Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

Liturgical Renewal

Fr. Victor: Fr. Zinon, many understand the renaissance of the Orthodox Church in an external
sense; I should like to discuss its true, inner renaissance, the deepening of our ecclesiastical
awareness. In speaking about the life of the Church, about life in the Church, let's begin with
what is most important-the Mystery of Baptism.
Fr. Zinon: In recent years there have been many new discoveries in the field of liturgics. Ancient
manuscripts have been found of church rites, and other liturgical texts. They shed light on the life
of the early Church, on those aspects which later were subject to change-whether for historical
reasons, by chance, or simply by human volition. And if we are to speak about liturgical renewal,
then we must speak first of all about those distortions which we have introduced into our church
life and which we alone can and should rectify.
You mentioned Baptism. The problems concerning the reception of new members into the
Church are many. Their solution demands great effort, patience and time. But there are problems
which are fairly easy to solve. However, whether out of negligence or for some other reason,
they persist, and this raises a disquieting thought, that if the simpler problems cannot be
resolved, what can be said about more major problems? I have in mind here the manner in which
baptisms are performed.
Here [in Russia] the practice of sprinkling instead of immersion is almost universal. And to think
that this was the source of so many disputes with the Roman Catholics. In Slavonic the very
word "baptism" means immersion. Our forefathers used to say: krestisa korabl (lit: the ship was
baptized), i.e., it sank, it was submerged. In the Gospel Christ reproaches the pharisees for
observing ordinances concerning the washing [in Slavonic the word is kreshcheniye, "baptizing"]
of cups and pots (Mark 7:8), while neglecting the cleansing of the heart.
"As many as have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into His death" (cf. Rom. 6:3).
Baptism is an image of burial, and immersion obviously corresponds more closely to the essence
of this great Mystery.
Fr. Victor: A young fellow came to me recently asking to be rebaptized. "I was baptized very
quickly, clothed, and I felt nothing," he said. Baptism must be preceded by spiritual
enlightenment and repentance. In the early Christian Church, the community took upon itself the
care of catechumens and carefully, like a loving mother, prepared them for the Mystery: they
instructed them in the faith, chose their sponsors. In the Ss. Peter and Paul Brotherhood in Riga,
which was recently revived with the blessing of Metropolitan Leonid, this tradition is being
restored-with fruitful results. But such examples in today's church life are few.
Fr. Zinon: I fear that if each rector of a parish, or someone else, would do this on his own, this
would be an individual action and it would be doomed to failure.
For example: a man comes to me desiring to be baptized. I tell him, "You can't be baptized right
away; you must first learn about the faith. Go to church, learn the basics of faith, get acquainted
with the services, test yourself-the firmness of your intention: can you change your life, can you
become a totally different person from what you were before..." He seems to agree, but then
takes his request-whether consciously or by chance-to another priest, and the latter tells him:
"What is all this, by all means you must be baptized right away. Don't listen to that other priest;
he's full of inventions." If the man goes to another, and to a third priest and they all tell him the
same thing, he'll have to submit and accept the conditions. If, however, he approaches the
Mystery more seriously, with more preparation, it will be for him an important event in his life.

Only in emergency cases, when a person was near death, was he baptized immediately. But these
were unique cases.
The general practice was this: a prayer was read over the person desiring to enter the Church and
he was joined to the catechumenate. His name was entered on a special list. The catechumenate
lasted from one to three years, depending on local practice, and only then was he found worthy
of Holy Baptism. And this day was a feast for the entire local Church. It is absolutely essential
that the above be revived in our time; when people are so inconstant, so light-minded, it's better
to test the sincerity of their intention with time.
Regarding infants-Fr. Alexander Schmemann discusses this at length in his book, Of Water and
the Spirit. The practice of baptizing children became firmly rooted only in the age of
Constantine, when marriages became fully churchly and there was greater assurance that the
baptized children would be raised in faith and piety. For in the time of the early Church it often
happened that the husband was a pagan and the wife a Christian, and it was unclear how the
child would grow up-as a Christian or as a pagan. Children of unbelieving parents shouldn't be
baptized at all, certainly not secretly from the parents. Today it often happens that the godparents
themselves are not baptized, and the parents are not even believers. Here I should like to cite a
passage from the "Homily on Holy Baptism" of St. Gregory the Theologian:
"...what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor
of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses....But in respect of
others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they
may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do
not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctity them
in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration." (XXVIII)
Today the opinion is widespread that an infant who dies unbaptized is doomed to eternal torment.
