L
LumenGent
Guest
A very controversial topic in the Church concerns the use and preservation of Liturgical languages. So are you for it in favor of tradition, or against it in line with vernacularism?
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t understand the controversy. The vernacular is only a derivative of the liturgical language(s) at best. But I guess it boils down to personal philosophy. Does one want to worship using everyday words or does he think God deserves more? Christ worshipped in non-vernacular language as do most major non-Christian religions. Are we better than they in insisting on worshipping in the translation only?
M
mariyka
Guest
Why not use both?
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I agree with Mariyka, there is certainly room for the use of both a “liturgical” language and the vernacular.
As far as tradition is concerned…
The fact is that there are a number of particular Churches (both within the Catholic Church and within Orthodoxy) who have been using the vernacular languages for centuries. I believe the Melkites have been using a formal form of Arabic since before their declaration of communion with Rome in the 18th Century. The Romanians, too, have been using the vernacular for centuries. In fact, they have regular commissions that meet to update the translations so that they are both faithful to the original Greek text, but are also understandable in the current expression of the Romanian language. The Ukrainians have been using the vernacular at least since the time of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky’s reforms prior to WWII. That’s certainly not centuries, but he made that change after a careful study of the Byzantine tradition. The Melkites in the U.S. started using English in their Liturgies thanks to the leadership of one Fr. Joseph Raya (later Archbishop of Galilee), who, again after a careful study of the Byzantine tradition, determined that offering the Liturgical Services in the vernacular was both traditional, and a necessary step for the sake of evangelization. Rome came down hard on him at first, but Patriarch Maximos IV took up the issue in defense of Fr. Raya and changed Rome’s mind. They only stipulated that the Anaphora ought to be offered in Koine Greek (a stipulation that has since been removed, or ignored). So it seems that, at least in some cases, there is long tradition of Liturgies being celebrated in the vernacular.
My own opinion, again, is that there is room for both. There’s no reason that certain hymns can’t be chanted in a liturgical language. For example, the repetition of the Thrice Holy Hymn could be done in English and Greek (and Arabic, as is the case in my parish). The “Glory be…” can be in Greek from time to time, nothing wrong with that. Even some of the Troparia could be in Greek, although I’d be a little less supportive of that lest the catechetical gems of the Troparia be lost on those who do not read/understand Koine Greek.
I like the way the Romanians go about things. There’s no reason why a liturgical translation can’t be both accurate, dignified and in the modern dialect of whatever language. I won’t go to the extreme (if you can call it that) of saying we need everything in Elizabethan English (if English is your vernacular). But a more formal version of the modern dialect would certainly have my support.
One more thing I will say, I don’t believe translations should merely be the product of a committee. I believe they should be the product of a great deal of prayer, and not hastily made or implemented. There is a non-canonical Orthodox monastery (formerly Franciscan, interestingly enough) that produces some excellent liturgical translations (which are in Elizabethan English). They spend years refining their texts to ensure that the translations are both accurate, understandable, poetic, and singable. I think anyone who’s ever heard those texts chanted would not be so adamantly against the use of the vernacular. Likewise the translations made by Archbishop Joseph Raya and Baron Jose deVink were also the result of a great deal of prayer and study. This becomes even more clear when you read those liturgical translations in light of the rest of Kyr Raya’s writings. Although they are in modern English they are still dignified, poetic, understandable, etc. (although in places not as accurate as one would wish, but all translations falter to an extent, and it’s nothing that a little catechesis wouldn’t clear up). I love the works that the Melkite Eparchy of Newton has produced, which seem to be in the tradition and spirit of Kyr Raya’s liturgical translations.
