Orthodoxy's Language: Defining Liturgical Terminology for Today

From Dr. Constantine Cavarnos' "General Introductory Remarks" in his book: Orthodox Christian Terminology.

Dr. Constantine Cavarnos

“Orthodox Liturgical Terminology,” on which I have been invited to speak, includes the whole range of Orthodox Christian terminology. The traditional Orthodox sermon, which is part of the Divine Liturgy, encompasses all aspects of the Orthodox Church. Taking as its starting point the Gospel and Apostolic excerpts that are read on a particular day, or the significance of the particular sacred event or holy personage that is commemorated, such a sermon brings in pertinent explanations and enlightening illustrations of the Church Fathers. Also, it makes reference—whenever edifying—to the architecture of the Church, her iconography, hymnography, music, and so on.

A standardized English-language Orthodox terminology is necessary, if the Orthodox Church in this country and in the English-speaking world in general is to convey her message, her Truth, in a clear precise, effective manner, and retain her identity. For the Orthodox Church professes to be Christianity maximum with respect to truth, clarity, and precision of expression, and should remain such. Of all the forms that Christianity has assumed, it is the Orthodox Church that has placed the greatest emphasis on truth. This emphasis is manifest in her name, for Orthodoxy is a Greek word that means “true belief” (orthe doxa). But to be efficacious, always leading to right action (orthopraxia), truth must be apprehended in clear and precise form.

The topic of a standardized English-language terminology is one that should engage the serious attention not only of the clergy, but also of lay Orthodox teachers of the Faith and of scholars who discuss it in their writings and lectures in English-speaking countries: in the United States, in Canada, in England, in Australia. Such terminology is needed for correctly teaching and discussing the Orthodox Faith in sermons, in lectures, in Bible classes, in publications. It is needed for expressing the Faith in an unambiguous, exact and intelligible manner, free from confusion with heterodox teachings. Preserving the Church’s identity means, so far as terminology is concerned, keeping the Faith free of secular and heterodox terminology, whenever such terminology has different connotation or denotation from the Orthodox.

A clear, precise, apt and generally acceptable English-language terminology for the Orthodox Church is to be developed by having recourse to her Hellenic terminological sources—that is, to the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament), the original Greek-language New Testament, the Seven Oecumenical Synods, the original writings of the Greek Church Fathers, iconologists, hymnographers, musicians and musicologists. Recourse must also be had to noted scholars of the present and the recent past who have written in the English language about various aspects of the Orthodox Church, such as H.J.W. Tillyard (1881-1968) and Egon Wellesz (1885- 1974), who have published important works on Byzantine hymnography and music, Bishop Kallistos Ware (1934-), who has written widely-read books on the Orthodox Church, and the translators and editors of the recent three-volume English version of the Greek Philokalia. (Tillyard was Professor of Russian at the University of Birmingham in England; Wellesz was Fellow of Lincoln College of Oxford University; Ware has been since 1966 Spalding Lecturer in Eastern Orthodox Studies at Oxford University, and Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.)

Many English-language terms presently used by the Orthodox are perfectly acceptable from the Orthodox standpoint and there is no question of replacing them by others. As examples I cite the following: “God” for the Greek word Theos; “Holy Trinity” for Hagia Trias; “Spirit” for Pneuma; “Church” for Ekklesia; “Old Testament” for Palaia Diatheke; “New Testament” for Kaine Diatheke; “Gospel” for Evangelion; “worship” for latreia; “veneration” for proskynesis; “Tradition” for Paradosis.

In connection with iconographic scenes, there are many English terms which likewise are perfectly acceptable. For instance; “Annunciation” for Evangelismos;”Transfiguration” for Metamorphosis; “Crucifixion” for Stavrosis; “Resurrection” for Anastasis; “Ascension” for Analepsis; “Dormition” for Koimesis.

However, there are numerous terms which have gained currency among the Orthodox in America that are unacceptable from the strict Orthodox standpoint, and their use should be discontinued. Prominent among these is the word “Council” for Synod (Synodos). About this term, in 1979 in my Response to a paper by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh entitled, A Theological Apologia for the Forthcoming Great and Holy Synod, presented at a Conference which was about that Synod and took place at Holy Cross Orthodox School of Theology, I remarked:

“My first suggestion is that the term synod replace the term council. His Grace used throughout his paper—with a few exceptions—the term council instead of synod. Among the statements where he used the term synod is the following one: ‘It is certain that the future Great and Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church will be a synod of bishops only, according to the traditional system.’ His Grace is not alone in the tendency to employ the term council instead of synod. He is following the general trend among those who speak of the Forthcoming Great and Holy Synod’ in the English language. Father (now Bishop) Kallistos Ware, who lectured on this subject in this very auditorium (at the Maliotis Cultural Center) some months ago, similarly spoke of a ‘council’ instead of a ‘synod’; and so do other Orthodox theologians in this country and elsewhere who employ the English language.

