My Thoughts on the Recent Controversy Regarding our Autocephaly

To say that it has been an interesting several days would be an understatement. Much has been written, much has been discussed, yet closure remains elusive. As such, I believe it would be more judicious of my time to make a video in which I can state my positions more emphatically.

Before we can get to the meat of the matter, a few words must be said about my intentions. First of all, I am a devoted member of the OCA. Although I was born in the GOA, I felt that evangelism had hit a dead end in that jurisdiction sometime in the late 90s. Mind you, the GOA has many gifts to bring to the table of a united American Orthodoxy. For now, let it be said that acceptance of American and regional folkways is not one of them. Perhaps that will change in the future. Let us hope so.

Because of this realization, it became obvious to me some twenty years ago that the only realistic avenue for those interested in evangelism and outreach was the OCA. (Surprisingly, it has since become apparent that ROCOR is as deeply committed to mission formation, as well, but that’s a story for another day.)

More pleasant surprises were in store for me: Chief among them the full roster of divine services which were celebrated in the English language. Not, mind you, the debased, modernized English that is the bane of many mainline denominations. We can thank Isabel Hapgood and others in the interim who felt that they needed to be true to the Orthodox phronema which has always strived to serve the people in their native tongue. The distinction between my former jurisdiction and my present one in this regard is glaring (to say the least). What this distinction says about the native peoples which are “white for the harvest”, in this mission field, is plain to see.

Likewise, I have found an emphasis on Russian-inspired plainchant (which is beauteous), rigorous observance of liturgical rubrics and the encouragement of congregational participation. (Yes, that means no organs and pews –at least in the Diocese of the South.) This is most refreshing. The OCA doesn’t have to reinvent any wheels in this regard and as such, is poised for further growth. That it would saddle itself with the bonds of a foreign patriarchate that believes it is still the seat of an extinct empire is therefore worrisome to many. It pains me to say these words but saying them is necessary: That some in Constantinople look to a spurious canon as a proof-text which states that the mission field in question is populated by “barbarians” is nothing less than scandalous.

At the risk of being prideful, I assert that the OCA has been the most successful of all jurisdictions in North America, at least as far as overall numbers and parishes. Indeed, I go on to assert that none of this would be possible if the OCA had not been granted autocephaly by its mother church fifty years ago. I stand by that conviction. That the Antiochian jurisdiction has enjoyed a great deal of success in this endeavor is a credit to them. It is not my intention at this point to argue how they have been able to succeed in this regard while still tethered to a foreign patriarchate but merely to point out the obvious.

In any event, I will state right now that I am committed to the autocephaly of the OCA. Period. Full stop. Hence my very real shock when I was informed that negotiations were allegedly underway to somehow merge the OCA with (under?) the Patriarchate of Constantinople.  To my non-theologically trained ears, this sounded like us giving up our autocephaly. Indeed, any such merging would necessarily entail a loss of autocephaly as that word is plainly understood. Hence my very real fear as well as the fears of several other people in the OCA, who burned up the phone lines at Syosset and the various chanceries.

Was I mistaken or misinformed? Was this blog used as a trial balloon or to quash any such further discussions? Or did my sources misinterpret the nature of the discussions that had transpired recently? All I do know is that given the debacle that was inflicted upon the Ukrainian Church by the Holy Synod of the See of Constantinople, we in the OCA had reason to worry. Whether this is what awaits us here in America is arguable. (It’s possible that the Ukrainian “autocephaly” was a “one-off” as they say.)

Again, context is key. And the present context under which we labor is not a positive one.

Permit me to explain: What is not arguable are the novel doctrines being peddled by the Constantinopolitan Exarch here in America regarding a previously unknown ecclesial superiority. Again, even to the non-theologically trained ear, they are completely antithetical to Orthodox ecclesiology. I’m sorry, but these triumphalist assertions are contrary to the spirit of what Christ Himself taught. Nor are they referenced anywhere in the historical record. Indeed, they can be teased out the canons only by a tortuous and non-contextual reading of them.

I will state it again: The supremacist claims that are being peddled by the Phanar fly in the face of Christian humility; they are ahistorical; they are uncanonical. This cannot be stressed enough.

I submit to you that the fear my original post generated among the many who read this blog was only possible given the set of circumstances at present. Specifically, as they have played out in Ukraine where Phanariote supremacy is coupled with State Department meddling, all in service to a deranged attempt to revive the Cold War.

In addition, the very fact that no other local Orthodox Church has gone along with the Ecumenical Patriarchates’s latest plans only adds to the concerns of the informed laity here in the United States.  Mt Athos, where monks have actually slammed the door in the faces of the new Ukrainian schismatics, the Greek-speaking Churches themselves are also concerned. Not one local Church has gone along with the Ukrainian recognition. In fact, the canonical Church of Ukraine has only strengthened itself in the face of this church-incited persecution.

And let us be clear: The violence that has been inflicted upon the canonical Ukrainian Church has been unleashed because of what Constantinople –at the behest of the State Department–did. It is no balm to say that the violence is being perpetrated only by thugs and neo-Nazis whose hatred of Russia knows no bounds. They have been given spiritual sanction to do so by the Phanar, perhaps unwittingly, but there it is nonetheless. That regrets abound after the fact is beside the point; real harm to real people worshiping in real churches has been inflicted. “I’m sorry but we were hoping that you people would work it out peacefully” offers no consolation.

As to the actual “Tomos of autocephaly” itself, the less said the better. Hence my own sardonic description of its utility as a governing charter as “ukrocephaly”. Like the Uniate sect which has ravaged Ukraine, it is neither fish nor fowl. Both were created to sow division and confusion, the fruits of which are written in copious rivers of blood.

And yet, this maleficence, in some curious, contorted way, fits in well with the Phanar’s supremacist claims on several levels. First, it comports with the novel belief that all local Churches can be autocephalous, it’s just that Constantinople is in some fabulous way, hyperautocephalous. Second, this gives it the right to interfere at any time at and any place in the affairs of any local Churches. Third –and this is key–it creates a way for Constantinople to unite Orthodoxy to the Roman Catholic Church.

The irony, of course, is that while steps #1 and #2 create a Byzantine papacy, step #3 will strangle this newly-created neo-papalism in its cradle. At any rate, none of this comports to the life of Holy Orthodoxy as universally understood. However, it does resemble Roman Catholicism.

It is in this context therefore that we, the laity of the OCA, found ourselves these last few days. Nor should we think that it is only us who were alarmed. As I mentioned earlier, I was in the GOA. The vast majority of my extended family, friends, and acquaintances are likewise are in the GOA. Upon hearing the news, some were concerned that if the Phanar recognized the autocephaly of the OCA then by rights, they would have to be “under” the OCA. Many were not pleased by this prospect.

And that would be the correct assessment, in the ordinary course of events. However, we do not live in ordinary times. The resurgence of Russia as a world power and a counterpoise to the United States is cause for alarm to many in the post-Christian West. That the Church of Russia is likewise resurgent and evangelistic only adds to the ire of the globalists. By their misguided lights, they have latched on to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the civil strife in Ukraine to put the Russian Church back in its place.

Regretfully, because of its weakened state and the scandals which plague the GOA, the Ecumenical Patriarchate allowed itself to be used for this geopolitical game. Thus, the very real fear that our ecclesiology can be tortured to fit the procrustean bed of cynical Realpolitik.

It is in this light that anxiety abounded these past several days. For this, I apologize; I did not wish to scandalize anyone and to the extent which I did, I beg forgiveness. Believe me, I would rather this blog highlight that which is good and uplifting at all times.

But I do not apologize for refusing to defend the autocephaly of the OCA as I see it. Therefore I will never apologize for refusing to wear rose-colored glasses or taking it as a given whenever some opaque pronouncement from on high is made. The priesthood and the laity of the OCA have worked too hard to establish our parishes and monasteries and theological schools here in America. That we have labored under a cloud because certain foreign Mother Churches could not bring themselves to validate our autocephaly is their problem, not ours.

And if I see a problem on the horizon, I will mention it, and if it looks like the OCA’s autocephaly is up for grabs, I will put it all in caps. For that, I will not apologize.

What it all boils down to is the fear of the unknown or the fear of what we think we know about the unknown.  In the absence of information coming from our hierarchs, we’re going to misinterpret things.  More and more people report feeling like we’ve been relegated to pawns in a chess game.  We’re not seen as a central part of the Church, though we’re the ones who feel the brunt of every misstep taken.  The mess in Ukraine is an example.  If we’re now skittish, is it any wonder why? 

More recently, if Metropolitan Tikhon had just come out and said, “I do not want my meetings with the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be misinterpreted.  Though we would like to be recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and feel it would be in everybody’s best interest were that to happen, the OCA’s autocephaly is not and will never be on the negotiating table.”  The rest of us would go, “Next?” and move onto something else perhaps more edifying.              

Comments

  1. George we may not share the trump fan club, whose government is messing in Ukraine, but when it comes to what you have written re OCA , my heart warm to hear such clear, ‘giving it straight’ words.
    We have every right,like the wildebeast on the Serengetee African savanna, to think there may well be lions, or better still hyenas, hiding in that long grass !!
    I have always tried to avoid church politics as a poison to faith, but as you will see since I started commenting on this blogg and the Ukrainian events unfolded, and a growing understanding of the american Orthodox situation, I have become much more critical and forcefull towards the Phanar and GOA, and as seen from Bulgaria.
    I realise as some on this blogg do not, that the Phanar is on verge of preaching and acting on a ecclesiology that is papal and Catholic and heretical. And what is worse, founded on a nonsense view of the world relating to 1000 plus yes ago. I cannot stress how stupid and delusional this psychotic dream is in the real world of zuckerberg and Besos and musk and the technocratic nightmare we find ourselves in.
    It reduces the Orthodox church to a museum piece. As for Elpidophoros, still in smiley stage but that won’t last long. I am just amazed at GOA, a 100 yrs after it’s founding, they are governed as children, retarded children just out of Greece, unable to be anything but speak bad english, immigrants!!!
    How far this is from reality I do not have to say.
    I in my limited experience on ground, but wide in contact, have found OCA as George says, and as having come through a crisis. One of the top reasons OCA has come through the crisis is because the buck stopped in USA. No foreign corner to hide etc. No where else to go.
    The Antioch group have done and do sterling work and obviously Antioch is not Phanar, but at sone stage they too much decide where they belonging. It’s not a question of disowning any tradition, but of bringing it to the table to enrich an american Orthodoxy that liturgical, spiritually and as a Church, can reach out and speak to America today. Not some foreign centred handicaped body mostly mired in a old fashioned 19c way of worship with rigid pews and organ and choir ranging from BANAL to kitsch and a spirituality devoid of anything Orthodox. That has been my last thing to understand about GOA, it’s protestant spirituality actually and its almost total ignorance of what has gone on in Russia and eastern Europe through the decades of communist persecution, or it’s ignorance of monastic spirituality and of St Seraphim of Sarov as one example. Indeed as with the greek church in Tampa Bay, whose priest seems to operate, good dedicated man that he is, at the level of ‘Pop councelor ‘ all good but nothing more than a secular councelor might bring. As with Anglican church, this has it’s end. Indeed it is interesting that the only bit of Anglican church showing growth is the attendence at Cathedral worship with it’s beauty and use of polyphony, plainchant and classic conposers.
    George keep up the fight. It’s going to get harder. They will now double down on what they see as the weaker autocephalous churches but as you say Russia is not a ruin today. They pray and want that and hate Russia with a hate that is palpable. And even if Putin went, nothing would satisfy them but it’s destruction.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Niko, very perceptive analysis on your own right. Regardless, thank you for the compliment. This post took a lot out of me but I said what I felt needed to be said. If together, we here on this blog are able to declare what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in America –and not some 3rd generation American who still feels some diasporic allegiance to the “homeland”–then we will have succeeded.

      If we fail we’ll have to go underground and wait for the collapse of the Canon 28 mythology.

  2. I agree with what you wrote above and they way you put it. But as far as I know the closest the OCA has come to losing its autocephaly was during the reign of my personal friend and mentor from the SF Bay Area, Metr. Jonah. As I reminded you, the MP has had its eyes on rescinding the Tomos at various points. The scandals that saw the virtual deposition of three primates in a very short time brought Moscow’s critique of our ability to govern a church to a very sharp edge. But with the election and smooth governance of a Metr. Tikhon, the OCA has regained equilibrium and honor at home and abroad. We are a better, stronger and more transparently-run Church now, having been cleansed as it were by fire.  And none of the chaotic noise issuing from the arses of phanariots can impugn that. We need to ‘buck up’ and get on with the job of being the Local Church. The idiotic shenanigans of Greeks will result in the implosion of their pathetic house of cards, and the criminal enterprises and bad actors with whom it is embroiled. God will not be mocked. The OCA will be the last man standing. 