In the Synaxarion for Saturday of Meatfare Week, when the Church commemorates the dead of
all ages, there is a passage which speaks of infants dying without Holy Baptism; they do not
experience blessedness but neither do they enter torment but are kept by God in a special place.
The same hierarch speaks of those who "fail to receive the Gift [of Baptism]...not so much
through wickedness as through ignorance or tyranny" [i.e. involuntary] ...these "will be neither
glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge..." (XXIII)
Nowadays the person being baptized is told that the Mystery of Baptism cleanses from original
sin, that he receives grace, without which it is impossible to be saved. However, he misses the
full grandeur of the Mystery because it has long ago been divorced from the Liturgy (with which
it should be joined, just as the Mysteries of Ordination and Matrimony), and has become a
separate rite. The newly-illumined one is fortunate if he vaguely understands that he has become
a member of God's people, a member of the Body of Christ and a new creature. Since Baptism
has been severed from the Liturgy, the entire community, the whole local Church does not
participate in it, and for this reason there is no sense of being ushered into the Church as an
assembly of brethren. And after Holy Baptism a person generally lives on his own, as
circumstances dictate. It is a great misfortune that a person coming to church does not feel that
he has entered some kind of community, a family, where people remember him, care for him, pay
attention to him. If he doesn't take the intiative to become acquainted with anyone, no one will
ask him anything; people may offend him or simply disregard him. If he comes-fine, if he
doesn't-that's also fine. No one will look for him or offer their help.
All this is evidence that we have no real communities among us; our church life has become
individualized, it has become a personal matter. Each person lives and struggles on his own, and

for this reason he often can't accept another's spiritual experience, which differs slightly from his
own. The sad fruits of this situation are mutual estrangement, withdrawal, a hardness. I often
hear from people zealous for salvation strange words: "How good it was to pray in church today;
it was almost empty and no one bothered you; you could hide and concentrate." This is private
prayer. That is what Christ referred to when He said, When you pray, shut your door and pray to
your Father Who is in Heaven. But church prayer carries a entirely different set of requirements.
Here everyone "with one mouth and one heart" glorifies the One Heavenly Father.
Fr. Victor: In apostolic times, in the early Church Christians lived according to the
commandment: "always everyone and always together". Today's Christians have forgotten this
commandment and, in the words of Archpriest Nicholas Afanasiev, they desire somehow "to
withdraw from everyone and stand alone before God, in order to receive something personal." If
we can understand that the foundation of Church life lies in sobornost, i.e., in being always
together, then we shall discover the true nature of the Eucharist-the center of life in Christ. But
while we continue to violate the Church's unity, withdrawing outside its borders, our frequent
individual reception of the Holy Mysteries says nothing about liturgical renewal.
Fr. Zinon: The main condition for performing the Eucharist is the gathering of the community
with its leader. All the members of the Church are brought together by love for Christ and for one
another. A great deal was written about the Church and sobornost-and with great feeling-by the
Slavophiles, especially A. Khomiakov. He defines the Church not as a community (all our
catechisms use this word) but as a single grace of the Holy Spirit, living in many individuals.
This is very true. The principle of sobornost is a distinctive feature of the Church, and we must
all work towards its restoration, even though this requires great effort, time, and-what is most
important-great self-sacrifice.
Frequent communion, if this is individual, that is, if each decides for himself when he will or will
not partake of the Divine Mysteries, will not solve anything. Liturgy is a common affair. The
prayers of the Liturgy are not addressed to two different categories of congregants: those who
communicate and those who simply attend. The Eucharist is a Supper; one can only partake of it.
To merely look on while others eat is rather strange. Why does the Church not let catechumens
remain to watch the faithful communicate and instead, with repeated exclamations, orders them
to leave the temple? Because all the members of the assembly serve, they give thanks, and this
presupposes that they have all partaken of the Eucharist. Catechumens, not illuminated with
Holy Baptism, cannot partake of the celebration nor consume the Eucharist. Therefore, one
cannot speak of attending Liturgy; one can only speak of participating in it. On hearing these
words, many will be surprised and taken aback. This only proves how far we've come from the
original understanding of the Eucharist. Valsamon notes that in his time far from all Christians
received Holy Communion at each Liturgy, but they left the church together with the
catechumens and penitents. Even the Patriarch, he says, when he did not serve or receive the
Holy Mysteries, left the church after the reading of the Gospel.
