amplified voices in churches or halls. Their recall of things said in the liturgy of the word, for example, is nearly nil most of the time, just as their recall of newscasts and radio-television discussions is very fuzzy.
Further, Mass is now attended with very little forethought about the theme of the liturgy and even less afterthought about it. There is little time for thinking about religion, anyway, and seldom is a special attempt made in advance of Mass. Getting there quickly by car lessens the scope for forethought, too. Watch the aftermath --- as everybody rushes for cars and papers to provide food for some other kind of thought. The Mass words are part of the pattern of information flow which envelops us daily. They get even less attention than the other words, since so few have them in print for fore and after thought. This has contributed in no small away, I find, to very, very little reading about things spiritual. The taking-away of the missals (or their too slow replacement, which amounts to the same thing, in effect) broke the habit. And it is well and truly broken, now.
[...] Those of my generation who believe in the power of the Mass, and in it being a mortal sin not to participate in Sunday Mass, keep going on that account. It is in spite of the vernacular, not with its aid.
[...] The Rosary beads and the devotional prayers could have a place, again, for individual participation between the peaks. [...] All the amplified talking of the introductory rite, liturgy of the word and the homily is a nuisance, when we could be reading and reflecting quietly. Let the Bible readings be relayed to us, maybe, and let the rest be read silently or, at least, with the amplifiers turned off. That way the homily (unamplified) will have a chance of getting attention, too. Let the rest of the Mass be silent mainly, apart from the three peaks and 'Our Father', say, relying on us in the pew to participate in our individual ways, reading and reflecting."
Post a Comment