Since this is being discussed on another forum and surprisingly became controversial, I thought I would ask traditionalists here, what you thought of the language question.
Is it more important to understand liturgics or keep using old languages?
Please explain you answers as I am sure this poll is not detailed enough. 
在基督 My Original Blog
尼古拉 My Facebook Profile
前执事 My Twitter Page
Have any of you on here attended the Divine Liturgy in Spanish ? besides Texas, there is one other Church in Arizona where the Services are done entirely in Spanish, at Vladyka alexander of Blessed memory the one service was done by the Monks and nuns from south america, and it blew the Russians, who thought they were lost in english...it all sounds so beautiful if its sang slowly and properly,reguardless of language..unfortunately as with most places the Russians seem to be in a hurry to chant/sing thru the service in either slavonic or english, and that i cant stand...we should be observant of the churchs offering certain language services as to send those who cant understand to those services to Bad Church Politics has killed that thought
I have several reasons why I think Divine Services should be held in a language of the land.
1)I can't speak or read Slavonic or Greek.
2)Tradition! Think Cyril and Methodius, Innocent of Alaska (which incidentally, they have re-issued old prayer and service books in the several Aluet dialects). You can't expect people to know what they should believe if they you teach them in a language they don't understand.
3) All the teachings of the Church can be found in Her prayers. What theology, what poetry, what beauty can be found there, but if you don't know the language you miss it all.
4) I like to (quietly) sing a long with the chior, as it helps be pay attention. But again I don't know the Slavonic well enough. After hearing the Our Father sung in Slavonic for the last 6+ years I still don't know it, and it's not because I haven't tried either.
5) I have gotten used to hearing Slavonic, I don't get so lost much and more. But I have two+ small children and I really want them to understand what is going on.
6) Sticking with an alien language only furthers the sterotype that Orthodox=Ethnic.
7) I honestly believe that by using the local language you have a better chance of converting people. The only jurisdiction that seems to be really growing around me (Twin Cities) is the OCA. If I remember correctly there are 4+ mission parishes with in and hour or so drive.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but I feel like I'm start to rant so I will leave it at that.
Daniel Ph.
I did not vote because I can go either way. Personally I prefer the Slavonic. I grew up with it, I understand 90% of it, so for me it is not aproblem. I do not think that English is very condusive as a liturgical language, it tends to be too coarse for me. I have heard the English service done beautifully, but I still consider English as a poor liturgical tongue. I have heard parts of the service done in Spanish and German, both of these have a better sound than English.
I do feel that certain parts of the service should be done in English (or the language of the land, if only for the sake of making sure that it is understood, especially by the youth.
I had a friend who followed the Slavonic service in our church using her English praybook. She still prefers the Slavonic over the English.
Katya
As the dissenting voice on the "other forum", I felt duty bound to cast my vote here in favour of Koine and Slavonic.
My reasons are explained more fully on the other forum, but basically they are:
1) Koine is the Language in which the Scriptures were written, and Greek Orthodoxy is the only place where Koine is still a living language, and if in the Liturgy, Koine is replaced with modern Greek or other vernacular, there will be no living tradition left linking us to the language the Scriptures were written in, neither the New Testament nor the Septuagint.
2) Translations of the hymns and prayers of the Liturgy and Hours so often have different meanings. One hymn can be translated in three different weys, and the example I used was the Nativity Kontakion which, in one translation, had the Virgin come to the Cave to give birth to the "Transcendant One", in another translation, she gave birth to the "Uncircumscribed One", in another she gave birth to the "Almighty One". And while they are all true, they missed the original meaning of the Kontakion, which was that the Uncontainable God was Contained in a Cave.
3) The prayers and hymns of our Church are part of Holy Tradition, that is, they contain doctrinal elements and can be referred to when dogmatic disputes arise. If their original version is no longer a living Tradition, then we have lost this resource.
4) Given the current juristictional chaos which is the reality of the Orthodox Church in the Diaspora, each Synod would have to approve translations into the same vernacular language in each country for use in their juristiction. What happens when the translations differ?
5) Some people think that speaking Greek or Russian means that you completely understand the Koine and Church Slavonic which the Church uses, but this is not the case. We have to make an effort and learn the Liturgical languages too, so we are in the same boat. If the language becomes the vernacular, then Churches will be much more divided along ethnic and linguistic lines, with English speakers going to one church and Cantonese speakers going to another, and Portugese speakers going to another, and the groups will never worship together.
6) The Liturgy and Hours were never meant to be a way of missioning to those outside the Church. There is no reason why we can't spread the Gospel in vernacular without turning the Liturgy and the hours into a "recruitment drive" or "theatre" instead of the Sacred Mysteries and Prayer they are meant to be.
"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."
Ekaterina wrote:I do not think that English is very condusive as a liturgical language, it tends to be too coarse for me. I have heard the English service done beautifully, but I still consider English as a poor liturgical tongue.
Katya,
I partially agree with you on this. Modern English is not the prettiest language. There are too many Romance words in it. Anglo-Saxon, however, it quite pretty.
edit-Found a better source for sound files of Anglo-Saxon here.
"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you.." (1 Corinthians 14:6)
Although I love "Tserkovno-Slavyansky" I serve mixing Spanish with it. I believe that the vernacular languages should be introduced little by little and with a lot of seriousness and with poetic style (as Shakespeare English). Because people should understand what is said in the Divine Services, we should Imitate St Kirill and St Mefody who evangelized Slavs in their own language (or rather a Slavonic "common" to all the Slavic dialects) and certainly they could have did it in Greek and this way they fulfilled commandment of Christ (St Matthew 28:19).
I think that "sacralizate" in excess the liturgical languages are not very Orthodox but very similar to what the Latins did with Latin, also it is good for the Philetist purposes.
Another curious thing is that neither the Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian etc understands liturgical Slavonic. For that reason St Justin Popovich translated the services to Serbian and he serve in Serbian "so that people understands"