    • George Michalopulos says

      Claes, the loss of autocephaly is a tragedy, of this there can be no doubt. Having said that, the only Church which can rescind an autocephaly (if that is indeed canonically possible) is the Church which granted said autocephaly in the first place.

  3. George, Thank You for running this blog, for vulnerably sharing your thoughts, hopes, and fears with us.  By your efforts in sustaining this space,  we work together regardless of jurisdictional divisions to become better Christians. *This* is the type of unity Orthodoxy needs.
     
    I mostly wanted to say what a treat it was to hear your blog post dictated with your slight Southern accent and your aspirated “wh”s. And to say that no matter how many more of our religious freedoms we lose in America, we will retain our unique way of coping with hardship —
     
    — (as exemplied here by Dierks Bentley, whether we sing these songs in Church or just en route to Church like I do):
     
    https://youtu.be/-R9GrGheMRw

  4. Rhonda Dodson says

    Just a comment, George, from one who was received by the OCA & for 11 years was also proud of & devoted to the OCA. However, now I am in ROCOR & would not consider returning to the OCA for several reasons. All I can say is that the OCA has been far from successful in any sense, much less “most successful”. Many of the OCA’s problems actually mimic those of GOARCH & its membership/parishes have plummeted as a result. “Most successful” jurisdiction is a real toss-up between Antioch & ROCOR.

    • Joseph Lipper says

      Many ROCOR parishes are thriving in the U.S. because of recent immigration from Russia.  It’s natural that immigrants would want to be in parishes that use Church Slavonic exclusively.  However, there are still some OCA parishes that use Church Slavonic and Julian Calendar.  I can attest that I’ve been in parishes that I initially thought were ROCOR, and later to find out these were OCA.
       
      It’s also wonderful that many newer ROCOR parishes are predominately and sometimes even exclusively using English.  The flowering of the Russian Church right now is incredible to behold.  It’s understandable that people would want a closer connection with this, and especially if English is used.  However, at some point the “Old World” politics of the Mother Church will rear it’s head, if it hasn’t already.  There were many who complained about this in the Antiochian Archdiocese, and now many on this blog complain about the EP.  I have no doubt that many converts in ROCOR will someday complain also about how their parishes were ruined by Russian politics.  Let’s face it, Russia and the U.S. are not on the friendliest of terms, and it might get worse.
       

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        It’s one great advantage the Roman Catholics had in regard to the immigrations into the US. There was of course a lot of national culture deeply connected with the RC church, as with the Poles, Italians, and Irish, for example. And local archdioceses set up ‘national’ Catholic churches. In my city, the Italians had St. Rita’s, the Czechs St. Joseph’s, the Poles Sts. Peter and Paul. You could go to a ‘national’ parish if you wanted, but they gradually faded away, largely into irrelevance.
        But of course they were always under the authority of the local archdiocese, and all and everybody was under Rome, ultimately.  And the Vatican had no armies or fleets. So even the ‘national’ churches had mostly a sentimental quality.
        So when a devout Pole or Italian nowadays comes to America and joins the local Catholic parish, he doesn’t make it more Polish or more Italian. But it’s the other way with Orthodox immigrants, alas.
        Believe me, you don’t have to be at all anti-Russian, any more than anti-Greek, to be most uneasy about this constant identification of churches with foreign lands. 
        I’m sure most of us have had to work to explain to our neighbors and friends that the Orthodox church is in fact the universal church.

      • Jenny Zelinin says

        I have found that recent immigrants and expatriates from Russia prefer Patriarchal to ROCOR or OCA churches.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Nothing wrong with that per se. I have no problem in principle with parishes that are mission-minded to immigrants. Perhaps the OCA dropped the ball in this matter but its mission was to the American populace. Regardless, the OCA did give canonical cover to the ethnic parishes that were under Soviet domination (e.g. Bulgarian, Albanian, Romanian) which is a type of missionary outreach as well.

    • Well maybe ROCOR is growing by leaps and bounds but AOCNA has shrunk significantly in the last 10 years. ROCOR has very little presence outside NY and SF and even AOCNA is tiny compared to the OCA. all these demographics can be readily accessed on the PAIO website in the research of Alexei Krindach. 

  5. Monk James Silver says

    On the whole, George, this was a very worthwhile essay.  Many thanks for your forthrightness.
     
    On the matter of style in liturgical English, though, I’d like to point out a few issues.  First, anyone’s personal preference for archaic-sounding English is just that —  a preference.   On the other hand, the use of accurate, literate,reverent, crisp in diction, singable contemporary English is a trend rather than a preference.
     
    There are often serious errors (apart from mistranslations) in contemporary attempts to use an archaic-sounding idiom, but the people who prefer to say ‘thou’ instead of ‘you’ are mostly unaware of those problems, which often lead to risible examples of disagreement between subjects and verbs.  and other grammatical howlers.
     
    Then, we all must acknowledge that we are in a period of transition between the use of archaic and contemporary idioms in the English of our service books.  This is why, for example, both forms are often made available as acceptable alternative texts for use in our parishes at oca.org.
     
    And, finally, this temporary measure is not merely a sop thrown to people who prefer one or the other style.  Rather, it’s a direct result of a decision taken by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America nearly forty years ago to encourage the use of contemporary English in the services.

    • Pat Reardon says

      “Contemporary” English is abysmal.
      I refuse even speak it, much less pray in it.

    • Vladika Dmitri Royster of thrice-blessed memory was always in favor of the highest form of a language being used to honor God and to elevate our souls, rather than the vernacular or contemporary.  If only the Holy Synod of Bishops had been swayed by him in all things.  He left us with St. Seraphim’s Orthodox Church and the Diocese of the South as reverent as the best ROCOR parishes and the most traditional and Patristic in the OCA.  Please pray for his soul and for us on Old Calendar Dormition, Wednesday  August 28, the eighth anniversary of his repose.  His life, his relics, his prayers and his continuing spiritual presence among us are priceless and vital.  

    • Rdr. Daniel Kowalcheck says

      I heartily agree with much of what you say on many church matters, Monk James. On this point however I respectively disagree, and defend George’s “Elizabethan English”.

      Why is it that in patriotic songs and Christmas carols nobody ever complains about “archaic English”, but when it comes to the holy divine services and prayers to the Almighty, we need to water it down so you don’t even know you’re doing something different?

      I think it’s an easy sidestep to say that archaic-sounding English is simply a personal preference. There are many reasons why traditional English has been used in Orthodoxy in America since the 18th century, not to mention every local church in the world has its own “archaic” style. I know you’ve heard all of the reasons so I won’t bore and insult you with the same litany. Most of the readers of Monomakhos also know them by now.

      Admittedly, I have come across errors in contemporary attempts (usually in music) to use an archaic-sounding idiom, but seldom are they serious offenses that render the text unintelligible. They usually amount to something like “Thou did” or “Thy enemies”. We do need to be careful and purposeful with our texts, on that I’m sure we agree.

      If we are talking trends  (and I’m a little guarded with “trends” in Orthodoxy, nevertheless) I’m not convinced that the trend is towards modern English. Quite the contrary…

      The recent (and beautifully done) official OCA Hieratikon (sluzhebnik) as well as various recent OCA music books are all in traditional English. Actually, most of these are even (in a sense) more traditional because they used consistent traditional pronouns to address all people, not just the divine, as the older RSV-based ’67 printing. Moreover, much (perhaps most) of the online music being engraved and reset by individuals is in consistent traditional English.

      As to your point about oca.org making both forms available, it wasn’t until a couple years ago that they began to post the new Thou/Thy versions of the liturgical texts. They wouldn’t have done that if it wasn’t needed.

      This is anecdotal, but bear with me here… I’ve attended the last five AAC’s and sang in every choir for just about every service with singers from all across continent. Because of the vastness of the OCA (it’s surprisingly uniform given our size and diversity) there is normally some (light) discussion on translations, language style, etc. In those years I don’t think I’ve never met a younger person who prefers the modern “street” English over the “archaic”. Not a one. And when I say “younger” I mean Gen X and younger. And many of these were choir directors themselves. Ironically it seems it’s the the older generations that prefer the contemporary English, and apparently have gone to great lengths to push it over the last forty years.

      So I think the generational aspect of this can’t be overlooked. The younger generations grew up in a culture that was destroying tradition at every turn and in every way possible. It’s no wonder why many younger folks are more attracted to the traditional ways and styles. We’ve been bashed around in the waves of modernity and are looking for anchors.

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        All very well said, indeed, especially including your ‘generational’ observations.

      • Monk James Silver says

        Many thanks to Daniel Kowalcheck for his detailed comments on my earlier remarks.
         
        I have several points of disagreement with his defense of an archaic-style idiom in English-language services, but I’d like to clarify a few things before addressing them.
         
        First, I have never, ever, advocated or supported the use of anything like ‘modern “street” English’ in the services.  That’s just a red herring intended to arouse people’s emotions on the subject.
         
        Second, the Hieratikon recently published by St Tikhon Monastery Press made a few changes in the text we (the OCA) have generally been using since 1967, but those changes —  while correcting a couple of errors which seem to have been bothering the editors —  introduced new errors of their own.  The liturgical books published by STMP are indeed beautiful, but (like those of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston), their physical beauty doesn’t make up for their conceptual failures and mistranslations.  And using consistent pronouns should have gone in the opposite direction, given the OCA bishops’ decision in the early 1980s.
         
        Third, I studiously avoided describing archaic-style language as ‘Elizabethan’ and contemporary language as ‘modern’.  The fact is that what we now rightly perceive as archaic was contemporary in the Elizabethan Era, and even the ‘Authorised (‘King James’) Version’ of the Bible was written in Early Modern English, contemporary (for literature, at least) at the time.  But now, like Shakespeare, the writings of that time and place require footnotes and explanations in order to be properly understood.
         
        The work of Hapgood and others more than a century ago shows their ‘feeling’ that an archaic idiom was somehow more reverent than a contemporary mode of expression, but this hasn’t ever been proved as a fact.  The use of an archaic style for the Anglican/Episcopalian service books of he time (relying on the AV/KJV as they did, was robably the greatest influence on the similar rendering of Orthodox Christian texts. The truth is, though, that the AV/KJ Bible had become so inaccessible by the 1880s that the ‘Revised Standard Version’ was published to replace (or at least supplement) it.  The fact that the RSV failed to correct some of the AV’s mistaken renderings, (from both Hebrew and Greek) and that both versions depend on the Hebrew text of the Old Testament seems not to bother some people, although the AV’s translators took pains to mock the Greek 70 in their introduction to the work.
         
        Ignoring the many mistranslations with which all English-language service books are afflicted, I’d finally like to call everyone’s attention to the fact that the Orthodox Church of Romania uses a contemporary idiom in their services.  The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America uses contemporary English, as do the several uniat groups in North America which follow the same Byzantine liturgical patterns as the Orthodox. The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese would have done the same except for production pressures surrounding the printing of Bp Basil Essey’s ‘Liturgikon’ in 1989, as Bp. Basil himself told me. He also, regretfully, included readings from the ‘Boston Psalter’ because of those same pressures.

        • anonimus per Scorilo says

          The Romanians do not really use the contemporary idiom, but rather a mid- to late-19’th century version, which is when most translations were done. In newer editions of the texts some really old and hard-to understood words or combinations of words are replaced by newer ones. This has the advantage of being fully comprehensible while maintaining a bit of an archaic pleasant-sounding veneer, a bit like “thou-thy” in English.
          A few examples: “greșalele noastre” (our trespasses), “pre tine te lăudam” (we praise you/thee), “Maica Lui Dumnezeu” (Mother of God), the contemporary versions would be “greșelile noastre”, “pe tine te lăudam” “Mama Lui Dumnezeu”. I do not know about the first two, but if anybody tried to change “Maica Lui Dumnezeu” to “Mama Lui Dumnezeu” there would be riots.
           
           
          There are many non-contemporary words, which 
           

          • Monk James Silver says

            While I’m grateful for his response, I beg to differ with ‘anonimus per Scorilo’ here.
             
            In the eighteenth century,  the service books of the Orthodox Church of Romania were not so much translated as transliterated. 
             
