“I WAS TOLD last week that in the services it is canonical to use only the language of the country you are in.  Is this right? - because most churches in this country do not, and even here and at the Convent, we use several languages”  -  Anon.,  London.

I ADMIT that I was rather stumped by this question, because I am not at all well-versed in the canons, and could only call to mind one that touched on the language of the service, and that indicated that in one instance at least we should not be using the vernacular.  A footnote to Canon 81 of the Sixth Œcumenical Council remarks that the Emperor Theodosius the Lesser ordered that the trisagion always be chanted in Greek and that as a consequence Saint Sabbas the Sanctified, who had separate services in Armenian for his Armenian disciples, nonetheless ordered that this hymn be always chanted in Greek.  Apparently the Latin churches also chanted it in Greek.  As you might know, we sometimes do so at the Convent.  However, being at a loss for an authoritative answer on the broader question, I e-mailed Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna and asked his thoughts.  He replied as follows:-

“THIS IS an interesting question. There is no question at all, as most liturgical scholars aver, that the desire to retain a sense of unity with the ancient Christian community, in which Greek (the lingua franca of the time) was the dominant language, led to a great reluctance in adopting Latin, when it became the popular vernacular language.  This sentiment persisted for centuries in the West, where Latin itself became a putative ‘link to Apostolicity.’  At the same time, the Fathers, from the earliest times, saw the Liturgy as an instructional tool, as well as a devotional exercise.  This interplay between liturgical traditional (or Liturgy as tradition) and instruction is still with us today.

“It is obvious, then, that, while it became an axiom that the people should understand the Liturgy (and in the Eastern Church there was great latitude, for this reason, in allowing the Liturgy to be celebrated in the language of the people), this did not reach the level of canonical regulation, to the best of my knowledge.  If such an obscure canon exists, then it certainly addresses the issue of the people knowing what the Liturgy is about and not just the issue of the language in which it is celebrated.

“I should also note, in reiterating this last point, that the Liturgy was, from the very outset of Christianity, in very beautiful, rich, and poetic language.  It is a misnomer, largely perpetuated by Protestant Biblical literalists, that the koine of the New Testament was a ‘common’ language (and thus vulgar and available to any individual who speaks); koine Greek was only ‘common’ in the sense of being spoken commonly by all people in the ‘known world’ of that time as a lingua franca.  The New Testament was written in a profoundly exalted, poetic, and rich language and not a street language. …  It was written in a style similar to that of Scripture (which is paraphrased throughout it) and has to be studied as assiduously as New Testamental Scripture to be understood.  The assumption about a ‘simple’ Liturgy that can be understood like a grocery list or a newspaper advertisement is borrowed from the same poor (if ubiquitous) Protestant Biblical scholarship that defiles the mystery of Scripture.