 “Those who use the Greek language never speak of a ‘council’ or ‘concilium.’ The word council (symboulion) is never used in Orthodox discussions about synods where the Greek language is employed, nor so far as I know where the Slavic languages are used. The word ‘synod,’ which is the anglicized form of the Greek word synodos, is one that appears in English- language dictionaries. Hence, in recommending its use instead of that of ‘council’ I am not suggesting the adoption of a novel term.

 “The reason why I think the term ‘synod’ is to be preferred by the Orthodox is that the Orthodox institution of a Synod is not the same as the Western institution of a Council. The Latins very legitimately and properly use the term council, which is the Anglicized form of the Latin ‘concilium.’ In the Orthodox Church, as Bishop Maximos rightly observes, ‘Councils (i.e., Synods), and especially Ecumenical Councils, represent the supreme authority of the church.’ This is not true, however, of the Roman Catholic Church. In the latter, one of the bishops, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the supreme authority of the Church. Councils in the Latin Church make recommendations on various matters, but it is the Bishop of Rome who decides which of these recommendations are to be adopted and which are to be rejected—the consensus of the council is not binding. Also, in the Western Church, the infallibility of what is adopted comes from the Pope, whereas in the Orthodox Church, as his Grace remarks, ‘the infallibility of what is adopted comes from the Church, ex concensu ecclesiae,’ which means, as he elsewhere puts it, from the Laos Theou, that is, from the faithful Orthodox Christians—clergy and laity—who are the conscience of the Church.

 “This being so, to avoid any confusion about the nature of the Synod either among the Orthodox or among others throughout the world who read about the preparations for the forthcoming Synod, and who will be following its course when it finally takes place, I think it is highly desirable for the Orthodox to use the term Synod instead of the term Council.

 “Use of the consecrated Patristic Orthodox term synod will not only help to avoid a misunderstanding about the character of the forthcoming Synod, but will also help us become and remain conscious of the fact that by its very nature the Synod will have for us Orthodox an importance far surpassing the importance which the recent Vatican Council has or will have for the Roman Catholics.” (From my “Response,” published in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Summer/Fall 1979, pp. 123-127.)

Closely connected with the term Synodos is the term Oikoumenike. We Orthodox recognize seven Synods as Oikoumenikai. This Greek word has usually been translated by the word Ecumenical, and occasionally by Oecumenical. Until recent times the first rendering was acceptable and satisfactory. But now, with the appearance of an aggressive movement called Ecumenism, it behooves us to use systematically the second spelling instead of the first. The participants in the “Ecumenical” Movement are representatives of all sorts of Christian bodies. The non-Orthodox either do not accept all the Seven Oecumenical Synods, as we do, or accept them in modified form, and with the addition of “Councils” of their own, which the Orthodox Church does not recognize. Moreover, there are participants in the Ecumenical Movement who are not Christian. For these reasons, it is necessary for the Orthodox to avoid writing Ecumenical Synod and to write instead Oecumenical Synod. The “Oe” at the beginning of the word is the anglicized form of the diphthong “Oi” of the Greek word.

For the same reason, in referring to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, we should write “Oecumenical” Patriarchate, and not “Ecumenical” Patriarchate. Otherwise, we will be giving the impression that the Patriarchate at Constantinople is a Patriarchate of all kinds of Ecumenists, and not a Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church.

Great care must also be exercised in speaking about God, Who is the “Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending .... the Pantocrator” (Rev. 1:8). Here, above all, we must be careful to avoid terms that are ambiguous and strive for precision of expression.

The Orthodox Church has traditionally taught clearly and unambiguously that there is only one God, and staunchly opposed Polytheism and Tritheism. Yet, of late there has made its appearance, in the name or modernization, the use in Orthodox churches in America of the pronoun You in the services, in the liturgical books. The pronoun “You” is an ambiguous term. It denotes both one individual and several individuals. In the Greek language today Seis has the same ambiguous denotation. It is used both in addressing one individual and in addressing several or many individuals. The Greek word Sy and the English word Thou are quite free of this ambiguity. So also are the Greek word Soi and the English to Thee, which are the dative case of the words Sy and Thou, respectively.

