The liturgies of the Russian Orthodox Church are already in Russian. There would be no need to translate them into Russian.
Western Orthodox liturgies are generally in Latin. We were talking about worship within the west, and, as I have covered already, I do not support having Russian Orthodoxy beyond the bounds of Russia.
I'm curious as to how you would apply your inculturation-based approach in non-Christian cultures. Borrowing from Lutheran ceremonial in Germany makes sense, but what would one do in, say, Nepal? I've only ever heard of Western Orthodox stuff in English... where would one find something like that in Latin?
You'd have to ask someone with far deeper knowledge of Nepal than myself. The Diocese of the British Isles uses the Sarum Rite I gather this is done both in the original Latin and in BCP-ish English under the title "The Book of Parochial Use" https://www.dowryworkshop.co.uk/product-page/book-of-parochial-use-sarum-rite
Yes, but they are not the authentic liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Yes, you have but you have not given any good reason why people who are of Russian decent should not have their Church where they live even if that is outside Russia. You not supporting it is irrelevant. If you moved to, say, Greece, would you accept being forced to worship in the Greek Orthodox Church? After all, Greece is its proper territory. We cannot have the Free Church of England in Greece. I am not sure we should even have it in Scotland. You ought, by your own standards, to be worshipping in the Kirk in Gaelic.
Not the institution of the Greek Orthodox Church, but I would accept worshipping according to a Byzantine patrimony. I do not advocate the expansion of English patrimony into Scotland but do instead advocate for the use of either James VI's prayer book for Scotland (a document blending Knox' Book of Common Order and the 1552 BCP) or a reformed revision of Charles I's prayer book for Scotland which has been the foundation of episcopal worship in Scotland since that time. 1) You seem to mistake my advocacy for the maintenance of national patrimony as maintenance for conformity with the national churches. 2) Gaelic has never been the dominant language of my county and, even if it had been in the past, as an Anglican I would advocate for the use of a known tongue, in accordance with Article XXIV, and here Gaelic is most certainly not a known tongue. Were I for whatever reason sent as a missionary to a Gaelic-speaking region of Scotland, which would be odd given the increased religiosity of such Scots anyway, I would indeed endeavour to learn Gaelic, not only for daily use but for services. I should note that Gaelic is not even the standard language of the Church of Scotland, that being English, so your comment is simply non-sensical. (The Gaelic for church is eaglais, not kirk, kirk is Scots)
Very interesting to see the language influences of different groups upon the Isles' inhabitants. "Kirk" comes from the northern European influence (Germanic, Norse, etc) while "Eaglais" holds more similarity to the south European languages (Spanish "Iglesia," etc.) which all show the Greek influence ("Ecclesia"). Of course it's a nice reminder of the rich history of your area and of the various groups who came to conquer and settle there.
I'm not mistaking anything other the idea you haven't fully explained but where you have some idea of what you think is the patrimony of a place and how you believe it should be applied, regardless of the wishes of anyone else. I don't speak Gaelic nor do I claim to do so. As far as I'm aware I don't know a single Gaelic word. Therefore, when I wrote Kirk I was not trying to write the Gaelic for church. I was using a term used to generically refer to the Church of Scotland.
If Kirk comes from the Norse word for religious circle "kyrkja" then it actually has a Greek influence too. Kyrkja entered into the nascent Germanic languages from the Greek term κυριακόν (Kyriakon - Lord's, or something possessed by the Lord). The Germans naturally adopted it to mean an area possessed by the God's, which I guess eventually becomes a loan word for church when that becomes a thing. The word had an 1100 year long linguistic journey from Greece, to Germania, to Scandinavia, to North England/Southern Scotland before becoming the word used today. Fascinating stuff how languages share vocabulary like that. I wonder what the world's languages will look like in 200 years given how much easier it is to share words than ever before.
That I am a member of the Free Church of England is surely sufficient proof that I do not believe that one must worship within the nationally established church? Yet you claim that my principles demand all in Greece must worship in the Greek Orthodox Church and that all in Scotland must worship in the Church of Scotland. I recognise that you have a cross-border understanding of liturgies in which it is just as fitting for an Anglican in England to pray according to the English BCP as it is for an Anglican anywhere else. This is not a view I share, but, given how minor a point this is in the grand scheme of things, and given that our ideals in this area would always have to give way to practicalities anyway, I see no point in continuing this further. Nonetheless I have appreciated this conversation.
Not surprised at your attempt at de-platforming. However, with respect to conversing with each other our sentiments match exactly.
De-platforming? You are free to speak here as you wish, and I have no objection to you continuing to do so. I'm even happy to engage in conversation with you, I just think we've both ground this particular matter into the ground. I'm sufficiently young that a change in my views is likely inevitable. If that happens, I'd be happy to discuss even this matter again with you.
Seems to make little sense as Anglicanism is inevitably a Western catholic, Reformed Protestant tradition