Nor can one speak of partaking "spiritually"; the Church acknowledges only actual partaking.
It is very important that communion become a common affair of the entire community, which
gathers precisely for this purpose. In the early Church everyone participated in the Divine
Liturgy. The bread and wine were brought by the faithful (the word "prosphora" signifies
"offering", and in one of the proskomedia prayers are the words, "Remember those who offer
and those for whom these gifts are offered"), the deacons chose the best for celebrating the
Mystery, and what remained was left for the agape. Even orphan children, who were in the care
of the Church and had nothing of their own, brought water; that was their offering.

The day of the Eucharist proper was the day of the Lord, that is, Sunday and great feasts.
Christians would take the Holy Gifts home with them and partake of them daily. The daily
celebration of the Liturgy is a monastic practice, which later spread to parishes, prompted by a
desire for daily communion. For this reason, Liturgies without communicants or commissioned
Liturgies are absolutely unthinkable. Just imagine: an individual puts in a request for a common
celebration (which is the actual meaning of the word "liturgy"), and no one even attends!
The holy hierarch St. Basil the Great advises Christians to gather four times a week for the
celebration of the Eucharist: on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. As an ideal, however,
he recommends daily participation.
There exists a rule from one of the Ecumenical Councils, which, incidentally, was never
changed: if a Christian, without good reason, does not participate in two or three Eucharistic
gatherings (i.e., does not partake of the Holy Mysteries), he is separated from the Church, or
rather, he separates himself from Christ.
Granted, not everyone can suddenly attain to this. But to speak about this is essential; everyone
should strive towards this.
Fr. Victor: When St. Seraphim was asked how often one should partake of the Holy Mysteries he
said, the more often the better.
Fr. Zinon: In the Greater Catechism it is said that those zealous for salvation should commuicate
four times a year, or at least once a year. Today this sounds strange. No one follows this
instruction; life itself has changed this. Already St. John of Kronstadt taught quite otherwise. Fr.
Victor: In many parishes today there is a custom of receiving the Holy Mysteries only once a
year, on Pascha. I ask my parishioners: "If I were to feed you only once a year, would you
survive until the next Pascha?" Fr. Zinon: Just as earthly food is necessary for the life of the
body, so it is that heavenly food is necessary for the soul. When we pray, "Give us this day our
daily bread," we ask for that Bread which comes from heaven, because even those who do not
ask receive ordinary bread, i.e., even unbelievers, even enemies of God. In the Greek text the
word "daily" is epiousion, the prefix "epi" means "over", "above", "supra"; i.e., in the literal
translation it means "supra-essential", not ordinary but rather the Body of Christ. This is why we
say the Lord's Prayer during Liturgy before Holy Communion.
Fr. Victor: Even if only two or three people are present, this is already an assembly and one can
sense the fullness of the Church and its essence. Fr. Zinon: Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov)
recalls: when he lived in the desert a monk used to come to him in order to sing during the
Liturgy. There were only the two of them, but he notes that he never felt any deficiency. There
was the same fullness as in a church filled with people. Fr Victor: Our dear batiushka, Fr.
Seraphim from Rakitino, told us how as a boy he once went into a church where an old priest
was serving together with an old deacon, and what great joy he experienced in prayer, from
simply being with them.
Fr. Zinon: I also recall that in Fr. Alexander Shmemann's book, The Eucharist, he says that
Russian emigres, finding themselves in straightened circumstances, when cellars and garages
served as churches, came to see the impossibility of celebrating the Liturgy in the Byzantine
style with all its external splendor, with its many entrances and exits. On the other hand, they had
such a genuine sense of Christ's presence in these wretched churches! And this experience was
for them very beneficial and instructive. For many people today, especially young people who
come to church for the first time, who have not yet entered the flow of church life and learned to
think in its terms-there is much that is altogether foreign.

We must remember that we received the ritual of services from Byzantium together with the
Faith. Our Liturgical rite contains many elements which came from the Byzantine court tradition,
since the Patriarch and Emperor were always present at the services. For modern man the very
idea of monarchy is almost incomprehensible, and all the rites connected with this idea seem
anachronistic; they don't seem to amount to anything.
