Comments on: Russian Orthodox theologian: How is the Catholic Church’s reform experience useful for us http://www.cantemusdomino.net/2009/05/20/russian-orthodox-theologian-how-is-the-catholic-church%e2%80%99s-reform-experience-useful-for-us/ “...combines a wide range of information with a certain charming, existential angst.” — Dr. Peter Jeffery, University of Notre Dame Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:15:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: rightwingprof http://www.cantemusdomino.net/2009/05/20/russian-orthodox-theologian-how-is-the-catholic-church%e2%80%99s-reform-experience-useful-for-us/comment-page-1/#comment-3839 rightwingprof Thu, 21 May 2009 20:29:40 +0000 http://www.cantemusdomino.net/?p=1720#comment-3839 I'm not much worried about the same thing happening in Orthodoxy. There is, at the core, such a deep respect for tradition, even more deeply anchored by the central place monastics have in the Church, that it just isn't conceivable. And that is increasing, thanks to converts. Orthodoxy doesn't attract those who are into secularized liturgy. Much the reverse, and in many cases, converts are escapees from that very movement. You don't find much of a birkenstock crowd in the Eastern Rite churches either -- the Ruthenians (we have tons of them around here) had a "revised liturgy" forced on them, and they are extremely unhappy. From what I understand, the current Metropolitan dislikes it as much as the laity, and is not forcing parishes to use it. The local Byzantine (Ruthenian) priest has told me that none of the parishes in this county use the new liturgy. +Kyrill's (actually, the entire Holy Synod's) reaction to the push for Russian instead of Slavonic is that conservatism to which I referred, although the analogy (to V2) is flawed (then, this was an interview, and not a scholarly paper). The use of Slavonic in the Slavic Orthodox churches and Latin in the Roman Catholic churches universally are two different things. The educated classes in Slavic nations were historically familiar with Slavonic as it was the literary language until the 18th century, and it is today recognizable to speakers of Slavic languages, intelligible with exposure. Slavonic is less different from currently spoken Slavic languages than Latin is to speakers of French or Spanish. You don't have a situation where a significant portion of the laity do not understand the language of the liturgy. In those churches in the US that use Slavonic, they do so not because the church dictates it, but because the laity want to retain it (that applies to any Orthodox liturgical language here, such as Greek or Arabic). At any rate, use of the vernacular is Orthodox practice historically, and not linked to modernism. I’m not much worried about the same thing happening in Orthodoxy. There is, at the core, such a deep respect for tradition, even more deeply anchored by the central place monastics have in the Church, that it just isn’t conceivable. And that is increasing, thanks to converts. Orthodoxy doesn’t attract those who are into secularized liturgy. Much the reverse, and in many cases, converts are escapees from that very movement. You don’t find much of a birkenstock crowd in the Eastern Rite churches either — the Ruthenians (we have tons of them around here) had a “revised liturgy” forced on them, and they are extremely unhappy. From what I understand, the current Metropolitan dislikes it as much as the laity, and is not forcing parishes to use it. The local Byzantine (Ruthenian) priest has told me that none of the parishes in this county use the new liturgy.

+Kyrill’s (actually, the entire Holy Synod’s) reaction to the push for Russian instead of Slavonic is that conservatism to which I referred, although the analogy (to V2) is flawed (then, this was an interview, and not a scholarly paper). The use of Slavonic in the Slavic Orthodox churches and Latin in the Roman Catholic churches universally are two different things. The educated classes in Slavic nations were historically familiar with Slavonic as it was the literary language until the 18th century, and it is today recognizable to speakers of Slavic languages, intelligible with exposure. Slavonic is less different from currently spoken Slavic languages than Latin is to speakers of French or Spanish. You don’t have a situation where a significant portion of the laity do not understand the language of the liturgy. In those churches in the US that use Slavonic, they do so not because the church dictates it, but because the laity want to retain it (that applies to any Orthodox liturgical language here, such as Greek or Arabic). At any rate, use of the vernacular is Orthodox practice historically, and not linked to modernism.

]]>