            Until that time, imitating the earlier manuscript tradition, the service books were written in an older form of Romanian using the cyrillic-style Church Slavonic alphabet  Since then, the service books have been printed in the roman alphabet, gradually adjusted over time with diacritics to reflect phonemic/phonetic subtleties in Romanian which were not  adequately represented by the roman characters as originally written.
             
            It was only after that adjustment that it became obvious that the church in Romania needed standardized service books which could transcend local variations in dialect, and so began the continuing process of updating the language.  What we have now in Romania is not so much an archaic style as a more formal style of contemporary, accessible language, which includes a few terms and expressions preserved for their theological precision and significance.
             
            While it is possible to translate ‘Mother of God’ into Romanian as  Maica de Dumnezeu, that is not a translation of Theotokos, merely a paraphrase or a near synonym which lacks the precision of the original.  No one is going to replace maica with mama in the service books wherever the word ‘mother’ occurs.
             
            In my own texts from Romania, which are not all that old, Theotokos is rendered de Dumnezeu Născătoarea, a translation of the Greek word on the model of the Church Slavonic Bogoroditsa.  Like almost all european languages (Greek, English, and some dialects of Spanish are notable exceptions), Church Slavonic and Romanian lack the phoneme /th/ (theta), so it was inadvisable to import the Greek term directly.  Instead, both Church Slavonic and Romanian broke down the Greek word into its constituent parts:  Theos + tiktO  (‘God’ + ‘give birth’) became bog” + roditi and Dumnezeu + născăre, with a feminine agent ending.  This results in the meaning ‘she who gave birth to God’, exactly as we find it in Romanian, and (a bit more succinctly) in Church Slavonic.
             
            For some reason, the somewhat literal form ‘Birth-giver of God’ preferred by Hapgood a century ago never caught on on English, and is now almost entirely replaced by an adoption of the Greek term Theotokos, and I suppose we can be grateful for that.  In England, though, the liturgical books published by Constantinople’s Archdiocese of Thyateira have chosen —  mistakenly — to render Theotokos as ‘Mother of God’ in spite of the fact that there are numerous examples in the original Greek of that identical phrase.  The difference ought to be respected in translation, and not sacrificed to an insular resistance to the importation of foreign words.
             
            In the other phrase cited here by ‘anonimus per Scorilo’, greșalele noastre, which he translates as ‘our trespasses’, perhaps in a nod to an erroneous version of ‘Our Father’ in English, he fails to note that greșalele  doesn’t mean ‘trespasses’, but ‘errors, mistakes’.
             
            The word which should appear here is datorii (‘debts’), if the romanian version is to be faithful to the Greek of St Matthew’s gospel.
             

            • Monk James Silver
               
              “In the other phrase cited here by ‘anonimus per Scorilo’, greșalele noastre, which he translates as ‘our trespasses’, perhaps in a nod to an erroneous version of ‘Our Father’ in English, he fails to note that greșalele  doesn’t mean ‘trespasses’, but ‘errors, mistakes’.”
               
              It is interested to know;
               
              (1) Fr. Deacon Ezra Ham in his last series “Mystagogic Gospel” noted that the original Greek word “hamartia” (ἁμαρτία) at the time it was used in the Bible, meant exactly “error”, “mistake”!
               
              (2) Greek books of all sorts, printed some decades ago had a list of corrections  to be done by hand and that list of errors was entitled” 
               
              hemartimena (Ἡμαρτημένα) 
              meaning “mistaken” and not “sinned”.

              So the Romanian translation  greșalele described by 
              ‘anonimus per Scorilo’  is not wrong!
               

              • Monk James Silver says

                The word we are discussing here, as found at MT 6:12 is _opheilEmata,_ which unquestionably means ‘debts’.

                Additional thoughts?

                • George Michalopulos says

                  hopheilEmaita are debts. Literally, “that which is owed” (pl.).

                • Monk James Silver: 

                  The word we are discussing here, as found at MT 6:12 is _opheilEmata,_ which unquestionably means ‘debts’.
                  Additional thoughts?”

                  By the same token the subject we are discussing on this page is Autocephaly not Romanian or Greek words?
                  What is this?

                  No!!!!, we are discussing what we are discussing. If one reads something in somebody else’s post, he can address that part too. That is how we all have arrived here, off the headline subject. This is a dynamical discussion.
                  I think it is a good idea for all of us here to at least reply straightly to what the other person says, especially if he quotes our own words. Otherwise, like now, the whole thing becomes tiring for all of us here.

                  Now, then:

                  My previous reply/comment was NOT on  _opheilEmata,_ but
                  on YOUR QUOTED EXACT words:
                  “In the other phrase cited here by ‘anonimus per Scorilo’, greșalele noastre, which he translates as ‘our trespasses’, perhaps in a nod to an erroneous version of ‘Our Father’ in English, he fails to note that greșalele  doesn’t mean ‘trespasses’, but ‘errors, mistakes’.”

                  And I shewed that those words of yours  are wrong:
                  The fact is:
                  greșalele NOW DOES MEAN ‘trespasses’, AND ORIGINALLY ALSO ‘errors, mistakes’.”

                  Have you any reply ON THAT?
                   

                  • Monk James Silver says

                    Relax, ‘Ioannis’. You’re getting all worked up over nothing.

                    Let’s review a few points, okay?

                    1. An accurate translation of the Greek text of ‘Our Father’ at MT 6:12 yields ‘forgive us our debts’ in English.

                    2. The romanian version quoted by ‘anonimus per Scorilo’ said ‘forgive us our mistakes’. I suggested that the romanian translation which he adduced might have been influenced by an inaccurate rendering of the prayer into English, which says’ forgive us our trespasses’ — a phrase which he himself quoted.

                    3 The word incorrectly rendered as ‘mistakes’ in the romanian text cited here, and often as ‘trespasses’ in english versions, is _opheilEmata_ in Greek, and that word means nothing else but ‘debts’.

                    This is clear and not difficult to follow, so I hope that you now understand that your concerns were misplaced.

                    • Ok, Monk James Silver,
                      for some reason I cannot make myself sufficiently understandable to you.
                      The core of my initial msg were your words:
                      ” greșalele  doesn’t mean ‘trespasses’, but ‘errors, mistakes’.”,
                      thus the 4 keywords greșalele   ‘trespasses’,  ‘errors, mistakes’.”. 

                      In your two msgs you have repeatedly said many things about ὀφειλήματα  but not about ἁμαρτία (related to greșalele), which was my target.  I  only hope (because you have not  said a single word about it) that you have now understood and accepted the meanings of  ἁμαρτία, ie both error/mistake AND sin.
                       
                      You are right, I had hoped for a more accurate and smoother and indeed …”relaxed” discussion.

                      Relax, after all, a foreign language like Greek is very difficult.
                      Nobody is belittling you for insufficient Greek.
                      And you know quite a lot! 

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      Ioannis (August 28, 2019 at 4:24 pm) says:

                      Ok, Monk James Silver,
                      for some reason I cannot make myself sufficiently understandable to you.
                      The core of my initial msg were your words:
                      ” greșalele doesn’t mean ‘trespasses’, but ‘errors, mistakes’.”,
                      thus the 4 keywords greșalele ‘trespasses’, ‘errors, mistakes’.”.

                      In your two msgs you have repeatedly said many things about ὀφειλήματα but not about ἁμαρτία (related to greșalele), which was my target. I only hope (because you have not said a single word about it) that you have now understood and accepted the meanings of ἁμαρτία, ie both error/mistake AND sin.
                      SNIP
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      The problem is that the quotation from ‘Our Father’ which ‘anonimus per Scorilo’ presented here contained the romanian word _greșalele_, meaning ‘errors, mistakes’. He took that to be the equivalent of ‘trespasses’ in some inaccurate translations of the prayer into English. He was wrong.

                      I pointed out that both the romanian and english words were mistranslations of the original Greek word ὀφειλήματα, which has the limited meaning of ‘debts’.

                      You, on the other hand, went on at great length to demonstrate that the romanian word _greșalele_ (‘errors, mistakes’) is an acceptable equivalent to the Greek word ἁμαρτία. I don’t disagree with you on that point. It ust wasn’t germane to the conversation.

                      I think that you are mistaken in finding some sort of discrepancy in my words which you quoted at the beginn8ing of your most recent note: ‘_greșalele_ doesn’t mean “trespasses”, but “errors, mistakes” ‘. You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by writing this, which was that none of them accurately translates the Greek word ὀφειλήματα (‘debts’), which is original to ‘Our Father’ as we read it at MT 6:12.

                      Because of that, a review of possible meanings of ἁμαρτία, whether in Romanian or in English, is not relevant to the question.

                      I hope that we finally understand each other, and that we can let the matter rest.

                    • Monk James Silver
                      “I hope that we finally understand each other…”
                      Indeed, for good.

        • Thank you for your thoughtful response Monk James! I think we actually agree with the idea of the upmost beauty, solemnity and intelligibility in church rites….we just have different perspectives on want that is. (BTW, I think we met a number of years ago at St. Nicholas in McKees Rocks.)
           
          I don’t normally use the word Elizabethan either, but it’s the word choice by our esteemed host, so I referenced it here. You took offense to the use of the word “street”, but use the potentially equally offensive “archaic” which brings mind images primitives and hieroglyphics. I’m not so concerned about these trivial labels; I think people typically understand what you mean.
           
          I don’t believe that Isabelle Hapgood used the archaic idiom at the time because it was a “feeling”. Up until that point (and for many years later), that was the received and accepted style that was used in the church-going English speaking world, hence her adoption.
           
          It’s my understanding that the RSV committee had Orthodox participation, especially from the Russian Metropolia, so if there were missed opportunities and mistaken renderings from the Hebrew and Greek, then it’s our own fault. Hindsight is 20/20 but it probably would have been better to wait for an Orthodox version, as pan-Orthodox discussion and events were happening in the forthcoming years (CEOLYA, etc), rather than to hitch on to the RSV for the next half-century plus.
           
          I never said anything about the KJV. Undoubtedly, it is the most beautiful rendering of the Scriptures (I supposed that’s an opinion), but admittedly there are problems with it. I think STMP’s Apostol (and STMP in general) does a very good job of using the “archaic idiom” fused with contemporary intelligibly. Their books do not use the KJV exclusively. They have put a great deal of consideration into their “Revised Liturgical English” (RLE). There is not a single passage in the Apostol (or any of their books) that has ever left me scratching my head as to it’s meaning; and I’m no linguistic scholar. I would be interested to hear what new errors you believe they introduced in the new Hieratikon. Perhaps you should let them know so they can be taken into account in the next revision.
           
          If there are “many mistranslations” with which “all English-language service books are afflicted” as you say, then I agree we need to clean them up. But eradicating the traditional idiom is like removing the body of a ‘70 Chevy Chevelle SS because it needs a carburetor adjustment.
           
          Thank you for calling to attention the following examples…  I can’t really speak to the Romanian situation, and was going to say that this a case of “the exception proving the rule” until anonimus per Scorilo interjected with some great insight to the assertion. Their (Romanian) Slavic neighbors have retained their received liturgical language (save the schismatic and nationalist Ukrainians who regrettably would never have anything to do with their true heritage of the peoples of Rus and trample on their Slavic and Slavonic legacy).
           
          As to the GOA translation, this can hardly be held up as an exemplary example. Has anyone ever suggested that the GOA has a beautiful English Liturgy that should be emulated in America? As I’m sure you know it’s said that their translation was intentionally made poor so that they could fall back to their use of Greek! (traditional liturgical Greek, not contemporary).
           
          In my opinion, the Antiochians were rescued by Bp. Basil Essey and his beautifully crafted ‘Liturgikon’ in 1989. At a wild time when the AOCANA was bringing in hordes of converts, the always sober and wise Bp. Basil channeled his inner St. Mark of Ephesus to hold firm to the received tradition. I’m sure Fr. Patrick Reardon is grateful!
           
          Lastly we should be weary of emulating the Uniats in anything. Thankfully, we in the OCA are finally over that. Слава Богу! I have spoken to priests in ACROD that lament the 1988 “pew book” that was basically a copy of the Pittsburgh Uniat one which was influenced by their Roman counterpart. Though, unfortunately this fit well with the EP’s view of English in America.
           
