Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's)
 
(112 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
SOME changes were implemented
+
*''[[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1a|Archive 1a]] and [[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1b|Archive 1b]]''.
  
Only some of the recommendations made by the Moscow Commission were made by the Antiochians and ROCOR. This shouldn't be controversial. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 16:22, February 12, 2008 (PST)
+
==Adjudication==
 +
At 80kb, I'm fairly sure that this is the single longest Talk page on OW, probably even including those with archivals - so big that it needed to pages to archive it.  It's the kind of thing that I instinctively congratulate, purely on the basis of perseverance - all 80,000 characters and six months of it. That said, this does need to stop.
  
:The use of "some" is misleading; all recommendations for the liturgy (and hours) were made by both Antioch and ROCOR (and Alexandria, and Moscow).  
+
So, my adjudication on the matter - the Observations aren't binding (they're ''observations''), so it is thoroughly irrelevant whether they were followed to the letter (indeed, 'to the letter' gives quite a bit of scope to the diocesan).  This is something that both 'sides' can accept, since one advanced this idea to begin with and the other highlighted that the diocesan needed to implement them properly.  The way the article currently is (and I did edit it in the last couple of days) reflects this.
  
:Certain [i]vagantes[/i] use this language to cast aspersions on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, claiming it is invalid, because it did not implement all the recommendations of the 1904 Observations...which is false. - [[User: Willibrord]]
+
Secondly, I'm not convinced that the SASB is authorised in the same way as the OM is authorised - the definite and indefinite articles clearly have an important part to play in the English language, and only the latter has the definite article.
  
 +
Regarding citations, the OM/SASB issue should be settled with a citation (e.g. Andersen, B., (2006). ''Lengthy Thesis: Title with Much Capitalisation that Rivals The Thesis' Word Count''.  Crestwood, New York: Publisher), but I strongly encourage that the critical part of this thesis be put online.  The critical part about this thesis is what the Vicar-General says - if there's only one authorised text according to him, then that's it - if that wasn't the case, then in the same way that the Archbishop has full authority to authorise texts, he also has full authority to un-deputise people to speak on his behalf.  At a minimum, all bibliographical details need to be given.  In addition, whether there is a conflict of interest regarding the thesis is not an issue, for the simple reason that it was submitted to an impartial marker.  One would not claim a conflict of interest if someone said 'I'm innocent' after the court case was thrown out.  On another note, however, Occidentalis cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that it is a "blog [that] is open to invited readers only".
  
Only SOME of the changes were made; that is a simple fact. I am not a vagante nor have I claimed the liturgy in question is "invalid," but one need not make false claims such as the one that ALL of the recommendations were adopted. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:34, February 13, 2008 (PST) Before Willbrord changes my edits again, perhaps he could read the ''Observations'' and compare them to the liturgy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 07:07, February 14, 2008 (PST)
+
In short, I hold that the article, as it stands, is correct. I'm archiving the rest of the page. For any further complaints about the article, <strike>click on my complaints link</strike> feel free to state this on this page or find another sysop. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 23:01, August 8, 2008 (UTC)
  
From what I recall from having read about this some time ago, the ''Observations'' noted the inadequate language of sacrifice in the oblation of the anaphora, but nothing was changed. One of their biggest complaints was the compromising language of the Prayer Book. The classic example of this is in the words for administering communion. The "Catholic" 1549 BCP had "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." The "Protestant" 1552 replaced these words with "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." The Elizabethan compromise book of 1559 intended to allow Catholic- and Protestant-minded Anglicans to both use the BCP simply combined the two sets of words. This compromise language is maintained in the Tikhon text. The penultimate paragraph of the ''Observations'' has some choice words about this compromise approach. I also recall that the ''Observations'' wanted a great deal more "glorification and invocation" of the Saints, which became only a reference in the intercessions to "blessed Mary and all Thy Saints." --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 08:27, February 14, 2008 (PST)
+
Sorry-- I didn't notice that this was a final edit. I will be quiet on this one, wasn't trying to wake the dead or anything. removing previous comment.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 02:32, August 9, 2008 (UTC)
  