Fr. Victor: One could do away with some of these elements without any detriment to the Liturgy.
Fr. Zinon: I've been told that Archbishop Chrysostom of Vilnius almost always serves according
to the priestly rank. I think this is good, since it eliminates many bows, "Eis pola, eti despota...",
etc. which distract from what is most important.
Fr. Victor: But such an understanding of the Liturgy first requires that people be enlightened.
Fr. Zinon: Absolutely. If one were today to substitute all the singing in the church with reading
(which would in no way impair the Liturgy), many would understand that they come to church
for the wrong reason. The Great Eucharist consists not in great external majesty but in the fact
that it is an unheard of gift of God to man; it is that good which eye hath not seen nor ear heard,
neither hath entered into the heart of man...
Fr. Victor: What place should the icon have in liturgical renewal? Fr. Zinon: In speaking about
the icon, one could say that today it does not occupy its rightful place in the divine service, nor is
there a proper attitude towards iconography. It has long ceased to be regarded as "theology in
color"; people don't even suspect that it is capable of conveying the teaching of the Church just
like the word, and that it can likewise give false witness instead of witnessing to the Truth. The
icon has become a mere illustration of the celebrated event, and for this reason it doesn't matter
what form it takes, because nowadays even photographs are venerated as icons.
Properly, however, an icon does not depict; it reveals. It is the revelation of the Kingdom of
Christ, a revelation of the transfigured, renewed, deified creation. An icon is born from the living
experience of Heaven, from the Liturgy, and therefore iconography was always regarded as
church service, as Liturgy. High moral demands were placed on iconographers, the same as
clergy. Iconographers were highly regarded; in ancient Rus' iconography was a matter of state
importance.
The influence of Western theology, and various irregularities in Eucharistic life led to the fact
that the icon often became a picture of a religious subject, and veneration of the icon ceased
being Orthodox, in the full sense.
Here it would be fitting to say a few words about those depictions which the Church forbids, but
which one can find in almost any church. Iconography is a conciliar art, i.e., the art of the
Church. The real creators of the icon are the Holy Fathers. The canon of iconography was
formulated over the course of centuries and arrived at the form we have now somewhere in the
twelfth century. The Church always paid a great deal of attention to her art, taking care that it
should accurately reflect her teaching. All deviations were removed by a conciliar process. At the
Stoglav Council, for example, the question of iconography occupied a very important place. In
particular, the icon of the Holy Trinity was discussed, since at that time icons of the "Paternity"
and the "New Testament Trinity" had become widespread.
The Old Testament prohibition against depicting God is not removed in New Testament times. It
became possible for us to depict God only after the Word became flesh, became visible and

sensible. In His Diviniey, however, Christ is not depictable, but inasmuch as in Jesus Christ the
divine and human essences were joined seamlessly and indivisibly into one Person, we depict the
God-Man Christ, Who for our salvation came into the world and is present in it to the end of the
ages.
Now, let us take the icon of the New Testament Trinity. The Church teaches us about the birth of
the Son from the Father "before all ages." But in the icon we see the Son, incarnate in time,
sitting beside the Father, Who did not become incarnate and Who is "Ineffable, Invisible,
Inconceivable" (prayer at the anaphora during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). The Holy
Spirit appeared in the form of a dove only at the Jordan (on Pentecost He appeared as tongues of
fire, on Mount Tabor-as a cloud); therefore, one cannot say that the dove is the particular image
of the Holy Spirit; He can be depicted as such only in icons of the Lord's Baptism. I think that
this suffices to show the impossibility of such an icon. The image of the Holy Trinity is an
altogether arbitrary joining of various elements, torn out of the context of the economy of our
salvation.
And despite the fact that both the Stoglav and the Great Moscow Councils forbade such
depictions, one can find them in every church, everywhere icons are sold. Even in St. Daniel's
monastery [in Moscow]-where nearly everyone has a higher theological education-an icon of the
"Paternity" was painted for the iconostasis of the Church of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical
Councils! One can only be amazed how the personal and human can prevail over the mind of the
Church, which alone is the guardian and expounder of Truth.
There exist four icons of the Holy Trinity. They are indicated in the rite of the blessing of these
icons in our Book of Needs (Trebnik). These are: the Old Testament appearance to Abraham (in
the form of three Angles), the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, Theophany and
Transfiguration. All other depictions must be discarded as distorting the teaching of the Church.