          Finally, you keep bringing up this “OCA bishops’ decision in the early 1980s”, as if it were some divine infallible revelation. It has certainly been proven that bishops (in general, not necessarily that synod) can be tone deaf and agenda driven as anyone else. To be more charitable, I believe the OCA Synod was simply a byproduct of their time. I submit that same generational thinking (some years earlier) was also behind the Roman collars and clean shaven priests. Though I’m not bashing or judging them as some do…I believe these were honest missionary tactics to make Orthodoxy look like it “fits in” in America. They might have been appropriate for their time, but in the long run, much like western style “icons” it proved to be a short-lived anomaly that didn’t “stick”. Now, thankfully the Orthodox tradition of beards and cassocks are the norm and you’re even seeing more kamilavki and even miters in the OCA – a decision that was recently implemented by the same Holy Synod of the OCA that removed them a couple generations ago.
           

          • George Michalopulos says

            Rdr Daniel, just for the record, I am not wedded to the term “Elizabethan English” for the type of elevated language I am describing. If anyone has another term that would be more fitting, I’d be more than happy to go along with that.

            Perhaps “Received Idiom”? “Ecclesiastical English”?

            • I guess I’ve never really thought about how to label the style…I normally use the term traditional English; it’s not as specific, but it’s simple and to the point. I like the use of the word received; though I’m not sure idiom is the best way to convey it. I do like “Ecclesiastical English”, or simply “Church English”; after all Slavs have “Church Slavonic”.
               
              Then again, in this country its actually not limited to church language. As I said before, nobody blinks an eye when Ray Charles sings America the Beautiful or we sing O Little Town of Bethlehem, at Christmas.
               
              On that topic, over the last few years we’ve recently started trying some shape note carols for the Nativity season, and they are replete with traditional Church English. I’d bet that in a number of years, American shape note Nativity hymns will become very popular in Orthodoxy.

          • Monk James Silver says

            Rdr. Daniel Kowalcheck (August 26, 2019 at 12:31 pm)says:
             

            Thank you for your thoughtful response Monk James! I think we actually agree with the idea of the upmost beauty, solemnity and intelligibility in church rites….we just have different perspectives on want that is. (BTW, I think we met a number of years ago at St. Nicholas in McKees Rocks.)
             
            I’m happy to know that we  agree in principle, if not in practice, at least for now.  I well remember meeting you and your brothers at St Nicholas —  it was during your dear mother’s final illness.  May she be remembered forever.

             I don’t normally use the word Elizabethan either, but it’s the word choice by our esteemed host, so I referenced it here. You took offense to the use of the word “street”, but use the potentially equally offensive “archaic” which brings mind images primitives and hieroglyphics. I’m not so concerned about these trivial labels; I think people typically understand what you mean.
             
            Personally, I don’t find these descriptions trivial at all.  Please understand that my use of the word  ‘archaic’ isn’t an insult in any way.  I’m using a linguistic category here to describe forms and styles of language which are no longer current or contemporary, and which reflect obsolete usages common in earlier times.  On the other hand, describing contemporary language as ‘street talk’ and hence unworthy of use in the services was a definitely offensive.

             I don’t believe that Isabelle Hapgood used the archaic idiom at the time because it was a “feeling”. Up until that point (and for many years later), that was the received and accepted style that was used in the church-going English speaking world, hence her adoption.
             
            Right.  That was what she felt, but she was apparently mistaken, since she did her work decades after the publication of the ‘Revised Standard Version’ of the Bible.  It seems that the English-speaking world needed a contemporary translation , and sought to bridge various gaps created by the archaic ‘Authorised (king James) Version’.

             It’s my understanding that the RSV committee had Orthodox participation, especially from the Russian Metropolia, so if there were missed opportunities and mistaken renderings from the Hebrew and Greek, then it’s our own fault. Hindsight is 20/20 but it probably would have been better to wait for an Orthodox version, as pan-Orthodox discussion and events were happening in the forthcoming years (CEOLYA, etc), rather than to hitch on to the RSV for the next half-century plus.
             
            I was unaware that the American Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church (later the ‘Metropolia’ which became the Orthodox Church in America) participated in the effort to produce the RSV.  The idea sounds improbable to me, though, since, in the mid- to late nineteenth century there probably were no scholars here of the stature we might expect of people working on such a project as the RSV.

             I never said anything about the KJV. Undoubtedly, it is the most beautiful rendering of the Scriptures (I supposed that’s an opinion), but admittedly there are problems with it.
             
            No one could credibly suggest that the KJV is not a monument of literature in English, although its possible beauty might be a very subjective matter.  What is indisputable, though, is that the KJV exhibits a great many errors in translation, both from Hebrew and from Greek.  The (mostly protestant) ‘KJV only’ people are in for a real shock when they finally learn the differences.
             
            I think STMP’s Apostol (and STMP in general) does a very good job of using the “archaic idiom” fused with contemporary intelligibly. Their books do not use the KJV exclusively. They have put a great deal of consideration into their “Revised Liturgical English” (RLE). There is not a single passage in the Apostol (or any of their books) that has ever left me scratching my head as to it’s meaning; and I’m no linguistic scholar.
             
            It’s good to know that you had no difficulty understanding the English used in the Apostol published by St Tikhon Monastery Press.  Although the texts of Acts and the apostolic letters are almost —  almost — completely correct, there are glaring errors in the psalms sung before those readings and before the Gospel during the services.  It’s easy enough to understand the English-language text in this book, it’s just that it doesn’t always accurately represent the original Greek of the scriptures.  We might also be reasonably ask why an English-language service book was given a Church Slavonic title.  If the Greek Apostolos wasn’t a consideration (on the model of STMP’s  Hieratikon) perhaps it had better been called The Apostle.  After all, we’re promoting the use of English here.
             
            I would be interested to hear what new errors you believe they introduced in the new Hieratikon. Perhaps you should let them know so they can be taken into account in the next revision.
             
            While I won’t tire our readers here with a list of the errors I’ve found in their Hieratikon and elsewhere, I have discussed the problem with Archimandrite Sergius and he’ll have my materials before long.  That’s why God made second editions.

             If there are “many mistranslations” with which “all English-language service books are afflicted” as you say, then I agree we need to clean them up. But eradicating the traditional idiom is like removing the body of a ‘70 Chevy Chevelle SS because it needs a carburetor adjustment. 

            This idiom is NOT ‘traditional’ except for English-speaking Protestants, who have been using it (along with their KJV) in their services for four hundred years.   This is why the Roman Catholics went directly to contemporary English when they began using vernacular languages in the 1960s.  The quality and style they’ve been using in contemporary English, though, need some serious attention.  They’ve already begun work on correcting inaccuracies in scriptural citation and translation.  Our Orthodox Christian use of the forms of expression we borrowed from the Protestants for less than a century hardly constitutes a tradition.

            Thank you for calling to attention the following examples…  I can’t really speak to the Romanian situation, and was going to say that this a case of “the exception proving the rule” until anonimus per Scorilo interjected with some great insight to the assertion. Their (Romanian) Slavic neighbors have retained their received liturgical language (save the schismatic and nationalist Ukrainians who regrettably would never have anything to do with their true heritage of the peoples of Rus and trample on their Slavic and Slavonic legacy).
             
            That’s as may be, but I found the examples offered by ‘anonimus per Scorilo’ rather unhelpful

             As to the GOA translation, this can hardly be held up as an exemplary example. Has anyone ever suggested that the GOA has a beautiful English Liturgy that should be emulated in America? As I’m sure you know it’s said that their translation was intentionally made poor so that they could fall back to their use of Greek! (traditional liturgical Greek, not contemporary).
             
            Before mentioning any of the groups publishing liturgical books in contemporary English, I offered a disclaimer regarding the quality of their work.

             In my opinion, the Antiochians were rescued by Bp. Basil Essey and his beautifully crafted ‘Liturgikon’ in 1989. At a wild time when the AOCANA was bringing in hordes of converts, the always sober and wise Bp. Basil channeled his inner St. Mark of Ephesus to hold firm to the received tradition. I’m sure Fr. Patrick Reardon is grateful!
             

            FATHER JAMES: That’s also as may be, but what has that to do with the fact that Bp Basil originally intended to publish his Liturgikon in contemporary English?  That book may yet see another edition, with all the errors of the ‘Brookline Psalter’ removed and in a more contemporary idiom. END FATHER JAMES

             Lastly we should be weary of emulating the Uniats in anything. Thankfully, we in the OCA are finally over that. Слава Богу! I have spoken to priests in ACROD that lament the 1988 “pew book” that was basically a copy of the Pittsburgh Uniat one which was influenced by their Roman counterpart. Though, unfortunately this fit well with the EP’s view of English in America.
             
            Again, I was not commenting on their theology or church politics or approving their work, merely pointing out that almost other groups are publishing their liturgical books in contemporary English.  Our continued use of an archaic style has been consistently unable to protect us from errors in the text. 

            Finally, you keep bringing up this “OCA bishops’ decision in the early 1980s”, as if it were some divine infallible revelation.

             
            I’ve mentioned it exactly twice.  Now, thanks to you, here it is again.  The Holy Synod’s decision to promote the use of contemporary English t ought to be taken more seriously by people who claim to do their work with the blessing of the bishops.
             

            It has certainly been proven that bishops (in general, not necessarily that synod) can be tone deaf and agenda driven as anyone else. To be more charitable, I believe the OCA Synod was simply a byproduct of their time. I submit that same generational thinking (some years earlier) was also behind the Roman collars and clean shaven priests. Though I’m not bashing or judging them as some do…I believe these were honest missionary tactics to make Orthodoxy look like it “fits in” in America. They might have been appropriate for their time, but in the long run, much like western style “icons” it proved to be a short-lived anomaly that didn’t “stick”. Now, thankfully the Orthodox tradition of beards and cassocks are the norm and you’re even seeing more kamilavki and even miters in the OCA – a decision that was recently implemented by the same Holy Synod of the OCA that removed them a couple generations ago.
             

            Alright, you don’t like contemporary English in the services.  I get that, and I have good reasons for disagreeing with you.  But what has that to do with other areas of church life?  The style of language we use is not an index of our  faith, or of practice in other areas, and the grooming of the clergy and when they wear the rason or not is a completely separate issue.
             
            Like most monks, my hair and beard are untrimmed, and I never go out without the rason, yet I am in favor of contemporary English in the services.  Where does that leave your argument?

            • Peter A. Papoutsis says

              Monk James what do you think of the Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament and the Lexham English translation of the Septuagint?
               
              Peter

              • Monk James Silver says

                I haven’t seen either of these books., so I have no opinion about them.

                If copies of them become available to me, I’ll see how well they address the task at hand.

            • Monk James, thank you for your kind words about my mother. It means a lot that you could remember that…some 9 years ago.
               
              I do suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but I will say this has been informative! It’s always good to see different perspectives, and I appreciate yours and your thoughtful defense of it. I’ll respond in short to some of your comments (in italics):
               
              Right.  That was what she (Hapgood) felt, but she was apparently mistaken, since she did her work decades after the publication of the ‘Revised Standard Version’ of the Bible. 
               
              No she didn’t. She finished her translation almost a half century before the RSV was published in 1952.
               
              I was unaware that the American Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church (later the ‘Metropolia’ which became the Orthodox Church in America) participated in the effort to produce the RSV.  The idea sounds improbable to me, though, since, in the mid- to late nineteenth century there probably were no scholars here of the stature we might expect of people working on such a project as the RSV.
               
              Perhaps it’s apocryphal (I promise you I didn’t make it up!) but it is possible that there were Orthodox scholars that were consulted. After all, we had been participating in the NCC at that time so had contact with academic Protestants. And the only jurisdiction at the time that would have been remotely interested in an English language project like that was the Russian Metropolia. And it’s a good explanation as to why the OCA has been wedded to the RSV text ever since.
               
              We might also be reasonably ask why an English-language service book was given a Church Slavonic title.  If the Greek Apostolos wasn’t a consideration (on the model of STMP’s  Hieratikon) perhaps it had better been called The Apostle.  After all, we’re promoting the use of English here.
               
              I don’t have a dog in the fight on how to title our books. I’m not sure why they chose to call the Hieratikon as such, but I suspect that they called it the Apostol because it’s mainly used in jurisdictions that follow Russian tradition. Or maybe it a direct translation from the Slavonic source, not Greek. (I don’t have it in from of me so I can’t see what it’s says about it’s production).
               
              While I won’t tire our readers here with a list of the errors I’ve found in their Hieratikon and elsewhere, I have discussed the problem with Archimandrite Sergius and he’ll have my materials before long.  That’s why God made second editions.
               
              Haha! Very good!
               
