Languages

[DoctorM]

Hmmm... A question tonight for anyone of my fellow members out there over the aether...

The Church in Torenth-- whatever is its ecclesiastical language. If the Western Church uses Latin for its ceremonies and rituals and internal communications, what's the equivalent ecclesiastical language in Torenth? What's the equivalent of Old Church Slavonic (or...Greek, maybe)? If there's a Torenthi ordinary tongue, what would the Church tongue be called? Any thoughts?

Most of my books are in storage, so it's not something I can just look up. And for...reasons...I will need to be contrasting Eastern and Western styles and ceremonies...particularly weddings and coronations....

[Bynw]

I don't currently have access to most of my novel copies either for the same reason. I have them in storage. But if memory serves me correctly the Torenthi Church uses Greek and they also cross themselves, as the stories put it, in the Eastern manner. So it would be slightly different pattern from the Western church of Gwynedd and surrounding areas.

[DoctorM]

Thanks!

At the moment I have characters bemused and annoyed at the prospect of having to have two different wedding ceremonies to placate two churches and make sure that potential allies East and West can't question the marriage.

[DesertRose]

King Kelson's Bride is really the best book in terms of comparing the Torenthi and Gwyneddan churches, and @Bynw already answered the main question; the Torenthi Church uses Greek for its liturgical language (although the language may be called something else in the Eleven Kingdoms).  It does seem that the Gwyneddan church refers to Latin by its real-world name, so you could probably just say "Greek."  It would be easier on readers, too. 

I know, vis-a-vis the crossing oneself bit, in the real world, the Western churches go to the left shoulder first and the Orthodox go to the right.

Disclaimer:  I grew up United Methodist.

To me, the Orthodox way makes more sense; between the words that generally go with crossing oneself being "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and the part in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that goes ". . . [the Son] is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty," it just seems intuitive to start at the head for "the Father," then go to the right for "the Son." 

[DoctorM]

Ah, now. Thank you. I have a wedding scene to sketch out, and I've  been pondering rituals and languages.

[Laurna]

Oh neat!  I love weddings. DoctorM I look forward to reading what you are creating.

[DoctorM]

Why, thank you! I'm going to try to have it up this weekend.

[Shiral]

For the Church of Torenth, I believe the Greek and Russian Orthodox Church would be the closest parallel in terms of ritual and "the flavor" of it, if you get my meaning.
Do please keep writing!
Melissa

[DoctorM]

For the Church of Torenth, I believe the Greek and Russian Orthodox Church would be the closest parallel in terms of ritual and "the flavor" of it, if you get my meaning.
Do please keep writing!
Melissa

Thank you! I did use Russian Orthodox ritual in "Rings"--- and I will keep writing!

[lenni]

I know, vis-a-vis the crossing oneself bit, in the real world, the Western churches go to the left shoulder first and the Orthodox go to the right.
<snip>
To me, the Orthodox way makes more sense; between the words that generally go with crossing oneself being "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and the part in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that goes ". . . [the Son] is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty," it just seems intuitive to start at the head for "the Father," then go to the right for "the Son." 

I'm (Roman) Catholic. The sign of the cross (as we do it) is thus:
<forehead> In the name of the Father
<lower chest/stomach> and of the Son
<left shoulder> and of the Holy
<right shoulder> Spirit. Amen.

Not sure (although I could find out) if the verbiage is the same for the Orthodox. I'm also not sure why there is a difference between which shoulder is touched first.

Kathleen/Lenni

[Frère de Saint-Gabriel]

Very late to the game, here.

The origins of the difference between the Eastern and Western ways of Christians crossing themselves is not known with any certainty. It is likely that the original form of crossing oneself was with the thumb on the forehead, duplicating the way that the presbyter (priest) or bishop had chrismated the newly-baptized person. The presbyter or bishop would dip the distal pad of his thumb in the holy oil and would then trace a cross on the newly-baptized person's forehead, top to bottom, then left to right (because the oil is on the pad of the thumb, not the thumbnail. (Try the motion yourself, and you'll see what I mean.) This is still done in Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican and Lutheran churches.

The gesture, with the top-bottom-left-right movements, is duplicated in the way that priest and pastors, West and East, give a blessing.

All of this is the same, East and West, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, liturgical Protestant (Anglicans and Lutherans).

So why the difference when the faithful cross themselves? Some liturgical scholars have speculated that in the East, the way that people cross themselves duplicates the way that they were chrismated (anointed with oil) after baptism—or at least, in traditional Anglican and Lutheran baptismal liturgies, were signed with the cross: top-bottom-right-left, which is the way that they would have received the oil when the priest did top-bottom-left-right. In the West, people duplicated in on themselves exactly the movement of the priest or bishop in blessing them or in applying the oil.