:'''ALL''' (not some) of the recommendations of the [http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html ''Observations''] ''for the Liturgy and Hours'' have been implemented, and to say otherwise is simply false. The ''Observations'' list all required changes in the last paragraph, and all relating to the Liturgy or Hours have been made. St. Tikhon's Liturgy includes the "glorification and invocation" (to borrow your quotation) of:
+
Deleting my comment as I hope the discussion on this page is done.  
::- in the '''''Confiteor''''' (clearly printed in both ''The Orthodox Missal'' and the [http://www.stmichaelwhittier.org/dnn/Literature/tabid/63/Default.aspx ''St. Andrew Service Book'']): "Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, [and] all the saints";
+
::- in the '''''Suscipe Sancta Trinitas''''': "blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, of blessed John (the) Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all Thy saints."
+
::- in '''''Nobis Quoque Peccatoribus''''': "thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecelia, Anastasia," and all saints; and
+
::- in the '''''Libera Nos''''' (Again, in both TOM and SASB): a supplication for "the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, Ever-Virgin Mother of God, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, Andrew, and all Thy saints."
+
  
:All of these prayers are prayed ''throughout'' the Antiochian WR Vicariate and are included in TOM, but the SASB (along with its other irregularities) does not include any of the priest's silent prayers -- perhaps because the SASB is a simple parish prayer book and not a priest's Missal, much less the Vicariate's official text of the Mass. But even in the SASB, "glorification and invocation" of the saints was never ''"only a reference in the intercessions to 'blessed Mary and all Thy Saints.'"'' Your allegations demonstrate either ignorance or malice.
+
:''Moved from Archive 1b to main Talk page by [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]]''
  
:The ''Observations'' -- which say the Gallican Liturgy makes reference to sacrifice only "somewhat vaguely" -- state the idea of sacrifice must be "inserted...into the rite of the Liturgy," though it does not specify the canon proper; the idea could be expressed, as in the Gallican Rite, in other places. In St. Tikhon's Liturgy, there is an abundance of sacrificial references in the canon and without. The priest's offertory prayers (specifically the ''In Spiritu Humilitatis'' and ''Veni Sanctificator'', as well as the ''Suscipe'')and the ''Orate, Fratres'' clearly call the Eucharist a "sacrifice." The priest also prays the ''Placeat Tibi'' before the blessing, beseeching, "grant that this sacrifice which I, unworthy that I am, have offered in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable unto Thee...."
+
::Well, it ''is'' a talk page, so if there is something that needs saying, it should be said. The above was simply my adjudication on the matter. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 12:35, August 10, 2008 (UTC)
  
: The ''Ecce Agnus Dei'' and added Pre-Communion Prayers make the Real Presence explicit - no Protestant or Zwinglian would be comfortable saying such things! Again, these are found in both TOM and the SASB.
+
:Just an addendum to my adjudication - I feel that having heard the arguments for the last six months, there's not much new that can be said.  My default position of not responding should be taken as precisely that, ''not'' as support for (or against) a new position. Perhaps another sysop can see something that I do not. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 23:05, August 11, 2008 (UTC)
  
:These recommendations are no less (and no less obviously) fulfilled in [http://www.orthodoxresurgence.com/petroc/english.htm The English Liturgy].
+
==SASB, Part II==
  
:Of course, the ''Observations'' left implementation to Church authority; they end by acknowleding, "since the detailed changes...can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing demands and conditions" the ''Observations'' "will thus serve in the negotiations as materials for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy can be received."  
+
Can I please understand, as an impartial observer, HOW this book isn't authorized, when it has a blessing from the Ruling Bishop to be used by clergy and laity (p.2), claims to include the authorized liturgies and devotions of the AWRV, has undergone a change in the name but not the text in the "Western Rite Service Book" and is stocked by Western rite Vicariate Parishes not an official book?
  
