Recently I read a comment to a Facebook posting concerning the attempt by Bishop Meletios of the Church of Greece to implement in his Diocese the use of vernacular (contemporary) Greek in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. His efforts were not very well received by the Synod of Bishops of the Greek Church, and they subsequently voted against the effort.
The article is as follows:
Greece, Synod Condemns Liturgy in Modern Greek
(ANSAmed) – ATHENS- The Greek-Orthodox Synod has condemned the Mass in modern language officiated in the diocese of Nicopolis, claiming that it puts ”the Church’s unity” at risk.
Bishop Meletio of Nicopolis, in the northern region of Epirus, a long time ago authorised the translation of the Mass from liturgical Greek (close to the ancient Greek language and once spoken by the upper classes) into modern or ”popular” Greek. Because, he justified his decision, ”otherwise the faithful don’t understand the holy liturgy”. But the Synod has ruled that translating the holy texts is forbidden; it is only allowed ”as an exception and after the authorisation” of the Church.
In the absence of a joint version, according to the orthodox leaders, a spontaneous and causal translation of the liturgy ”could jeopardise the Church’s unity”. The Synod has taken its decision despite the fact that Meletio seems to enjoy the support of his believers and has obtained the official support of other bishops.
The following is a comment (unedited) made by a participant in the discussion.
I’ve worshipped in a Greek Orthodox Church long enough to more or less get the gist of the shorter things said in Greek. But it is old Greek. I doubt even native Greek speakers really understand it word for word. Moreover, there is this strange fascination with Greek school. I have nothing against Greek-Americans teaching their children to speak modern Greek. It has nothing to do with religion though. Can they read the Gospels or Fathers in Greek once they’re done?
To be fair, this is also a problem in the Slavic churches. Many continue to use Church Slavonic. I’ve heard Slavs complain that the children don’t know what is being said – – almost like in the Old Latin Mass. The only good thing about it is the Slavic unity angle. You can go to most any Slavic country and, if you understand Slavonic, you’ll hear the liturgy you know. Also, Slavonic has functioned as a kind of lingua franca in Eastern Europe for the clergy. However, this is really outweighed by the fact that a considerable amount of the services are unintelligible, or only peripherally intelligible, to the laity.
On a side note, I wonder if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has translated the liturgy and services into Turkish. If they have or might, it would go a long way toward earning the respect of many who are critical of them. It would show that they remain in Turkey to spread the Gospel, not to tend store in the last remnant of a lost empire.
Also, in all fairness to the Greek Synod, we should wait to see if they appoint a committee to do a standard translation of the liturgy, etc. into modern Greek. There is something to be said for not having something like this done piecemeal.
Here is my response:
Scott is right in saying he can never understand the language THING. (my edit) And neither do 98% of the faithful who attend the Divine Liturgy in liturgical Greek, Slavonic, or any other non-spoken language today. This, we pretty much agree upon.
What I don’t agree with is the question of unity. Using language as a tool for unity is a superficial approach. Rome found that out. What is important is that the faith professed, stated and understood in the texts of the Liturgy must be the source of unity. If these are not understood at the outset, then the real unity of the Church is in jeopardy. And this is exactly the problem. The Liturgy is a “School of Theology” for the believer. Everything that is prayed must become what is believed. And this is not possible in situations where the faithful can not understand (or hear) the prayers and hymns which contain the kerygma of faith.
As for the advantage of being familiar with a practice ensured by a “dead” language, I think it will always be possible to acclimate oneself to different linguistic situations if the faith is nourished by ones “mother” tongue. I travel throughout Western and Eastern Europe whereby I am continually presented with the use of varied language uses, both ancient and contemporary, and I don’t find this to be a problem. Yes, the use of an ancient language in different parts of the globe might assist you in hearing sounds you are familiar with, but not necessary the Liturgy “you know.”
There are ways to deal with the problem pastorally. Some parts of the Liturgy, especially those sung by the choir such as the Hymn of the Cherubim or the Megalynarion after the Epiclesis, may very well be sung in the ancient languages. Even some of the short acclamations and responses could be sung likewise, for we all know what KYRIE ELEISON means. However, the texts of the Anaphora (which should be said audibly) and the hymns which contain the teaching of the day should be sung in a language understood by the people – not to mention the readings.
And as to Scott’s suggestion that a committee be formed to work on and issue a unified translation, my response would be one which I think was made by Napoleon – “if you want to avoid something, form a committee.”
As for poor Bishop Meletios; we should support him especially with our prayers. And to those who oppose this much needed reform, all I can say is “right faith – wrong Bishops!”
Priest-Monk Gregory-Francis DesMarais