D
dzheremi
Guest
Two points:
(1) That was rhetorical.
(2) The liturgy has nothing to do with what you like or don’t like. Every Holy Week there’s some idiot who complains “Why do we do all the readings in Coptic?” I don’t listen to them, just like I wouldn’t listen to anyone who would complain about having too much Syriac in the Maronite liturgy, in the alternate universe where that would be the case.
Once again: You either care about your heritage or you don’t. If you don’t, it’s better that you be able to understand everything, since you clearly don’t care about the roots and history of the Church anyway (and really, in that context, what’s the difference between pretending to be Arab and pretending to be Syriac?). If you do, you’ll learn the language to whatever degree you can and so likely be able to understand everything either way. We in the COC at least understand our hymns (though the English translations often suck; thank God I’m a linguist, or I wouldn’t have bothered with some of this stuff), which is 99% of the Coptic we ever use. If the Maronites don’t understand what they’re saying, either in Syriac or Arabic, and don’t care to learn, then why bother? I’ve read many complaints by now here on CAF that the Maronites don’t care about their liturgical identity, and I don’t know that this is all or even mostly linguistically-focused (my favorite Maronite liturgy so far is mostly in Arabic, and yet sounds more convincingly Maronite than everything I’ve heard coming from the Pr. Hage school of Arabo-Syriac garbage they call liturgical music), but I do know that this attitude would remain even if the qurbono were entirely in Syriac. It’s the attitude I’m talking about. No doubt some people would be incredibly happy to have their Novus Ordo-style qurbono entirely in Syriac (might I suggest those people become Marthomites?
) and hail it as a great return to tradition, but I’m talking about something else entirely which is connected to, but not subsumed within, concerns about language.
In an ideal world, the Maronites would care deeply about Syriac as part of the overall heritage and treasures of their Church, and hence be able to be reconnected to their historical sources (or, rather, what remains of them in the wake of the Jesuits), re-learn their traditional chant forms, reclaim their traditional liturgical practices, etc., and actually start to resemble once again the Syriac tradition that they are properly a part of. Language is the/a key to beginning this revitalization (don’t make me quote Mouawad’s article on the teaching of Syriac in Lebanon again), but is not in itself the goal. It’s like if people were to suddenly start speaking Coptic again – it’d be wonderful, but only to further understanding and appreciation of Orthodox worship, heritage, and history among the people, not for its own sake (Muslims could start speaking Coptic as well, and that would be good for nationalistic reasons, but their faith would still be terrible). I would guess that the people who best know Coptic outside of the Coptic Orthodox world are researchers working on things like the Naga Hammadi library and other things Orthodox Copts wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole…so let’s not get confused about these language issues, please. I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn to say that the Syro-Maronite identity is as strong as it is among the few who do care about it precisely because they care about the proper worship and understanding of their faith, which necessarily involves a certain historical view that isn’t shared by the majority. It’s real history and real language informing the real practice of their faith, or it’s a few phrases thrown in here or there as a token to the fact that they are really aren’t Latins, even while in every other way their own people have pushed them to assume the Latin posture in every way.
And it’s their choice to make whether to continue within that dichotomy or not.
(Sorry for Mardukm-ing up the post with all the bold and italics, but, well…emphasis counts to emphasize what I mean and what I don’t mean against the backdrop of “well, some people would prefer…”, which was not at all my point. I do not care what anyone prefers. I care about what is an accurate and faithful continuation of the faith handed down by our fathers and masters the apostles and their disciples. Pentecost already showed us that this is not language-specific, but of course we are all human beings of some background/tradition or another, so again…you either care about it or you don’t.)
(1) That was rhetorical.
(2) The liturgy has nothing to do with what you like or don’t like. Every Holy Week there’s some idiot who complains “Why do we do all the readings in Coptic?” I don’t listen to them, just like I wouldn’t listen to anyone who would complain about having too much Syriac in the Maronite liturgy, in the alternate universe where that would be the case.
Once again: You either care about your heritage or you don’t. If you don’t, it’s better that you be able to understand everything, since you clearly don’t care about the roots and history of the Church anyway (and really, in that context, what’s the difference between pretending to be Arab and pretending to be Syriac?). If you do, you’ll learn the language to whatever degree you can and so likely be able to understand everything either way. We in the COC at least understand our hymns (though the English translations often suck; thank God I’m a linguist, or I wouldn’t have bothered with some of this stuff), which is 99% of the Coptic we ever use. If the Maronites don’t understand what they’re saying, either in Syriac or Arabic, and don’t care to learn, then why bother? I’ve read many complaints by now here on CAF that the Maronites don’t care about their liturgical identity, and I don’t know that this is all or even mostly linguistically-focused (my favorite Maronite liturgy so far is mostly in Arabic, and yet sounds more convincingly Maronite than everything I’ve heard coming from the Pr. Hage school of Arabo-Syriac garbage they call liturgical music), but I do know that this attitude would remain even if the qurbono were entirely in Syriac. It’s the attitude I’m talking about. No doubt some people would be incredibly happy to have their Novus Ordo-style qurbono entirely in Syriac (might I suggest those people become Marthomites?
) and hail it as a great return to tradition, but I’m talking about something else entirely which is connected to, but not subsumed within, concerns about language.In an ideal world, the Maronites would care deeply about Syriac as part of the overall heritage and treasures of their Church, and hence be able to be reconnected to their historical sources (or, rather, what remains of them in the wake of the Jesuits), re-learn their traditional chant forms, reclaim their traditional liturgical practices, etc., and actually start to resemble once again the Syriac tradition that they are properly a part of. Language is the/a key to beginning this revitalization (don’t make me quote Mouawad’s article on the teaching of Syriac in Lebanon again), but is not in itself the goal. It’s like if people were to suddenly start speaking Coptic again – it’d be wonderful, but only to further understanding and appreciation of Orthodox worship, heritage, and history among the people, not for its own sake (Muslims could start speaking Coptic as well, and that would be good for nationalistic reasons, but their faith would still be terrible). I would guess that the people who best know Coptic outside of the Coptic Orthodox world are researchers working on things like the Naga Hammadi library and other things Orthodox Copts wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole…so let’s not get confused about these language issues, please. I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn to say that the Syro-Maronite identity is as strong as it is among the few who do care about it precisely because they care about the proper worship and understanding of their faith, which necessarily involves a certain historical view that isn’t shared by the majority. It’s real history and real language informing the real practice of their faith, or it’s a few phrases thrown in here or there as a token to the fact that they are really aren’t Latins, even while in every other way their own people have pushed them to assume the Latin posture in every way.
And it’s their choice to make whether to continue within that dichotomy or not.
(Sorry for Mardukm-ing up the post with all the bold and italics, but, well…emphasis counts to emphasize what I mean and what I don’t mean against the backdrop of “well, some people would prefer…”, which was not at all my point. I do not care what anyone prefers. I care about what is an accurate and faithful continuation of the faith handed down by our fathers and masters the apostles and their disciples. Pentecost already showed us that this is not language-specific, but of course we are all human beings of some background/tradition or another, so again…you either care about it or you don’t.)
.