:Still, it is a demonstrable fact that all changes of St. Tikhon's Liturgy and Hours have been made by Antioch, Moscow, Alexandria, and (in Australia) ROCOR. The canonical (or non-canonical) status of L'ECOF doesn't enter into this discussion; readily verifiable facts do.
+
Thanks.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 22:08, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
  
:I will thank the moderators if this closes the matter, and such erroneous language is not allowed to be reintroduced.
+
:Pistevo is an impartial observer, and the detailed explanation has been spelled out in the archives 1a and 1b. I see no need to rehash the entire thing again. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 23:51, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
:- [[User: Willibrord]]
+
  
 +
Yes, but all he said was "Sdn Benjamin's thesis would be an example of citable material, and my viewpoint is that the interviews with Fr Paul Schneirla would suffice. I would strongly encourage the posting of, or linking to, this thesis online (right now, we can say 'according to Andersen, 2006', but I'm not sure how much further we can go). However, the links to the Occidentalis blog can be considered 'privileged' - it appears that it's now a closed blog."
  
I have three basic responses. First, without going into how Orthodox Christians should act, one should – on a purely secular level -- note that attributing malice as a possible motive is not a good way to foster communication or progress in the editing of articles, not to mention bad manners.  
+
That certainly doesn't sound like he agrees with two pages of mostly your explanation, just that a thesis paper can be cited as a source.  He also says the interviews would suffice, but I have no understanding where to access these interviews. I also find it odd that a Western-rite book put out by the Archdiocese *directly*, as has been noted on Wiki, would require Fr Paul's permission to exist as "approved".--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:58, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
  
Second, since last writing about this, I have obtained a copy of the OM. I think it is superior to the SASB in numerous ways. That being said, I still find the attempt to marginalize the SASB as “a parish prayer book” a little puzzling. Despite previous denials, the SASB is an authorized book of the Antiochian Archdiocese as clearly indicated by the letter from Metropolitan Philip included in the front of the book. There is no relevant difference in the wording of the Metropolitan’s letter in the OM from his letter in the SASB. Someone in the AWRV may not like the SASB, but to suggest (as has been done before) that the SASB is not an authorized service book it to imply that the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have the authority to decide which service books are approved, or that perhaps he is acting “in ignorance or malice.” None of these possibilities are plausible.
+
== SASB Authorized ==
  
Third, as to the claim that all of the additions recommended by the Russian Commission’s Observations have been made to the Liturgy of St Tikhon and to the hours, an evaluation of the claim requires more than a checklist of items mentioned in the concluding paragraph. One must read what comes before that paragraph to understand the context of the additions.
+
The main article has a link to a download of the SASB. Here is the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP:
  
As for the invocation of the Saints, I did in fact quote from the principal intercessions of the Liturgy, i.e., in the prayer “for the whole state of Christ’s Church,” the complete reference – “blessed Mary and all Thy Saints….”
+
"1996
  
Moreover, the Observations – in the section on Morning and Evening Prayer –say: “But at the same time, while the recourse in prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God, to the Angel Hosts, and to the illustrious saints, the glorification and invocation of them, forms an essential part of Orthodox and Catholic worship, these things are entirely foreign to Anglican worship. It is absolutely necessary that there should be introduced into this worship some such prayers (or hymns) in one or another form and degree.
+
The First Edition of the St. Andrew Service Book was approved for use by the  
 +
Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian
 +
Archdiocese of North America in 1989. This, the Second Edition, improved in  
 +
format and expanded in content, will be welcomed by the clergy and laity of
 +
our archdiocese who worship in a tradition as ancient as the Eastern.
 +
We take this opportunity to commend and sincerely thank Archpriest
 +
Michael Keiser, the original compiler of the service book, as well as the Board
 +
of the Orthodox Christian Press, Archimandrite Michael Trigg, Fr. John
 +
Downing, and especially Mr. Karl Steinhoff, for their many hours of dedicated
 +
labor in preparing the revised edition.  
 +
We pray that the attentive use of '''these authorized liturgies''' and other rites
 +
and ceremonies by the Western rite clergy and laity of our beloved
 +
Archdiocese will be the cause of a spiritual and liturgical renewal within our
 +
church in North America.  
 +
+ Metropolitan PHILIP
 +
Primate
 +
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
 +
of North America
 +
by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
 +
of North America"
  
