POINTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE, 2  

“Hence, the Liturgy, even when translated into the language of the people, has always been rendered in a refined literary language.  And this is how the Liturgy has been translated into English by liturgical scholars who understand the history of the Liturgy both from an academic and from a spiritual perspective.  Modern ‘you-who’ language in English, for example, is not consistent with the magnificent imagery of the Orthodox Liturgy.  That such language is becoming popular even among would-be Orthodox scholars is, perhaps, a clear statement about how little they understand the internal mystery and awe of the Liturgy.  And one who becomes preoccupied with the language of the Liturgy is often bereft of a clear grasp of what the Liturgy is -- a statement of Faith in which noetic knowledge is transmitted, at times, between the words!”

Those who do not appreciate this have “either fallen under the sway of these modernist Orthodox who miss the ‘wordless’ message of the Liturgy and its noetic qualities, being preoccupied as they are with externals, or  forgotten that, while understanding is important in the Liturgy (and thus we must study it and know its contents), spiritual and noetic knowledge are its goal and content.  …pontificating is a sign of spiritual pride, if I may add a personal addendum to what I have said,”  … they are “thus building up, in the name of a worthy argument (understanding the Liturgy), a spiritual impediment to the greater dimension of the Liturgy, which goes beyond words.  We must understand it, in the end, as a mystery that speaks the inner language of the soul.”

  And regarding my observation that “I have seen one [canon] saying the Trisagion must be chanted in Greek!” -  the Archbishop continues:-

“These Nomo-Canons of various kinds and provenance are not to be confused with dogmatic Canons, of course; and yet, they often are.  Thus all of the noise about what ‘the Canons’ say and the ignorant use of the word ‘uncanonical’; these words, more often than not, are used in a senseless way to make a point that they were never meant to make.  Simple regulations do not touch on dogmatic matters.”

And I added: “Is there a canon about using the vernacular?  One day I shall have to read the canons, but for now can you help?”

“Again, not to the best of my knowledge, though I would do well to read the Canons again, as well, so as to be able to know what is and is not mentioned in them.  But then I would have the problem of which collection to use and would be forced to write a treatise on the difference between canonical regulations, canonical restrictions, canonical proscriptions and prescriptions, and the matter of Canons as they preserve dogmatic truth and as they maintain mere administrative order.  I am not up to the task, I am afraid.  At any rate, I do know that what I have written represents the teachings of the best canonists and several very good theologians.  If my expertise is nothing (and it is) theirs is certainly reliable.

“I commend you for using numerous languages in Liturgy.  We do the same, and for the same reasons.  Moreover, the catholicity of such a practice speaks for itself.”