Ekaterina wrote:I have heard parts of the service done in Spanish and German, both of these have a better sound than English.
In case of Spanish, it is maybe because it is "more" sacred than English and other languages since it is near to Latin and very near to the Romanian which still uses the Church. Spanish also keeps many words of Greek origin
Christ is in our midst!
He is and ever shall be!
Part of the reason for the diaspora is the reestablishment of local churches which have lapsed for nigh a millenium, if not longer. Our Orthodox people in diaspora represent a number of ethnicities and ways of being Orthodox which must needs be best blended to form a particular local character. Our lives in the Holy Spirit will further reinforce our local distinctiveness. Hence, when we conceive of local churches, we look toward a common ground and common resources for worship, instruction, administration, etc. We also need decorum, for the Church of Christ is not an elk's club. Therefore, liturgical language must be dignified, not pedestrian, not dummed down, not simplistic. It is realized that sometimes Orthodox concepts cannot be adequately expressed in translation...in such instances a lexicon of loan words should be established. Now, ethnic congregations will continue to exist and they are also important to pastor. Other congregations may prefer foreign liturgical languages, only if that language be instructed to their congregations so that they can at least marginally participate with understanding in the worship. Therefore, I think that for English speaking countries, Elizabethan English is most appropriate, expressing a dignified and elevated worship. Likewise, in other countries, dignified local languages should be used. An occasional "Kyrie Eleison" is not inappropriate, but incorporation of foreign liturgical languages, including Greek, should use prayers which are generally understood and the incorpoartion not cause scandal nor distraction. In the Russian church, it has become the practice to reserve use of certain Greek prayers and hymns to hierarchical services...I personally think that mixtures or exclusive useages of foreign liturgical languages would be best rthus eserved or at least for great feasts/celebrations. In consideration of ethnic congregations or monasteries which are living the language of worship, foreign liturgical languages can be appropriate. As a general rule, however, the diaspora is called to evangelization and should do it in local dignified languages...
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
I didn't vote, because I say yes and no to both options.
A little question...
Were Chruch Slavonic and Church Greek ever used as a vernacular language? If so that would make the issue of Liturgical Language v. Local moot
I do, how ever agree with Kollyvas that liturgical language must be dignified, not pedestrian, not dummed down, not simplistic. For modern English I think this is best used with formal pronouns and such borrowed from Elizabethan Enlish or earlier.
I will say, there is, for English speaking people, an equivalent to Slavonic in
Anglo-Saxon. It was, to the best of my knowledge, the litugical language of England. It was the language spoken by England's saints.
I am in favor of the language that the parish requires, whether that be English in America or Peru, or Spanish in Russia or Mexico. Of course, this would generally work out to using the language of whatever country the parish was in. I support St. John Chrysostom and many others, who insisted on translating Christian truth into the vulgar tongue of people being missionized, even if something might get lost in the translation. Better for something to get lost in the translation, and get fixed later by teaching/correcting, than fro nothing to be passed on at all!
Daniel wrote:Were Chruch Slavonic and Church Greek ever used as a vernacular language? vernaculus, meaning native or indigenous. The original meaning was belonging to homeborn slaves.
Yes, because they weren't Latin. The word "vernacular" comes from the Latin word "vernaculus" meaning "belonging to homeborn slaves" and was used to describe indigineous languages other than Latin. But the meaning of "vernacular" has changed, so I disagree that that it is a moot point.
Daniel wrote:I will say, there is, for English speaking people, an equivalent to Slavonic in Anglo-Saxon. It was, to the best of my knowledge, the litugical language of England. It was the language spoken by England's saints.
The Church in England originally worshipped in Latin. St. Bede the Venerable' (6th-7th century) wrote his Hymns in Latin. As time went on, around the ninth century, Gaelic and Old English started to be used. Then in the tenth century, with the reform of the Benedictine Monasteries and the Norman conquest, the Church reverted back to Latin and continued to do so until the Great Schism of the eleventh Century. So most English Saints worshipped in Latin. And the English Church did it's own experiment with vernacular which lasted about a century and then changed it's mind. "There's nothing new under the sun" 
"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."
The miracle of the Pentecost clearly shows that the worship must be made in the language people understand. Since, Slavs no longer understand Slavonic, since Greeks no longer understand koine I vot for the language of the land, the one people understand...
There is no sacred language in Orthodoxy, we are not Muslims who scaralized the Arabic (the languahe of God). By the way, the prophecies in the Apocalypisi clealry describe a crowd worshipping in all langguages (and not in Slavonic or Koine)...
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