              This is why the Roman Catholics went directly to contemporary English when they began using vernacular languages in the 1960s
               
              Perhaps but not entirely true… Just turn on EWTN to see Mother Angelica praying “Hail Mary” in the archic idiom.
               
              Our Orthodox Christian use of the forms of expression we borrowed from the Protestants for less than a century hardly constitutes a tradition.
               
              Agreed, but receiving and baptizing what is salvageable from a culture is our tradition. Moreover, although that style of “church language” is an American tradition, it’s not only reserved for church texts. See my prior examples.
               
              Before mentioning any of the groups publishing liturgical books in contemporary English, I offered a disclaimer regarding the quality of their work.
               
              I think it points to the fact that some traditions put more emphasis on quality/beauty (in the little things) than others. In other words, beauty of the English language (modern or archic) is not something that the GOA was focused on. Hence, it’s a poor example since “beautiful English” wasn’t an emphasis for those translations.
               
              …production pressures surrounding the printing of Bp Basil Essey’s ‘Liturgikon’ in 1989, as Bp. Basil himself told me. He also, regretfully, included readings from the ‘Boston Psalter’ because of those same pressures.
               
              I misunderstood what you were saying here… I’ve been under the impression that +Basil was in favor of the archaic idiom…. Everything I’ve heard about him seems to support that. What were these “production pressures”?
               
              [Finally, you keep bringing up this “OCA bishops’ decision in the early 1980s”, as if it were some divine infallible revelation.] I’ve mentioned it exactly twice.  Now, thanks to you, here it is again. 
               
              Lol!
               
              The Holy Synod’s decision to promote the use of contemporary English t ought to be taken more seriously by people who claim to do their work with the blessing of the bishops.
               
              You didn’t answer the initial question. Is the Synod infallible in every decision it makes? It seems to me, that if this was a “decision to promote the use of contemporary English”, nobody told the OCA seminaries and presses. Like the miters (trivial as it may be) it seems to me they walk certain issues back when times change. If this was an official decision, for the betterment of our Church because they are more enlightened, then why wasn’t it enforced, or followed up with another Synodal decision?
               
              The style of language we use is not an index of our faith, or of practice in other areas, and the grooming of the clergy and when they wear the rason or not is a completely separate issue.
               
              Separate issue perhaps on the surface, but they spring from the same desire to “fit in”, to make things less jarring to people. In that sense, I don’t see them as separate issues. The problem nowadays, is that most people are looking to step into a different world, to get away from the normal, modern life outside of the walls of the church. When one sees the icons in their ancient theological form, the transformative architecture, the look of the clergy (that in many ways resemble the figures in the icons) and HEARS the beautiful and elevated yet understandable language being chanted, they KNOW they are not in this world. Nothing in the church “fits” in our modern way of life.

              • Monk James Silver says

                It’s a joy to me, too, that you remember my visit. I hope that the Kowalcheck brothers’ Orthodox Christian coffin business is doing well. That’s a wonderful thing, and I hope that more of our people will avail themselves of your services.

                Anyway, please take a look at

                ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version

                for a brief overview of the history of the RSV. People allergic to Wiki — just hold your nose and learn a little.

                If you read this closely, you will find that no Orthodox Christian scholars participated in the creation of the RSV or its predecessors. This was not the case with the NRSV, which we might get to discuss another time.

                In any event, this is why I locate the movement to replace the by then more than two-and-a-half centuries old ‘Authorised (King James) Version’ of the Bible to the 1880s, long before Florence I. Hapgood began her work on our Orthodox Christian services. She had the blessing of bishops who could barely read English, but she was altogether behind the curve even a century ago.

                As he told me in a personal conversation, Bishop Basil Essey intended to publish his 1989 ‘Liturgikon’ in contemporary English, but earlier contracts with printers, etc. had come due, and it was prohibitively expensive to add the several years it would take to correct the working draft (which included quotes from the notoriously inaccurate ‘Brookline Psalter’ — I’ve written about that monstrosity here earlier) based on earlier translations in a more archaic style. Under that financial pressure, he (urged by Metropolitan Philip Saliba) regretfully let it go into print as it was, not as he had hoped it would be.

                I am confident that Bp Basil’s good work will eventually become available with all the corrections it needs, and in contemporary language.

                • Monk James,
                   
                  Thank you again for the kind comments and ! Yes, the Lord provides and it is hard to believe we have been doing this since 2011! August has been an extra-ordinary month, with the honor of serving four Orthodox clergy: Archpriest John Moses (ROCOR), Archpriest Steven Belonick (OCA), Deacon Simeon Peet (OCA), and Archimandrite George Kiricoples (GOA). Memory eternal to those who have labored in God’s vineyard!
                   
                  A quick rebuttal and I’ll give you the last word….!
                   
                  You offered an overview of the history of the RSV, but linked to the linked to the American Standard Version. We must have our lines crossed here because I’m sure you know that the American Standard and Revised Standard are different versions, a half-century apart. I never brought up the turn-of-the-century ASV, though I understand it laid the groundwork for the RSV some years later. I was initially discussing the 1952-released RSV, and with the (perhaps apocryphal) notion that mid-century Orthodox were consulted on the project –and hence ,why we use it so much in the OCA. So I did some light digging and did found this:
                   
                  …“The preparation of all these Bibles was purely a Protestant effort (although Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox advice was sought for the full edition of the RSV)”
                   
                  https://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html
                   
                  I’m not sure who authored that page, but there it is nonetheless.
                   
                  As for the NRSV, I think there was a Greek priest on that projects committee, correct? But I’m very glad the OCA Synod struck it down in 1990. Thank you Vladyka Dmitri!

                  • Monk James Silver says

                    As I mentioned earlier, the RSV grew out of the ASV project which began in the 1880s because people felt the need to correct the deficiencies of the AV (KJV).

                    The contemporization of its language was not an initial consideration, but became an obvious necessity along the way.

                    The NRSV was banned by the OCA’s bishops from being read publicly during the services — that’s all. It is, in fact, far more accurately translated than any of its predecessors in English, but not perfect.

                    The OCA’s bishops — along with some others, including myself — found the NRSV misleading because of its use of ‘inclusive language’, not only eliminating grammatical differences between masculine and feminine human referents whenever possible as a more accurate reading, but eliminating gender referents entirely except when they couldn’t be avoided. This was a sop thrown to political correctness, and not an effort to be more precise in English.

                    As it is , though, even our OCA’s 1967 DL book sometimes misses the point when it comes to appropriate gender inclusivity and exclusivity. Those errors are on my list of things to be corrected.

                    • Tim R. Mortiss says

                      I look at the RSV not from a translator’s point of view (of course), but as a congregant, Protestant most of my life (born in 1948), then as Orthodox. When I first began to go to Orthodox services in the late-1970s-early ’80s, I was pleased to note the widespread use of the RSV text, with which I was familiar from childhood.
                      I was given my ‘membership’ Bible at age 10– the RSV, of course. By the time my children got theirs, in the early ’80s– it was The Good News Bible! I was not pleased.
                      The Oxford RSV with the deuterocanonical books, familiar to all here I have no doubt, has been my Bible for decades, and is the version I have always given to my kids, grandkids, etc. I like the textual and translation notes, too.
                      Maybe too bad the RSV editors didn’t take the Thou/Thee step– a bridge too far at the time, probably, given the long KJV tradition. And I don’t doubt that in some ways the NRSV is better, but, alas, the process became infected with ideology.
                      But the RSV is high-quality, dignified, beautiful English. The translators achieved what they set out to do.
                      I have always tried to memorize verses, Psalms, many other things. To me it is crucial that the Church use a translation for decades or generations, except as to specific things that may need correction. Constant change disrupts taking Scripture to heart.

                    • Why, then, is the NRSV the English language text in the Orthodox Study Bible, which I love?
                       
                      I find the notes in the OSB enriching and amazingly helpful. I’m one of those people (I guess much like the Ethiopian eunuch…) who misses so much of what the Bible is trying to say without guidance and notes. Without the notes, much of the text goes right over my head.  I’d make a terrible Protestant!
                       
                      But if the OCA hates the NRSV, why is that the version that the OSB uses?

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      Anon 2 (September 7, 2019 at 8:49 am)says:
                       

                      Why, then, is the NRSV the English language text in the Orthodox Study Bible, which I love?  SNIP

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                       
                      The Orthodox Study Bible lists its sources as being the ‘Septuagint’ produced and copyrighted by St Athanasius Academy, and the New Testament as coming from the ‘New King James Version’ produced and copyrighted by Thomas Nelson & Co.

                      The OCA was not involved in this project, and the NRSV translation does not appear in the completed work, but it have been used as an unacknowledged resource.
                       
                      While I was especially disappointed by the OSB’s mistaken renderings of the Psalms, it must be noted that both OT and NT translations in the OSB are rife with errors.  The notes are occasionally helpful.

    • Monk James, I agree on the issue of preference, and add that preferred does not equal “correct.” Contemporary English in the service books is at a disadvantage because the translations are often awkward and done without a deep ear for the English language. The elevated aesthetic of archaic English smooths over this problem. As to what is correct, I think it important to keep in mind what “language of the people” means. Most telling for me was the miracle of “ears” at Pentecost, where each person heard the Gospel preached in their own dialect. As well, the New Testament writers used linguistic forms that were, as best as we can determine, contemporary to their audience. Interestingly, as the services developed in the Byzantine era, the language used reflected the evolution of Greek in that period, not a throwback to holding on to the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Interestingly, the Romanian Church, as I understand it, revise their liturgical texts periodically to maintain currency with the development of their language over time. Contemporary English as such is not the problem, poor examples, lacking any sense of beauty and elegant flow, is the problem.

  6. Monk James Silver 
    it is interesting that at least one well known Protestant (Kent Hovind) has said that contemporary “you are” is  sometimes where the original text was “thou art”. He said that is a serious inaccuracy, sometimes leading to wrong interpretation of the Bible!  
    I guess the Orthodox should be a good example in accuracy.

    • Not at all.  “You” is still correct as it is the plural form.  “Thou” is second person singular.  Proper translations have both, note the St. Tikhon’s texts use both correctly.  It’s not either or as that would be a mistranslation like you describe.
      Finally the use of second person singular leads to better precision.  God is one but three persons.  Generically using “you” distorts the translation.  In particular the Psalms become more meaningful.
       

      • Dear dan,
        Your first 4 lines is an elementary  Grammar lesson, which, I promise you, I know.
        The point I made (probably not sufficiently clear)  is:
        If the text reads “you are…”, then sometimes it is not 100% certain whether it refers to one person or to many. Now these are the words of Hovind, and he quotes some specific cases in the Scripture. That was in a YouTube video. 
         

    • Monk James Silver says

      Ioannis (August 24, 2019 at 4:20 pm) says:

      Monk James Silver
      it is interesting that at least one well known Protestant (Kent Hovind) has said that contemporary “you are” is sometimes where the original text was “thou art”. He said that is a serious inaccuracy, sometimes leading to wrong interpretation of the Bible!
      I guess the Orthodox should be a good example in accuracy.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Hovind and others are correct when they observe that ‘you are’ is the same form for both singular and plural second-person address in contemporary English.

      The mistake into which proponents of ‘thou’ fall — if they use this reason — is that the number of second-person forms is no longer identified by the pronoun or even by the verb, but by context.

      Bearing that in mind, literate writers/translators working in contemporary English leave no doubt in the reader’s mind as to whether ‘you’ is singular or plural.

      People with less of an understanding of the problem — and its best solutions — easily slip into folkisms such as ‘you all’ when they mean ‘you’ in the plural. At the same time, though (except for the Quakers, who don’t use the word properly, anyway), they don’t revert to ‘thou’ for the singular. This slippage is very interesting, isn’t it?

      • Michael Bauman says

        Monk James, “you all” can also be meant in the singular in certain southern vernacular uses of the term. Like asking a lone friend: “Yall fixing to come huntin’ with me?

        It used to be that English had a certain standard of address–a formal style that was generally followed. It is no longer that way in contemporary American English. There are no standards and all that I can discern. The lack of clear and widely accepted standards in a language makes it inappropriate for liturgical use in my opinion especially when the meanings of words change drastically and frequently. An Elizabethan style could be standardized and gives a clear separation between the vernacular and the language used in services while avoiding the more troublesome Shakespearean uses. I love reading Shakespearean plays but I would not necessarily want the Liturgy in full blown Shakespearean.