Last year a wonderful book was published in Paris, L. A. Ouspensky's The Theology of Icons of
the Orthodox Church. In it is a chapter, "On the path to unity," which examines the icon of
Pentecost as the icon of the Church. Why is it that the Mother of God cannot be present in such
an icon? And why does the Pentecost icon cease to be an icon of the Church if the Mother of
God is depicted? Why does it become simply an icon of the Theotokos surrounded by the
apostles?
In this icon we see sitting on Mount Sion the Apostles, representing the first Church community,
the beginning of the Christian Church. (Here it should be noted that an icon is not a depiction of
a concrete historical event, but rather the theological exegesis of the event. In the Pentecost icon
St. Paul-who was not present-is depicted, and likewise St. Luke, who was not of the twelve.) The
Head of the Church is Christ. He left no successor or locum tenens on earth, and for this reason
the center of the icon remains empty. This place belongs to Christ as the Head of the Church.
Clearly, no one else can be depicted here.
Here we will add a few words about the blessing of icons. Very often, seeing a newly-painted
icon and desiring to venerate it, people ask: Is it sanctified (osviachshennaya)? This is not an
ancient custom. (In the Book of Needs, the rite is called "blessing" not "sanctification" and
should be regarded as an adornment by the Church of the given icon, not as a sacramental act. In
buying a new Bible, no one thinks of having it blessed according to some rite before reading it.)
This rite first appears only in the Great Book of Needs of Peter Mogila (no such rite is found in
any Book of Needs of the pre-Nikonian period). The icon was identified and after this it was
considered sanctified. It is not the material object which is venerated but the prototype of the
depicted image. The inscription is necessary, as we said earlier, in order that the spirit of the

person praying would be confirmed, i.e., in order that the one praying knows precisely whom he
is invoking, since the iconography for many saints is similar. For example, if there were no
inscription on the icon of St. Cyril of White-Lake, one could mistake him for St. Sergius of
Radonezh or another early monk-ascetic.
An icon must be painted only on durable material, not on paper or glass or other fragile material.
Usually it is on wood.
In the Moscow Patriarchate Journal, 1989, No. 10, there is an article by L. A. Ouspensky about
colors in icons. It explains very simply and convincingly why a colored photograph is
unacceptable for use in church: it only imitates color; it has no color of its own. For this reason it
cannot serve as a substitute for a painted icon. An icon must witness to the Truth, and here we
introduce something false, artificial; this cannot be. Fr. Victor: This is the same as having
artificial flowers in church. Patriarch Alexis I asked that they not be brought into church, because
there is no truth in them.
Fr. Zinon: Even earlier, Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow said that imitation gems and
imitation metals should not be used in church not because they are not costly but because they
contain falsehood. Gold was always costly; where it was unattainable, ordinary but natural
materials were used. For example, the traditional background for icons has always been gold leaf
(or silver). In poor churches, especially in northern Russia, all backgrounds were painted with
light colors. To be more precise, "background" is not a Russian word; iconographers call it
"light".
Fr. Victor: Because God is light.
Fr. Zinon: And lives in unapproachable light.
Fr. Victor: One can say that nowadays we see a decline in religious understanding; the dogma of
icon veneration has been forgotten, supplanted with the veneration of artificiality. And this is not
simply forgetfulness, but rather a rupture with the living Tradition of the Church, a scornful
attitude towards the Holy Fathers and to the decrees of the Ecumenical and Local Councils. One
must restore the veneration of icons in its genuine significance.
Fr. Zinon: This problem must be resolved at the Synod level; it should be a matter for the whole
Church. Today churches are being returned to us, monasteries. They all require iconographers,
but so far there isn't a proper school for iconographers. I know many young people, talented and
eager to study, but the means for this are lacking. Some are tied to families and can't travel far,
others are free but have nowhere to study. Our hierarchs have made efforts to increase the
number of clergy: diocesan schools are opening, there are courses for readers, seminaries. But I
have yet to hear of any school-even a small one-for iconographers. And this despite the fact that
almost every week someone comes to me with a request to paint an iconostasis or fresco a
church. Here is further evidence that the icon has been eliminated from the divine services; it is
no longer given due attention. What is sold in church kiosks, the mass reproductions produced in
the shops of the Moscow Patriarchate, do not comply with the requirements applied to church
art.