As far as tradition is concerned…
The fact is that there are a number of particular Churches (both within the Catholic Church and within Orthodoxy) who have been using the vernacular languages for centuries. I believe the Melkites have been using a formal form of Arabic since before their declaration of communion with Rome in the 18th Century. The Romanians, too, have been using the vernacular for centuries. In fact, they have regular commissions that meet to update the translations so that they are both faithful to the original Greek text, but are also understandable in the current expression of the Romanian language. The Ukrainians have been using the vernacular at least since the time of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky’s reforms prior to WWII. That’s certainly not centuries, but he made that change after a careful study of the Byzantine tradition. The Melkites in the U.S. started using English in their Liturgies thanks to the leadership of one Fr. Joseph Raya (later Archbishop of Galilee), who, again after a careful study of the Byzantine tradition, determined that offering the Liturgical Services in the vernacular was both traditional, and a necessary step for the sake of evangelization. Rome came down hard on him at first, but Patriarch Maximos IV took up the issue in defense of Fr. Raya and changed Rome’s mind. They only stipulated that the Anaphora ought to be offered in Koine Greek (a stipulation that has since been removed, or ignored). So it seems that, at least in some cases, there is long tradition of Liturgies being celebrated in the vernacular.My own opinion, again, is that there is room for both. There’s no reason that certain hymns can’t be chanted in a liturgical language. For example, the repetition of the Thrice Holy Hymn could be done in English and Greek (and Arabic, as is the case in my parish). The “Glory be…” can be in Greek from time to time, nothing wrong with that. Even some of the Troparia could be in Greek, although I’d be a little less supportive of that lest the catechetical gems of the Troparia be lost on those who do not read/understand Koine Greek.
I like the way the Romanians go about things. There’s no reason why a liturgical translation can’t be both accurate, dignified and in the modern dialect of whatever language. I won’t go to the extreme (if you can call it that) of saying we need everything in Elizabethan English (if English is your vernacular). But a more formal version of the modern dialect would certainly have my support.
One more thing I will say, I don’t believe translations should merely be the product of a committee. I believe they should be the product of a great deal of prayer, and not hastily made or implemented. There is a non-canonical Orthodox monastery (formerly Franciscan, interestingly enough) that produces some excellent liturgical translations (which are in Elizabethan English). They spend years refining their texts to ensure that the translations are both accurate, understandable, poetic, and singable. I think anyone who’s ever heard those texts chanted would not be so adamantly against the use of the vernacular. Likewise the translations made by Archbishop Joseph Raya and Baron Jose deVink were also the result of a great deal of prayer and study. This becomes even more clear when you read those liturgical translations in light of the rest of Kyr Raya’s writings. Although they are in modern English they are still dignified, poetic, understandable, etc. (although in places not as accurate as one would wish, but all translations falter to an extent, and it’s nothing that a little catechesis wouldn’t clear up). I love the works that the Melkite Eparchy of Newton has produced, which seem to be in the tradition and spirit of Kyr Raya’s liturgical translations.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This is not so much of an issue in the East.
The Byzantine Churches have always used the vernacular along with the liturgical languages.
As for the idea of Christ worshiping in a liturgical language. He did so as a Jew, I do not think we can draw any conclusions from that unless one is to push Hebrew as the language for Catholic Liturgies. I am sure that when he instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper he was using the vernacular, and not the liturgical, language.
There are some sticklers for liturgical language in the East but they seem to be a greater minority than in the West.
D
DihydrogenOxide
Guest
There is a misunderstanding of why liturgical languages are still used.
Here is an explanation specific to the use of latin in the Church.It covers the bases for all liturgical languages, though.
Both vernacular and liturgical are fine.
Here is an explanation specific to the use of latin in the Church.It covers the bases for all liturgical languages, though.
Both vernacular and liturgical are fine.
T
The_Idiot
Guest
Ah , but there is a problem …
exactly what is the vernacular ?
Is it the language of the country or is the language of the people - they can be different .
exactly what is the vernacular ?
Is it the language of the country or is the language of the people - they can be different .
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good point.
I’d add each person has his own vocabulary set and his own meanings to go with the words. Thus a case can be made that there are over 7 billion vernaculars in the world.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But how many liturgies have both?
(I assume by liturgical we’re talking Latin, Greek, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic, etc.)
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Most of the Liturgies I have been to have both.
That goes for both the Mass (ordinary form) and the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.
That means Latin and English for the Mass and English, Church Slavonic, Arabic, Greek, depending on where I attend the Divine Liturgy.