        Thee and thou are frequently misunderstood granted but are often used, IMO, out of a desire to confer a greater sense of dignity and honor on God and the saints. Such a distinction is necessary because modern English is loosing such terms and forms at a drastic rate and what was previously considered an honorific is now in ordinary use an insult and whether a word is an insult or not changes by the group of people using the word. The language is being dumbed down which means that its capacity to hold the deep meaning necessary to liturgical and prayer usage is less and less.

        Contemporary English as I understand the term is becoming more and more vulgar as well.

        The objections to contemporary English are quite long and strong, IMO but that may be because of a lack of a common understanding of what constitutes “contemporary”.

        • I disagree.  The spoken form (at least) of language —  any language —  is always contemporary.
           
          The problem is located —  as evidenced by your first example — in an ignorance of GOOD English.
           
          As I recall, Shakespeare himself quotes a barbarism now and then.

        • George Michalopulos says

          In the Great Lakes region, I understand that “you-uns” is the cognate of “y’all”.

        • Good morning!  “You all” (and the associated contraction) never is used in the singular.  If it is, then that is a careless error.  I have lived in Texas for fifty-four years, plus in Alabama for ten.  Plenty of opportunity to hear “you all” and “y’all” used!  It may sound “hick speech” to some; however English lacks a second-person plural, and this form creatively fills the gap.
          I’m unfamiliar with “you-uns”, though.  Sounds more like a slip up from “young-uns”, referring to children!

  7. I had trouble believing that the OCA would wish come under Constantinople, though it seems the Phanar effectively deceived the Ukrainians (or were both sides just lying to each other). What would the OCA have to gain from it other than recognition unless the GOA were told to merge and become part of the OCA? And since the Phanar seems to require money for such favors, I don’t see any money going that way from the OCA – even if they had it to give. But then, before 1991, who ever expected the Berlin wall to come down?

  8. You people just don’t get it. The OCA will NEVER go under a foreign bishop. In 1961, SCOBA wanted to have an autocephalous American church that ALL the bishops would join. Fr. Alexander Schmemann made this a reality in 1970; as ALL the bishops of SCOBA wanted. The Romanians joined, the Bulgarians, the Albanians and others. Both the Greeks & Antiochians reneged! Fast forward to 1994, at Ligonier, + Philip & +Iakavos tried to regroup for autocephaly. + Iakavos was forced to retire, all the Greek American bishops were emasculated and + Philip continued to do his own thing. The Phanar wanted to get rid of an independent SCOBA and formulated the current council of bishops setting up the Greek American bishop to lead; ignoring the OCA all together. Now, a new lackey comes from Istanbul to save the Greeks & American Orthodoxy. RIDICULOUS! Some foreign boot-licker to rule? What’s wrong with this picture? First, Orthodox Canon Law is clear; each territory is to have its own autocephalous church. Second, foreign bishops CANNOT have a diocese outside their own territory. Neither Istanbul,  Moscow, Damascus, etc. has ANY authority in America. Only the OCA is following Canon Law. So, the OCA will NEVER subject itself to any foreign bishop, however, as it has been since 1970, the American Greeks & Antiochians are welcome to join the OCA as SCOBA wanted in 1961!

  9. Monk James,
     
    What’s confusing about the OCA and the Orthodox Study Bible is that, as you write, “The OCA was not involved in this project,” however several prominent OCA leaders are listed on the first page as part of the advisory committee (Met. Theodosius, Met. Herman, Abp. Dmitri, Fr Tom Hopko (the latter two of blessed memory!)). Plus, my former OCA parish priest in New Jersey gave out copies to students & young adults in the parish. 
     
    At the very least, this implies at least somewhat of an OCA endorsement of the OSB.
     
    The OSB remains my preferred version for the Holy Scriptures, primarily because I need the explanations in the footnotes to help my reading and understanding, and I can’t be bothering my priest all the time with questions I have about the meanings of passages. And, importantly, I simply don’t trust any Roman Catholic or Protestant Bible version. 
     
    Thank you for your thoughtful input, nonetheless!  Happy St Alexander Nevsky day yesterday!!

    • Monk James Silver says

      Please allow me to re-emphasize that the OCA was not at all involved in the production of the ‘Orthodox Study Bible’.

      As far as I know, the people whose names appear in the OSB’s ‘Overview Committee’ list were provided advance copies of the volume’s notes and asked for their comments and endorsements.

      Very few of those men actually offered feedback on the notes, and not one of them was actually involved in the work of translation. While the editors took the New Testament right out of the can using the Thomas Nelson Company’s ‘New King James Version (mistakes and all), the effort to render the Greek 70 can be blamed on a whole other group of incompetent pseudo-scholars. Examples of their errors, especially in the all-important Psalms, are very easy to identify if you know your stuff.

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        But what if you don’t?
        Where would you point to for a good Septuagint English translation?

        • Monk James Silver says

          What if I don’t WHAT? This is a very odd request.

          There isn’t yet a reliable translation of the Greek 70 into English accurate to the Greek, but I (and others, I suspect) are working on it. The few efforts I’ve seen were made outside of The Church and they are very bad, excessively literal and without the theological dimensions which only Orthodox Christianity could provide.

          Sadly, efforts to do this holy work are not sponsored by the Orthodox Church. We translators work at our own expense, not paid by anyone. We offer our work to the bishops, but we are often ignored, because sometimes inertia is stronger than truth. .

          For instance, we keep saying ‘daily bread’ in the ‘Our Father’ prayer, but that isn’t what Jesus said. A completely accurate translation of the scriptures will come, but it will take a while.

          Everyone should pray or us translators. We have so much work to do, and our bishops aren’t listening to us.

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            It’s not a very odd request at all. The very last sentence in your post that I replied to says this:
            ” Examples of their errors, especially in the all-important Psalms, are very easy to identify if you know your stuff.”
            To which I replied “But what if you don’t?” I.e., what if you don’t know your stuff? In other words, how would we recognize the errors? 
            That’s all.

            • Monk James Silver says

              Please forgive me for my misunderstanding. That question appeared to be dangling out there all by itself.
               
              Without getting into matters of taste and style, and concentrating only on accuracy in translation, I recommend that people study enough Greek (classical or scriptural —  not modern demotic) in order to learn the differences between cases of nouns and adjectives as well as the structures of verbs, and how to use a Greek-English dictionary of the classical/scriptural idiom.  An interlinear Greek-English New Testament, or at least having both languages at hand, is a great help. 
               
              Many local colleges and Christian seminaries (heterodox and Orthodox) offer introductory courses in Classical Greek and/or New Testament Greek.  Some courses are available ion line n distance-learning formats. Starting from scratch, just four semesters of study — not much if taking just one class — ought to give every Christian enough of a background to be comfortable reading at least the Gospels in Greek
               
              Even in English, we have to know the difference between a subject and a predicate in a sentence, and how verbs affect them both, but English doesn’t have much grammar —  meaning is almost always determined by syntax,  In English, we must keep words in precisely the right order so that they are not misunderstood.  Since grammar is so important in better organized languages such as Latin and Greek, word order doesn’t matter as much, since enclitics and suffixes always help us keep track of ‘who’s on first’, and a word’s position in a sentence is often determined by how and how much the speaker or writer wishes to emphasize it — or not.
               
              In the Greek text of MT 5:11, for example, the nominative plural masculine ‘liars’ is clearly the subject of the sentence., but the OSB (along with almost all other renderings) treats the subject as if it were an adverb (‘falsely’) and makes the otherwise unspecified ‘they’  or, even worse, ‘men’–  absent from the Greek text except as implied in the ending of the verb —  the subject of the sentence, but this is wrong.
               
              And, as long as we’re in the ‘Beatitudes’, we might also notice that the OSB (and many others) renders makarioi as ‘blessed’, but this is an error, since it basically means ‘happy’.  The word for ‘blessed’ is eulogEmenos, found very often in the scriptures and services.

              We must do better.
               
              I hope that this is of at least a little help.
               
               

              • Michael Bauman says

                Ah yes, Monk James, but what of poor, benighted, ignorant souls such as me who have no capacity for any language other than English despite excursions into Latin, Spanish, German and French where even my young brain lacked the flexibility to accept anything valuable. Now my old brain struggles to retain even what facility I have with English. Indeed your description of the basic learning left my head spinning in confusion even though I am not ignorant of English grammar and structure. It is, frankly, an impossible hurdle for me to even consider.

                It would be easy to look at your approach and despair of ever reading the Holy Scriptures for profit and any attempt at such, given the sad state of English translations, would inevitably lead me down a mistaken path.

                However, I prefer to submit my weakness to the living Christ in the services of the Church, the Christ who I know, trusting in His mercy and grace to bring profit to my soul despite my ignorance and the sad state in which the Holy Scriptures exist in English.

                There is correctness and there is the Truth. The lack of one does not serve as an insurmountable barrier for knowing the other. Indeed as the state of the English language is rapidly deteriorating to pre-literate levels, I put more hope in those who draw icons than I do in those who parse words even with great skill, knowledge and dedication such as you show. After all, He came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

                Thus as critical and important as the Holy Scripture are, exact parsing of the words is not as important as the encounter with the Word, the Living God in others, in the mysteries of the Church and in one’s own soul.

                Forgive me for I do pray that your work is fruitful and brings great blessings to us all.

                • Monk James Silver says

                  While I am grateful for your prayers, I think that you sell yourself far too short here, Michael Bauman. Given your writing here, it seems to me that you are an intelligent man, and not unaware of grammar and how it works.
                   
                  Learning the language of the New Testament is not so daunting a task as you seem to imagine.  There are just over two thousand words to learn, (just a few at a time)  and the text is stable, not flexible as might be the case with  any language in which you might hope to have a conversation.  This is pretty much the definition of a ‘dead’ language:  it won’t change, and nobody speaks it anymore.
                   
                  In the Mexican version of the Spanish language which I learned in high school, there is a saying:  ‘La mayor dificultad es la poca voluntad.’   I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that you understand this, but I’ll translate it here anyway:  ‘The biggest problem is a lack of intention.’
                   
                  How badly do you want access to the language of the New Testament?  Your humble reliance on faith —  even if its basic tenets are presented incorrectly in English — is noble but unhelpful. and incomplete As St Peter writes in his letter, ‘To your faith add…knowledge.’
                   
                  Do what you must if you want not to be always at the mercy of translators.  Take a few classes, work hard toward your goal and and be assured of God’s help in your studies.  Tell your teachers that you are studying ancient Greek in order to read the Gospel, and they will help you to do that.

                  Still, learning to read Homer, the philosophers, and the playwrights who wrote in ancient Greek wouldn’t be too bad. Western civilization is built in their words — and that;s not to say that ancient China’s wisdom should be ignored. We work with the riches of knowledge and wisdom which we inherited.

                  When serious european philosophers have academic, theoretical conversations with their ancient chinese counterparts, they usually agree. This was noticed by Fr Seraphim Rose and his disciple, Fr Damascene Christensen, who wrote a book about it.

                  In any event, three hours a week is a small price to pay for this great treasure. of knowledge. A highly motivated student would take more courses than the four semesters which I suggested would be enough to learn to read the New Testament. Go and do it!
                   
                  Be brave and forge ahead.  As our Lord Jesus Christ tells us, ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be.’

                  • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                    Monk James what do you think of the Holy Myrrh-bearing Monastery Psalms According to the Septuagint? Its from an OCA female Monastery and its contemporary modern English. What do you think of it? Godd, bad, mixed bag? Let me know.
                    Thank you and please forgive me for an previous offense. 
                    Yours in Christ.
                    Peter A. Papoutsis 

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      Maybe twenty years ago, in the last conversation I had with Hegoumeness Raphaela on the subject, she told me that the monastery was using contemporized English patched together from available translations and selecting an edited version — not their own translation — of the services which ‘made the most sense’ to them.

                      Apart from the notoriously odd and inaccurate ‘Brookline Psalter’, the only other Orthodox Christian efforts to present the Psalter of the Greek 70 in English of which I am aware are the rather old ‘The Psalms’ by Archimandrite Lazarus Moore (pretty much a non-starter), and ‘The Psalter According to the Seventy’ blessed for use in the Orthodox Church in America’s Archdiocese of Canada in 2000 and copyrighted by that archdiocese in 2001. In its detailed but anonymous _Introduction_, this translation is credited mostly to Vivian Maria Hartley who did her work on this project from 1990 to 1996; that’s all I know about her.

                      although the ‘Psalter’ was tweaked by several other people whose names I recognize, and compared to other attempts in English and French, it still falls into the same old errors in many places. It seems that people just can’t break the mold of mistakes in translation which they’ve internalized so thoroughly that they can’t imagine a better, more accurate rendering.