In the Synodal period there appeared many depictions which can plainly be called mockeries,
parodies of icons. Last time I gave you to read some letters by Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov. In
one of them he writes that he saw not icons, but caricatures of icons. At best these could be
called well-executed paintings, but by no means icons. This was written in the last century, when
churches were filled with this sort of art and the Orthodox icon was branded as "Old-Believer" or

barbaric art. (The well-known historian, Karamzin, seeing the ancient frescoes in Novgorod's St.
Sophia Cathedral, called them "barbarian".)
Fr. Victor: L. A. Ouspensky, in his book, The Theology of the Orthodox Icon, accurately
observes that in the iconoclast period the Church fought on behalf of the icon, while in our time
of troubles the icon is battling for the Church.
Fr. Zinon: In our contemporary society, man has become literally swamped by all kinds of
information. This has resulted in an attitude of indifference and lack of seriousness towards the
word. People have little faith in words, whether written or spoken. For this reason, the voice of
the icon has become very powerful, very persuasive. Today many educated people, not finding
Truth and Beauty in the byways of this world, come to Church and seek there that Beauty which
the world could not offer them. They are very sensitive to any falsity, any ugliness or deformityespecially artists and musicians; if they come to church and see there tasteless paintings or hear
outrageous concert-style singing, no one will convince them that Christians are witnesses of
Heavenly Beauty. Many can be turned off by the unseemly behavior of a priest during Divine
Services, his slovenly attire, even his dirty shoes. We're used to thinking in terms of the old
women: how will they react. I'm certain that a lack of beauty won't turn any "babushka" away
from Church, but someone who is wavering, someone more fragile can leave the Church forever
on account of our carelessness. A person who is already "churched", who has already humbled
himself and grown accustomed to things, can pray without being distracted. But everyone ought
to pray thanks to the icons, thanks to the singing, and not in spite of them. Many icons, and even
entire iconostases are painted in such a way as to interfere with prayer rather than to assist it.
Nowadays, in speaking of the renaissance of the Church, we must first of all take care that the
Church constantly reveal to the world that Beauty, which she possesses in its fulness. This is the
Church's mission to the world. I repeat: few people trust the word, and today the voiceless
sermon is capable of bringing forth more fruit. The way of life of the clergy, of each Christian,
the image of the church, church singing, church architecture-all must carry the stamp of
Heavenly Beauty. Fr. Victor: Today's worldly ecclesiastical consciousness is striving to
"unchurch" the icon. It is said that the people don't understand ancient icons, and for this reason
they should be replaced by more "artistic" renderings. But are such artistic renderings capable of
conforming to the Church's teachings, of edifying? They sooner lead to error, as you said already,
giving the example of the New Testament Trinity. The Church has always struggled for authentic
expression in her art, for truth, and today she must continue this struggle.
Fr. Zinon: Outside the Church the icon has no real existence. It is an integral element in the
Divine Service, one of the forms of preaching the Gospel, a witness of the Incarnation; just as
church singing, architecture, ritual. One can readily understand people who say honestly that
they don't understand icons painted according to the canons, but one can in no wise agree with
those who reject icons which they find incomprehensible. Many priests are convinced that it is
difficult for simple people to understand canonically executed icons and therefore it is better to
replace them with more realistic renderings. But I am sure that for the majority the stichera,
irmosi and the very language of the services are no less incomprehensible, let alone the structure
of the Divine Services, and yet no one would think of simplify everything in order to make it
easily intelligible. It is the Church's task to lead people to the heights of divine vision, not to
condescend to human ignorance...
Fr. Victor: One observes with anxiety the growing attempt to do away with Church-Slavonic in
church services and replace it with Russian. Proponents of such a reform consider that laypeople
are deprived when they don't understand the Slavonic church services. Church Slavonic is
organic to authentic spiritual life, to Orthodox Divine Services, for in it is incarnate the spirit of

the fulness of divine life; it doesn't allow one to become mixed up with the life of this world.
When worldly elements began overtaking church life in Russia, this fulness began to disintegrate
and man desired to come to a knowledge of the truths of faith not through prayer, as Ivan
Kireyevsky said, but through "memory". But in order for the mind and heart of man to be
simultaneously enlightened he must learn Church-Slavonic. To change to Russian in the church
services would only lead to increasing worldliness in the Church; it would not deepen our
Orthodox faith or our church consciousness.