F
Formosus
Guest
As far as praying and worshiping God in everyday language goes, there is a reason why the Latin bible was called the “vulgate”. Further, the Greek(s) of the NT is likely how people spoke everyday in the market place. It wasnt the high atticized style of the Cappodocians. Even compared to contemporary first century koine writings, the NT has a low koine Greek.
I think dignified language is important, and I think liturgies should retain some use of the traditional tongue, but the vernacular is important. If the Liturgy is in a language people can not understand, then how will they receive the theological teachings found in it. The law of prayer, is the law of belief as they say.
I think dignified language is important, and I think liturgies should retain some use of the traditional tongue, but the vernacular is important. If the Liturgy is in a language people can not understand, then how will they receive the theological teachings found in it. The law of prayer, is the law of belief as they say.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This might not seem to be much of a deal in the U.S. where (except in some places) nobody speaks any language but his own.
It was different in Europe, and still is. It’s a small place, with a lot of languages and a number of sub-dialects. In some parts of the world there are hundreds of them.
Back when Latin was the liturgical language universally, I simply learned to understand it. After all, it isn’t as if you are listening to a conversation. There is a lot of repetition. I can still say the prayers in Latin, and I know what they mean. So, no matter where in the world I went, I would be able to understand the liturgy. I would miss hearing the Gospel, yes, and the homily.
Now, if I went to the Mass in the Philippines where there are a good many dialects, I would understand not one single word of the liturgy, except perhaps in some church where they just happened to use English for some reason.
I have been to Spanish Masses since the influx of Hispanics, and I do try to pick up on the meaning. When Hispanics come to the English Masses, I don’t see them open the book. I suppose they know a little something of what’s being said, but I don’t see how they could know much because even if I’m following the book in Spanish I miss most of it.
If I went to the Spanish-language Masses regularly for a few years, I imagine I would pick it up better. But then, what are the Hispanics supposed to pick up? What about the Iraqis?
I think that’s part of the argument in favor of a liturgical language. Even if it isn’t your indigenous language, you eventually pick it up. At one time, as I understand it, a very large portion of the European populace understood Latin. It was kind of a “lingua franca”, sort of like Tagalog is in the Philippines is now or Swahili is in much of Africa. … neither of which is the actual indigenous language of any group. And, of course, there’s “Tex-Mex” in some parts of the U.S.
Ways to understand.
It was different in Europe, and still is. It’s a small place, with a lot of languages and a number of sub-dialects. In some parts of the world there are hundreds of them.
Back when Latin was the liturgical language universally, I simply learned to understand it. After all, it isn’t as if you are listening to a conversation. There is a lot of repetition. I can still say the prayers in Latin, and I know what they mean. So, no matter where in the world I went, I would be able to understand the liturgy. I would miss hearing the Gospel, yes, and the homily.
Now, if I went to the Mass in the Philippines where there are a good many dialects, I would understand not one single word of the liturgy, except perhaps in some church where they just happened to use English for some reason.
I have been to Spanish Masses since the influx of Hispanics, and I do try to pick up on the meaning. When Hispanics come to the English Masses, I don’t see them open the book. I suppose they know a little something of what’s being said, but I don’t see how they could know much because even if I’m following the book in Spanish I miss most of it.
If I went to the Spanish-language Masses regularly for a few years, I imagine I would pick it up better. But then, what are the Hispanics supposed to pick up? What about the Iraqis?
I think that’s part of the argument in favor of a liturgical language. Even if it isn’t your indigenous language, you eventually pick it up. At one time, as I understand it, a very large portion of the European populace understood Latin. It was kind of a “lingua franca”, sort of like Tagalog is in the Philippines is now or Swahili is in much of Africa. … neither of which is the actual indigenous language of any group. And, of course, there’s “Tex-Mex” in some parts of the U.S.
Ways to understand.