                      There were very few copies of this ‘Psalter’ still available for sale when I bought mine during the OCA’s All-American Council in Toronto more than a dozen years ago. For all I know, the Archdiocese let the copyright go to the Myrrhbearers Monastery, and that’s what we’re discussing now.

                      Other than that possibility, I don’t know anything about such a book’s being published by them, and so I can have no opinion.

                      There was nothing to forgive, dear Peter. It was just a misunderstanding, but may the Lord bless you for your humility in asking.

                  • Tim R. Mortiss says

                    Here is a problem, or more properly, a ‘resistance’, I have to individual translators in general. Not in what they seek to do and what they accomplish. Nor is this in any way meant to be personal in regard to M. James Silver and his undoubted erudition and his efforts. And, of course, he is totally right about trying to learn NT Greek.
                    It is this concept of being ‘at the mercy of translators’. As MJS has often observed, the Bible can in fact be translated. No language has a magical capacity to be the sole one to bear the truth. (Even Greek!) As he has also pointed out, any translation cannot be literal; that is impossible.
                    But, the Bible, or just sticking with the NT, has been translated into English almost innumerable times now. This has been done by committees and by individuals, a great many of profound scholarship, both in Greek and English, and of  the best intentions to get things right; in times long past, times not as long past, and times recent. Some may have axes to grind, some not. Countless of these scholars have been deeply motivated to avoid errors, and to recognize, point out, and correct the errors of others, on lexical, historical, textual, and theological grounds.
                    So, taking these many works together, what are we missing that still needs to be supplied, as far as translations are concerned?

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      Personally I have often thought that what most translations of the scriptures into English have in common, most obviously and over-archingly, is that they are protestant efforts whose choice of words makes he text seem to lean toward their pet heresies or sometimes away from what they perceive as the errors of Rome.

                      RC efforts often seem to have these distortions in mind when they do their own work, but fail to bridge the conceptual gap. Oddly, both RC and protestant translations into the languages of continental Europe often show influences which can be traced directly to previous versions in English.

                      What we Orthodox Christians need, now that we can clearly identify all the biases and errors in translation in the versions produced in English over the last millennium or so, is to approach the work with the ‘mind of The Church’ or — and perhaps more truly — with the mind of Christ.

                      ‘First seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you in addition.’ (MT 6:33)

              • Tim R. Mortiss says

                German hard, French easy. That was my school experience. Highly-inflected foreign languages are hard for English-speakers, at least for me. I can make decent headway in French, with a brush-up, but can’t understand much German and all those case endings stacked up at the end defeated me. (Not that I tried as hard as I should have….)
                I can transliterate Greek of course; easy and useful in many contexts, as with transliteration of Cyrillic words. In my GOA church, I can pick up a fair amount if I pay attention to the written service book texts. I certainly agree that a good English-Greek interlinear NT is very useful; I employ it often.
                Four semesters of NT Greek! The spirit is willing but the flesh has proved weak….
                I use the RSV mostly, but have lots of other translations I refer to now and again in study, old and new, committee and individual. Hopefully this covers most of the bases…

              • Well said, Monk James Silver.

                • Monk James Silver: “First of all  we must acknowledge that the gospels are a Greek transcription/translation of conversations going on in Aramaic”.

                   
                  No, we don’t. The conversations were in the common tongue, in Greek. Jews were smart people, and capable of learning it, not less than other groups in the Hellenistic world, or today Jews in America that speak mostly English, not Yiddish.
                   
                  Centuries earlier Jews adopted Aramaic in place of Hebrew, same way they moved into Greek. This was the reason why they made Septuagint, Hebrew and later Aramaic was falling out of use.
                   
                  When Christ spoke in Aramaic, it is clearly indicated (He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!”).  And translations into Aramaic were made generations later. Christ and Pilate did not need interpreter, as educated Latins spoke Greek at that time.
                   
                  Out of the four Evangelist, one was very likely was a native Aramaic speaker (Matthew), because his Greek shows Aramaic influences. Also it is mentioned by Papias (80-155) Matthew wrote a collection of Jesus saying (logia) in Aramaic.
                   
                  The purpose of the false Aramaic myth, is to cut Christians off from the original text.

                  • Monk James Silver says

                    It appears that only St Luke, a gentile by birth, was the only native speaker of Greek among the authors whose inspired works are preserved in the New Testament. His superior use of the language recommended his preparation of the Gospel which bears his name, as well as the Acts of the Apostles — addressed to a certain ‘Theophilos’ — probably as part of St Paul’s legal defense in Roman imperial courts.

                    St Paul’s use of Greek was so limited that he couldn’t write the language, and had scribes and translators working with him, as he himself acknowledged at a couple of points where he signed his own name to his letters in childishly large characters.

                    The Talmud — both Bavli and Yerushalmi versions — is written in Aramaic, since Hebrew had become largely forgotten except in liturgical contexts. Popular access to Hebrew was so rare that literate men would repeat the readings from the Torah and Haftorah in Aramaic to the congregation in the synagogue, a process known as ‘targum’ in Aramaic. Were the people proficient in Greek, those on-the-spot translations would have been made in Greek, not Aramaic

                    The paraliturgical ‘mourner’s _kaddish_ which appears in every _siddur_ (Jewish prayer book) and is to be recited by all Jews, privately or in the synagogue, in various patterns in memory of the dead, is written in Aramaic, since Hebrew was not spoken by the Jews as a daily language until the modern state of Israel was at least on the drawing boards. That prayer was never in Greek.

                    Did you ever wonder why so many sentences in the Bible begin with ‘and’? The ‘semitic interference’ which you observe in St Matthew’s version of the gospel is not unique to him. It is not characteristic of Greek (or English, for that matter) to begin sentences with _kai_ (‘and’), but the Aramaic/Hebrew word _ve_ means much more than ‘and’, even if the NT almost always and relentlessly renders it as _kai_. In fact, though, _ve_ often serves as an adverb meaning, then, since, as a result’, and so on. This is only one of the areas in which the underlying Aramaic source text shows through.

                    During the years he spent in Bethlehem learning Hebrew, St Jerome wrote in a letter that he had seen an Aramaic original of at least one of the gospels. Apart from St Luke’s work, that seems to be the source language for all the other canonical gospels.

                    While ‘Galilee of the gentiles’ and the Dekapolis had many Greek-speaking inhabitants, and Jesus preached there, they were not Jews or — with rare exceptions — followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.

                    Altogether, ‘Martin’, your theories, interesting as they might seem to the uneducated reader, are not supported by anything we know about first century Jewish life in Israel.

                    • Monk James Silver: “St Paul’s use of Greek was so limited that he couldn’t write the language, and had scribes and translators working with him, as he himself acknowledged at a couple of points where he signed his own name to his letters in childishly large characters.”
                       
                      Prove it please.
                       
                      “Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.” Saint Paul did not write it himself?

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      Martin (September 16, 2019 at 11:38 am) says

                      Monk James Silver: “St Paul’s use of Greek was so limited that he couldn’t write the language, and had scribes and translators working with him, as he himself acknowledged at a couple of points where he signed his own name to his letters in childishly large characters.”

                      Prove it please.

                      “Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων.” Saint Paul did not write it himself?

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      Start with GAL 6:11 and move on from there.

                    • Tim R. Mortiss says

                      I, too, am very sceptical of this assertion regarding Paul and Greek. Hadn’t heard it before, which doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but I have never taken St. Paul’s personal notes in his own rough handwriting as suggesting this at all. He did work very heavily with his hands, heavy canvas and leather, coarse thread, iron tools, etc.
                      He was, after all, a well-educated diaspora Jew, raised in Tarsus in Cilicia, where Greek would have been the everyday language of most people.
                      Anyway, an interesting concept, which I’ll look into myself. I’d appreciate knowing other authorities if you have any to hand.
                       

                    • Monk James Silver: “Start with GAL 6:11 and move on from there.”
                       
                      The first that I found, it does not prove what you claim, but it sheds light where your ideas come from:
                       
                      https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/6-11.htm

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      ‘Martin’ (September 17, 2019 at 1:29 am) says

                      Monk James Silver: “Start with GAL 6:11 and move on from there.”

                      The first that I found, it does not prove what you claim, but it sheds light where your ideas come from:

                      https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/6-11.htm

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      Well, ‘Martin’, I have to say that these protestant commentaries are not particularly helpful.

                      St Jerome, though, observes that while the bulk of his letter to the Galatians was transcribed by an assistant, St Paul added the words we’re discussing here in order to attest the letter’s authenticity, by writing a little something himself in his own clumsy penmanship in Greek.

                      Although he was certainly exposed to the common (_koine_) pidgin Greek of the first-century Mediterranean world, it is nearly ridiculous to assert that St Paul’s use of Greek was adequate to the task of writing his letters to the churches. Even though his words were probably cleaned up a bit by his scribes, there are far too many lapses of style to suggest that they were composed by someone with a classical education, as we can see, for example, in St Luke’s writings.

                      Altogether, I suggest that you make a serious study some of the literature concerning ‘semitic interference’ in the gospels and letters of the New Testament if you really want to know where my ideas come from.

                      Such a study will not only leave no doubt that semitic patterns of expression leak through the Greek texts which we’ve inherited, but will also give evidence that at least the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and John were first composed in Aramaic.

                    • Monk James Silver: “Altogether, I suggest that you make a serious study some of the literature concerning ‘semitic interference’ in the gospels and letters of the New Testament if you really want to know where my ideas come from. ”
                       
                      I asked you for a proof, and after fruitless exchange (“protestant commentaries are not particularly helpful” – while various sources are provided) , your answer is to tell me to  study in order to prove your opinion.

                      Opinion that Saint Paul was semi-literate in Greek, despite coming from the major center of Hellenistic learning in Tarsus, being born Roman citizen, and displaying intimate knowledge of Greek thought, that New Testament is a translation from original Aramaic that mysteriously disappeared to be translated back generations later (as Peshitta)?
                       
                      Sorry, I will not carry this on. Bye.

                  • Monk James Silver says

                    I sincerely regret that you feel this way, ‘Martin’.

                    . I led you through all sorts of exercises to demonstrate the impossibility of your claims against there being an Aramaic source text for most of the gospels, and to show that St Paul was not as proficient in Greek as you insist he was. ‘We played the pipes for you, but you wouldn’t dance. So we sang dirges for you, but you wouldn’t mourn, either’ (LK 7:32).

                    Now you write again with more insupportable assertions about St Paul’s education. Have you never read the New Testament?

                    Had St Paul been educated in the great Academy at Tarsus, he would have become proficient in — among other areas of the classical curriculum — rhetoric and oratory, but he explicitly apologizes for his lack of skill in public speaking at several points in his letters.

                    But – and here’s the clincher — St Paul tells us that although he was born at Tarsus, he was raised in Jerusalem and grew up at the feet of his teacher, Gamaliel. He graduated from Gamaliel’s famous _yeshiva_ at Jerusalem, spoke Aramaic as his native tongue, was of the tribe of Benjamin, and a pharisee. See ACTS 22 for some of this background.

                    And you want proof?! There is no proof sufficient to overcome such fantasies as you seem to cherish about St Paul and the provenance of the gospels, no proof at all. But there is education.

                    So, please, go and study a great deal more about the life of the protochristians and the linguistic characteristics of the New Testament before you embarrass yourself further.

                    There’s a lot of material available, but life is short. I’ve been at this for more than fifty years, so you’d better get started.

          • Estonian Slovak says

            So, Fr. James, ” τον άρτον νμων(sp) is not an accurate translation from the Aramaic into Greek? What about “από του πονηρού”? Is ” от лукаваго” an accurate translation of both the Aramaic and Greek?
                 My Polish bible gives the corresponding “ode złego”. I dont know if that is translated directly from the Greek or from the Latin. I don’t know Polish that well, and sadly, have never studied Latin.

            • Monk James Silver says

              First of all  we must acknowledge that the gospels are a Greek transcription/translation of conversations going on in Aramaic, a closely Hebrew-related semitic language spoken by our Lord, Jesus Christ.
               
              Then, we have to resign ourselves to the sad fact that there is no source text in Aramaic available to us — yet.  The closest we can get to the words of Jesus are to be found in the Greek translation of the gospels.
               
              As a result, it’s impossible for us to know —  yet — whether our Lord Jesus Christ said and meant ‘daily’ when He taught us to pray ‘Our Father’.
               