Now in the original (Greek-language) Divine Liturgy and hymnography of the Orthodox Church, as well as in the Greek Holy Scripture, the pronouns Sy and Soi (Thou and to Thee) are used in addressing God. The unwarranted innovation of addressing God as a You instead of a Thou may be taken to imply that we Orthodox now believe that the Holy Trinity is not one God, but three Gods—because of the already noted ambiguity of the term “You.” In other words, the innovation may be taken to imply that we accept the heresy of Tritheism—the doctrine that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not one God, but three distinct Gods.

Oddly, and inconsistently, the pronoun “Thou” has been retained in addressing God in the “Lord’s Prayer”—”Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy (not ‘Your’) name. . . .” Why is God addressed here as a Thou and everywhere else in the “modernized” Greek-American Divine Liturgy as a

“You?”

An additional consideration— besides the need of avoiding ambiguity—that can be brought against the innovation of addressing God as “You” instead of Thou, is that it keeps God at a distance from us, whereas the pronoun Thou makes for intimacy. In Greek, when we are intimate with a person, we never say seis - we say sy. When we lack intimacy, we say seis, thus creating a psychological distance between ourselves and the individual whom we are addressing. For the same reason the Theotokos, all the saints, and the angels should be addressed as “thou.”

It may be argued, in justification of using the plural pronoun, You, instead of Thou, in addressing God, that the singular pronouns Thou and Thee have fallen into disuse. That they have fallen into disuse in everyday life is true. However, this is not a ground for avoiding Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine in our Liturgical life. Everyone who knows English knows the meaning of these words.

It may be added that these forms sound more poetic than the words “you” and “your,” and fit well with the language generally employed in Orthodox Church services, which favors poetic diction. The services of the Orthodox Church in Greek and Slavonic are highly poetic.

Furthermore, it is to be noted that writers of international repute, who have published learned treatises on Byzantine hymnography, and have translated Greek hymns into English—such as John Mason Neale, John Brownlie, H.J.W. Tillyard, and Egon Wellesz—have used in their translations the pronoun Thou and its derivatives. Thus they have given clear, unambiguous expression to the teaching of the Orthodox Church that the Holy Trinity is one God—a monas (monad), a unity—and that our relation to the Holy Trinity is an “I-Thou” relation.

Another term used in the Liturgical life of the Church that needs correction is the closing one in the Lord’s Prayer. In the King James Version of the New Testament this prayer has the statement: “Deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13). This is a rendition of the Greek statement: “Rysai hemas apo tou ponerou.” In the Revised Standard Version again we find the phrase: “Deliver us from evil.” But here the translators have wisely added the footnote: “Or from the evil one.”

Taken by itself, the statement “Rysai hemas apo tou ponerou,” may be interpreted as meaning either. “Deliver us from evil” or “Deliver us from the evil one.” In which sense the statement is to be taken has to be determined by considering whether the word poneros—of which ponerou is the genitive case—is clearly used in the New Testament to denote “the evil one,” that is, the devil.

One who reads the original Greek New Testament finds that indeed it is so used. Thus, in the Parable of the Sower and the seed we read: “The field [in which the seed is sowed] is the world; the good seed are the children of the Kingdom; but the tares are the children of the evil one (tou ponerou); the enemy that sowed them is the devil (ho diabolos)” (Matt. 13: 38-39). In the King James Version: “tou ponerou” in this verse is rendered “the wicked one,” while in the Revised Standard Version “tou ponerou” is rendered “the evil one.”

The Greek Church Fathers, who were very careful and illuminated students of Holy Scripture, are very emphatic that in The Lord’s Prayer the statement “Deliver us apo tou ponerou” means: “Deliver us from the evil one”—that is, from the devil. Thus, St. John Chrysostom, commenting on this passage in Homily XIX, On the Gospel According to Matthew, says: “He (Christ) calls the devil the evil one (ho poneros), commanding us to wage against him (the devil) a war that knows no truce.”

Similarly, St. John Climacos, in his famous Ladder of Divine Ascent, remarks: “An evil person (poneros) is a namesake and companion of the devil; that is why the Lord taught us to so name the devil, saying: ‘Deliver us from the evil one’“ (The Ladder of Divine Ascent, trans. by Lazarus Moore, New York, ca. 1960, p. 188).

Also, Blessed Theophylaktos of Bulgaria, commenting on the statement, “Deliver us from the evil one,” remarks: “He (Christ) did not say, from evil men, for it is not they who do us harm, but the devil” (Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew, House Springs, Missouri, 1992, pp. 58-59).

Having made these general introductory observations, I shall now proceed to discuss terms pertaining to God, the Theotokos, the Saints, Iconography, Architecture (the Church Building), Church Hymnography, and Sacred Music.

SOURCE:

Cavarnos, Dr. Constantine, Orthodox Christian Terminology, (Belmont, MS: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1994), pp. 9-21.