F
Formosus
Guest
Latin was never the universal language outside of the west. In medieval Europe, some probably understood Latin better since most western languages are descended from vulgar Latin. A Spanish or Italian speaker could probably understand a bit of Latin, a French or Romanian speaker would understand much less. They would all still need a missal to actually comprehend what’s going on.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Vernacular to an extent but not to the point where it subsumes the liturgy. Otherwise no one will be studying the liturgical language anymore. Where’s the motivation to learn a language (and the theology expressed by it) which are no longer ostensibly used?
This is not true. The Vetus Latina would have been closer to the vulgar language at the time. Unfortunately, wiki has been taken down today and I have no other source available at the minute.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Every single last “Liturgical Language” was, at one time, a vernacular language.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually, from reading old histories, it appears a lot of people knew Latin back in the Medieval period and Renaissance. Again, I think the utility of a liturgical language or a “universal language” would depend a lot on the mobility of the people. During those periods, Europeans were highly mobile. English is probably the closest to a “universally understood language” outside China where, one supposes, it would be Mandarin Chinese.
Again, in the U.S., such a thing would be more limited today, since few native-born Americans speak any language other than English, and don’t travel a whole lot to places where no one does.
Regardless, I also think liturgical languages are useful because the liturgies that use them tend to be repetitive, and people can learn the meaning of it by hearing it repeated.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
An interesting discussion.
I do think there is an important link to history, tradition and theological foundation that comes from continued understanding and usage of litugical languages. Within my own tradition, I am grateful for having come to appreciate Old Slavonic, and do think its continued usage helps bind us with our sister churches in Eastern Europe, even to this day.
That said, after reading through the thread, I could not help but reflect on the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles on Pentecost:
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2: 1-4[/BIBLEDRB]
Can it be understood from this gift of the Holy Spirit, given to the Apostles as they were about to set out a spread the Good News, that God intended His Word to be heard and understood by all nations and those who would receive it in their hearts?
Just a thought …
I do think there is an important link to history, tradition and theological foundation that comes from continued understanding and usage of litugical languages. Within my own tradition, I am grateful for having come to appreciate Old Slavonic, and do think its continued usage helps bind us with our sister churches in Eastern Europe, even to this day.
That said, after reading through the thread, I could not help but reflect on the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles on Pentecost:
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2: 1-4[/BIBLEDRB]
Can it be understood from this gift of the Holy Spirit, given to the Apostles as they were about to set out a spread the Good News, that God intended His Word to be heard and understood by all nations and those who would receive it in their hearts?
Just a thought …
D
DihydrogenOxide
Guest
Yeah, the OP didn’t specify and was very generalized, so I went the same way in my generalization. I think what he/she was asking was more of a which is better? type of question.
L
LumenGent
Guest
This is a generalised question so any Liturgical language can be considered, as there really isn’t a single liturgical language. Note, however, that it isn’t a “which is better” type, but more of “fittingness for worship” type of question.
Opinions aside, we all know that the Second Vatican Council continued to uphold the dignity of the Latin language for the Western Liturgies, why it is rarely ever used, despite the express command of it’s preservation given at the Council is troubling. Concerning the Oriental/Eastern Churches, there is again, a disparity in positions concerning the significance of the language of the Liturgy. I gather than Oriental Churches (Maronites, Syriacs, Chaldean etc) place a big emphasis on retaining the use of their traditional Liturgical language. OTOH, the Byzantine Chuches favor a language that is exclusively understood and spoken by the people, that is, it is relative to the culture, history and place.
Opinions aside, we all know that the Second Vatican Council continued to uphold the dignity of the Latin language for the Western Liturgies, why it is rarely ever used, despite the express command of it’s preservation given at the Council is troubling. Concerning the Oriental/Eastern Churches, there is again, a disparity in positions concerning the significance of the language of the Liturgy. I gather than Oriental Churches (Maronites, Syriacs, Chaldean etc) place a big emphasis on retaining the use of their traditional Liturgical language. OTOH, the Byzantine Chuches favor a language that is exclusively understood and spoken by the people, that is, it is relative to the culture, history and place.
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
Strangly enough, (on ConstantineTG’s list of DLs on video) I saw Copts using Latin during DL (Kyrie Eleison)
- Status