              Still, it’s a fact that epiousion  doesn’t mean ‘daily’, pace St John Chrysostom and St Naximus the Confessor.  They were wrong, and all the other fathers and commenters were right.
               
              In my own research, I’ve learned that Christians who still use Aramaic liturgically have published English-language translations of their services,  Without exception, they render this phrase as ‘the Bread we need’.
               
              This is corroborative of my own translation of this phrase as ‘the Bread we most need’.
               
              The Polish translation, which I had reason to consult just recently, appears to have been made from the Latin/Roman Catholic liturgical version, and not directly from the gospel according t St Matthew.
               
              It’s clear in the Greek, and even in the Church Slavonic, translation, that we are praying to be rescued from the ‘evil one’.
               
              The Latin rendering, though, is unable to distinguish between ‘evil’ in the abstract and ‘evil one’, since the ablative case form is the same for both masculine and neuter nouns.
               
              I hope that this helps a little.
               
               

              • Tim R. Mortiss says

                To me, this all of the greatest interest, and I have dipped into the issues from time to time as a layman. All translation issues are vastly fascinating.
                  epiousion; what an interesting subject. St. Jerome translated the same word two different ways. Origen and countless others were puzzled; Christians who lived and breathed in Greek. The word is unique, the analysis is most interesting. Your own view seems very sensible.
                Yet that very sense is the one that I think most of us easily infer. Give us today that which we need for today. So, to me at least, it does not seem so much of a problem.
                It is the wording common to English-speaking Christians of any stripe, including the Orthodox. Countless generations of all have said it from cradle to grave. It isn’t going to change.
                Relatedly, I look over the weekly service bulletins of my old, now ‘progressive’ Presbyterian church, from time to time, given me by friends. Lately, the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ includes ‘our father and mother’ and several other interpolations. This sort of thing makes one extremely reluctant to start modifying the ‘received English version’ whatever the benign motivations.

                • Monk James Silver says

                  When you write ‘Yet that very sense is the one that I think most of us easily infer. Give us today that which we need for today. So, to me at least, it does not seem so much of a problem’, ‘Tim R. Mortiss’, you are basically saying that epiousion means ‘daily’, but it does not.  There are other perfectly good words in first-century Greek to convey the meaning of ‘daily’.  It was not necessary, in fact it was against all common sense to introduce such a rare word for a concept so mundane as ‘daily’.
                   
                  Modern d(Demotic) Greek still has many words based on /ousia/  which convey a sense of ‘essence, substance’, etc. , and the word is used in philosophy and theology with just such a meaning. Intensifying this root word (based on the verb ‘be’) with the prepositional prefix epi  (over, above, atop’) yields words such as ‘superessential’, cognate to St Jerome’s Latin supersubstantialem.
                   
                  On the other hand, paleographic studies have come up with only two examples of the word roughly contemporary with the Greek of St Matthew’s Gospel.  The most interesting one is its appearance on what seems to be a shopping list found near Alexandria in Egypt, naming the ‘necessities’ to be purchased,  and this supports my inclusion of epiousion in the semantic field of of ‘essential, necessary, needed’.
                   
                  Here, I’m including a few relevant paragraphs from an article I’m working on about ‘Our Father’.  I hope it serves to illuminate the problem a little better.
                   
                  GIVE US TODAY THE BREAD WE NEED
                   
                  As we’ve seen over the centuries, a strictly literal rendering of any source text results only in a collection of misunderstandings,  The particular crux of epiousion (‘over essential’) has been aggravated by the amazingly bold yet unethical substitution of St Luke’s kath’Emeran (‘daily’) for the entire phrase, and replacing epiousion  — which St Luke also uses —  with a rendering of that word alone in the Latin liturgical text.  However, the Latin text of St Matthew’s gospel here uses supersubstantialem, which isn’t exactly a translation, but a calque.  When translators don’t fully understand the meaning of a word in the source language, they sometimes rely on a calque, , a particle-by-particle rendering of a word which then becomes a neologism in the receptor language..  But even a calque is better than significantly altering the liturgical text which should be quoted directly from the Gospel, as it is in the Greek service books used by Orthodox Christians.
                   
                  Since Early English-language paraliturgical usage,  long predating the Protestant Reformation, relied on this wrongfully edited Latin liturgical version, English-speaking Christians have been saying ‘daily’ for more than a thousand years.  Many other languages don’t have this particular problem in their renderings of ‘Our Father’, but they have other errors in spite of that.
                   
                  Although an Aramaic original of St Matthew’s Gospel, or even of the ‘Our Father’ has not yet come to light, it’s of no small importance that the Greek word epiousion (‘more than essential’) is rendered with meanings associated with ‘necessary, needed, essential’ in the text of the prayer as it is found in Syriac/Aramaic versions of the Divine Liturgy, and in translations from those sources into English.
                   

                  • Tim R. Mortiss says

                    I didn’t say, nor even imply, that it means ‘daily’. What I  said is that the proper sense is easily inferred; in short, the meaning is not lost in the [mis]translation.
                    And St. Jerome used ‘quotidian’ in the Luke passage…(or the other way ’round).
                    How do other European languages handle it?

                    • Monk James Silver says

                      St Jerome’s Latin text of MT 6:11 reads __panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie_ (‘give us today our superessential bread’ — ‘substance’ and ‘essence’ are often reversed between Latin and Greek).

                      On the other hand, St Jerome’s latin rendering of LK 11:3 yields _panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie_ (‘give us today our daily bread’ — closely but not perfectly reflecting St Luke’s Greek. The later Latin forms _quotidianum_ and quotidie_ are equivalent to the earlier forms appearing here, and do not indicate any change of meaning.

                      The problem arises in that the Latin LITURGICAL version of ‘Our Father’ distorted St Jerome’s Latin version very early, exchanging St Matthew’s _supersubstantialem_ for St Luke’s _cotidianum_ for reasons still undocumented, but the change did a lot of damage.

                      Under international Roman Catholic influence, translations of the gospels into western European languages — including West Slavic languages — were heavily influenced by this unethical interference in the Latin translation of the Gospel, and also by earlier versions in English. This is why, for example, we find’trespasses’ in Polish where the Greek word is unquestionably ‘debts’.

              • Monk James Silver:
                “Then, we have to resign ourselves to the sad fact that there is no source text in Aramaic available to us — yet.”
                .
                Surely, if God thought that the “source text in Aramaic”
                was necessary for our salvation, He would not deprive us of it,
                for 2000 years until now! 
                 

                • Monk James Silver says

                  It’s precarious to wonder about what God thinks.

                  The fact remains that we have no access to the exact words of our Lord Jesus Christ in his own language, yet He commanded us to ‘teach all nations’ (MT 28:19).

                  From the beginning, we have done this in local languages, and the closest we can get to Jesus’s original words is the Greek version which we’ve inherited. It seems never to have occurred to the apostles to insist that everyone learn Aramaic or Greek on their way to baptism, but, then, they had the miracle of Pentecost.

                  It will be interesting someday, perhaps not until the great day of judgement, to see how well we have understood Him by way of the Greek and done His will, but that’s all we have.

                  Like yourself, I suspect that this is all somehow in God’s good providence for us.

            • Τhe wrong word is “daily” for “ἐπιούσιον”.


  10. Little Chances of Orthodox Unity in America

     Friday, September 27, 2019

    Last week, the figurehead Archbishop of the GOA hosted a meeting with the Executive Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Bishops in America. A photo-op meeting at best that supposedly offered a reaffirmation to their commitment of determining “the best path to achieve the ultimate goal of unity.”
     
    However, no canonical bishop is willing to be transparent and go on record for saying what unity looks like in America. To be blunt, there are only two possibilities:
     
    1) The Mother Church of Constantinople gives America Autocephaly. As we have learned from the Ukraine drama, it is very easy for the Mother Church to do this, if His All Holiness wanted. The Ecumenical Patriarch has insisted that they do not require any schismatic Christians to repent for their actions. They does not need to be a consensus between all the Christians living in the territory to take such an independent action. The Mother Church could make that decision tomorrow if His All Holiness really wanted this type of unity in America. But we know he would miss the flow of money. Plus, do we really expect Archbishop Elpidophoros to advocate for this position?
     
    2) The unity that will likely happen will involve every Orthodox Church to fall under one jurisdiction, one eparchy, that will report directly to the Mother Church of Constantinople. That is the only unity Archbishop Elpidophoros will likely be focusing his efforts on achieving.
     
    Why are none of our bishops willing to be transparent about this topic? It is because they will then have to own up to the facts that they have wasted thousands of dollars of money in Christ’s Church on a quest that will likely go no where. All the plane rides and hotel expenses to achieve unity adds up. If there is no unity, it will mean that our Bishops will actually have to take responsibility, which is something most of them are incapable of doing. If unity was going to happen between the Orthodox Churches in America, then the Mother Church of Constantinople would have pushed for it sooner. Instead, it is a decade later and we are no where closer to achieving unity than when it first began.
     
    Why not?
     
    Because our hierarchs do not want to lose their power in the restructuring that will likely occur from such a new arrangement.
     
    Ever wonder why people lose faith in the Church, here is another wonderful example. It all stems from poor leadership.
     
    We could easily have unity but our hierarchs are the main ones preventing us from having it.

    Source:

    http://protectingorthodoxchurch.blogspot.com/2019/09/little-chances-of-orthodox-unity-in.html

    • Monk James Silver says

      While this is the first time it has been quoted in full on Monomakhos.com, this is the second time this essay has appeared as linked here:

      http://protectingorthodoxchurch.blogspot.com/2019/09/little-chances-of-orthodox-unity-in.html

      It’s difficult to take this unsigned and childishly written piece seriously, especially since its author’s two possible resolutions are so short-sighted and limited to options within the purview of the Patriarch of Constantinople. His blaming our current situation on a self-serving effort to preserve their own ‘power’ on the part of all canonical bishops in America is bizarre. He doesn’t say so directly, but the bishops he’s criticizing with his baseless allegations are all but those of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, since the GOA bishops are as powerless as they’ll ever be right now, functioning as mere acolytes to the Patriarch.

      The Patriarch of Constantinople has been doing his level best to derail any and all movements toward jurisdictional unity among us Orthodox Christians in America since 1994 . In that year, after the historic interjurisdictional meeting of American hierarchs, the bishops leading the two non-Greek ‘jurisdictions’ under Constantinople, the Carpathian Nicholas Smishko and the Ukrainian Vsevolod Maydanskiy, flew immediately to Istanbul and lied to Patriarch Bartholomew to say that the conference at Ligonier had agreed to displace the Greek Orthodox from their putative hegemony in the western hemisphere.

      There was nothing before that treachery, and nothing since, to suggest anything like a power-grab among Orthodox Christian American bishops at Ligonier, who never offered anything like a resolution urging American autocephaly, although the very presence of bishops of the very recently autocephalous Orthodox Church in America — while claiming no pride of place in the discussions — offered an example of an obvious approach to the problem of ‘jurisdictionalism’.

      But Constantinople believed the lies of their American lackeys, and has been behaving badly ever since.

      The first reaction on the Patriarch’s part was to forcibly retire Archbishop Iakovos Koukouzes, who did nothing to deserve being treated so badly. Then he dissolved the ‘Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America’, replacing it with smaller eparchies and metropolises which he could more easily control The fact that he now calls Abp Elpidophoros ‘Exarch of the Atlantic and the Pacific’ in the face of all that is just astonishing, and suggests that he is suffering from some sort of imperial delusion.

      Because of Constantinople’s canonically illegal interference in the internal affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Moscow has broken communion with them. This is painful and scandalous, and the cause of great confusion among the faithful. God willing, it will end soon.

      In the meantime, though, I’d suggest to the author of this essay that he look closer to home for the source of our continued ecclesial divisions.

      Is it the bishops who insist on ethnic identities for the parishes, or the laity? Are the bishops behaving as if they lived in ethnic exclaves of their ancestors’ homelands, or are the laity? Are the bishops requiring proficiency in the languages, dances, and cuisines of those places, or are the laity?

      Are the bishops deficient in theological education, or are the laity — and whose fault is that?

      We Orthodox Christians are commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ to ‘teach all nations’. We can’t do that from safe positions behind the crenellations of our ethnic castles. We have to get out there among those nations.

      We are not teaching the faith by preserving our ethnic customs. We must be who we are, when we are, where we are.

      If some people feel differently, I’ll gladly chip in a dollar toward a one-way ticket back to whatever Ethnic Orthodox Christian Perfection they imagine.