Fr. Zinon: It seems to me that replacing Slavonic with Russian in the services would not make
them more intelligible; on the contrary, much would be lost because, although particular words
might become understandable, the spirit would remain as unintelligible as before. One can
readily convince oneself of this by taking the Russian translation of the Psalms: individual words
are understandable, but their prophetic meaning has not become any clearer. Modern Russian is
the same Slavic language but greatly changed and much less refined. It is easier to teach the
faithful their native language than to change the service books into the modern idiom. Such a
task offers enormous difficulties, not to mention the deleterious effect upon the Divine Services.
As a student, I often noticed that when I entered a church from a noisy street, even before I had
time to catch what was being read or sung, the very rhythm, the intonation, the very melody of
the Church-Slavonic language already attuned one to prayer. Contemporary conversational
language is very halting; it's much more suited to mundane communications than to prayer...
When I consciously came to the Church, it was the beginning of Great Lent. I had no knowledge
whatever of Church-Slavonic. The church calendar that year contained the Great Canon of St.
Andrew of Crete, with explanations of difficult words and phrases. Before the service I carefully
looked over each part of the canon, and in church I was already able to understand what was
being read. The Orthodox Christian, if he senses to even a small degree the elevated poetry of the
services, will carefully heed every word, every letter. The West has taken the path of modernism,
with grievous results.
Every people, besides their ordinary conversational language, has a religious language in which
they communicate only with God. This liturgical language is always more elevated. For example,
why did Greek and Latin become "dead" languages? These languages were suited only to writing
poetry and to philosophizing; it is impossible to use them to communicate on a mundane level.
Fr. Victor: There used to be a teaching about three styles: high, middle and low.
Fr. Zinon: Church-Slavonic belonged precisely to the high style. The Optina elders read the
Philokalia only in Paisius Velichkovsky's Church-Slavonic translation, and even criticized
Bishop Theophan the Recluse for having translated it into Russian. They saw in the Russian a
great many imprecisions.
The translation into Russian of the Old Testament elicited sharp reactions from Bishop Porphyry
Uspensky. That particular translation was made from a Hebrew Bible which certain rabbis had
distorted. He voiced his indignation to the highest-ranking member of the Synod, Metropolitan
Isidore of St. Petersburg, but unfortunately he was not heard.
As an example one can take the familiar verse from Psalm 17: And with the excellent man thou
wilt be excellent; and with the perverse thou wilt shew frowardness (v. 26). The Holy Fathers
understand this as counsel to avoid contact with men who are perverse. In the Russian translation
these words refer to God and sound almost blasphemous: "With the excellent You will act

excellently..., and with the evil man You will act according to his evil." One can find many such
examples.
Fr. Victor: And finally. In speaking about the renewal of church life, about liturgical renewal, one
must say something about the renewal of community. It's one thing to become spiritually
enlightened, but one must also learn to live as a Christian, to become a fully-integrated member
of the Church, to know by experience the nature of the Church, unity in Christ, unity in faith, in
love.
If these communities, these brotherhoods-about which so much is being said and written
nowadays-are spiritually strong, they form spiritual families where people can be nurtured
together and spiritually mature for eternal life. Today, however, there are few of them in the
Orthodox Church. Fr. Zinon: One mustn't confuse community with parish; they are not identical.
One can learn a great deal about this subject in Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev's book, The Church of the
Holy Spirit. Properly speaking the Church is a community, i.e., the local Church, in which
resides the fullness of the Universal Church. Troubles arose when the community turned into the
parish. Only through a rebirth of the community can we properly resolve the problem of morality
and many other social ills. We now have the opportunity of restoring the Patristic tradition in the
theology of the Mysteries, of returning to the authentic foundations of church life, but from the
examples of the newly-opened monasteries and churches, one is convinced of the opposite: one
sees the reestablishment of the same synodal forms of church life which did not justify
themselves historically and led to the catastrophe of 1917.
Again one sees attempts to engage the Church in social activity, Christians are demanding
freedom, rights, forgetting that they are sent by Christ like sheep among wolves, that they are the
most defenseless people in this world. The way of the Christian is the way of sorrow, and only
those who sow with tears shall reap with joy (Ps. 125). July 1990.
Source: http://www.roca.org/OA/111/111g.htm
http://kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/726/