While the OM doesn’t include these hours, the SASB does contain Matins and Vespers, and neither has any additions of prayers or hymns to meet this requirement, which was termed “absolutely necessary” by the Commission. This one requirement that is clearly unmet falsifies the claim that “all” of the changes demanded by the Commission were made.  
+
I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that the SASB is not authorized in the same way that the OM is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)
  
A similar complaint and requirement is made concerning the Great Litany. The Observations say, “But examining it in connection with its origin, and comparing it with the Roman Catholic Litany from which it was derived, again under Lutheran influence, we clearly discern its protestant character, in that it does not contain the invocation of the Mother of God, of the spiritual Hosts and the Saints, who occupy a very prominent place amongst the Catholics, and even had a place (like prayers for the dead) in the first edition of 1544, though only in an abbreviated form in the shape of an invocation of saints en bloc, without particularizing names. In case of any full restoration of Orthodox beliefs, it would be timely and expedient to bring in again both the invocations and the prayers, as being characteristic of this kind of devotion.”
+
== Misreading "exclusive use" ==
  
Yet when one turns to the Great Litany (SASB, 51-55), one finds no mention of the Mother of God, the spiritual Hosts, or the Saints.  
+
Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM: "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are ''used only by the Antiochian Archdiocese''. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that the Antiochian '''Archdiocese''' (not the AWRV) ''uses only these texts'', which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:04, August 11, 2008 (UTC)
  
As for the Confiteor, this is not a part of the liturgy proper (it comes before the Introit), and it has never been a part of any Book of Common Prayer, much less the 1989 BCP referenced in the Observations. Simply adding a Roman prayer (one that is foreign to the Anglican rite) does not seem adequate. Moreover, why borrow a Roman prayer to make the BCP more Orthodox? A mention of the Mother of God, one angel, and three saints (John the Baptist, Peter, & Paul in the SASB Confiteor on pp. 61-62) seems less robust that “the glorification and invocation” of “the Most Holy Mother of God, … the Angel Hosts, and … the illustrious saints.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 15:42, June 25, 2008 (UTC)
+
== The article as it stands ==
  
 +
The ajudication by Pistevo was that this article -- as it stands -- is correct. Despite Willibrord's claims to the contrary, the article does '''not''' take a position on how many of the recommendations/requirements of the ''Observations'' were made to the Liturgy of St Tikhon. As to the SASB, it and the OM are both listed as sources, and no statement is made about one or the other being or not being authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:25, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
 +
:Pistevo's edit of this article as it stands removes reference to the SASB as equal to OM and states affirmatively, "An Incomplete Text of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is contained in the" SASB, meaning it is not authorized in the same sense as the OM (as she affirmed [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow#Adjudication above]). That should put this to rest. Incidentally, Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's SVOTS M.Div. thesis, which cites the Vicar General as a source and was praised by him ''and'' SVOTS faculty, is ''An Anglican Liturgy in the Orthodox Church: The Origins and Development of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon'' (2005). --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:15, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
  
== Differences between the Orthodox Missal and the St Andrew's Service Book ==
+
As indicated before, the ruling Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese is a more authoritative source than a subdeacon's thesis on the point of what liturgies are authorized in the Archdiocese. The letter of the Metropolitan is quite clear that the SASB is an authorized service book. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:50, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
 +
:The issue of authorization has been put to rest, as noted in the ajudication. The issue is dead. It's time to stop wasting bandwidth on arguments that have been decided.
 +
:Incidentally, [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow/Archive_1b what Pistevo actually said about the ''Observations''] is: "So far, uncontested agreement on the Orthodox Missal having followed the Observations." As the OM is acknowledged as the official text of the Mass of St. Tikhon, this also settles that issue.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 19:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
  
To repeat a question I posted on another page: since Willbrord has made a point of saying that almost all AWRV parishes use the ''Orthodox Missal'' and not the ''St Andrew's Service Book'', perhaps he would be kind enough to specify what differences there are between the versions of the two eucharistic liturgies and why they matter, i.e., why is the OM version so preferable to the SASB? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 07:05, February 14, 2008 (PST)
+
==ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's===
 +
The article still contains the misinformation of the ROCOR English Liturgy being 'St. Tikhon's'. ROCOR has not authorised St. Tikhon's, nor is it in use. The link to the ROCOR English Liturgy (which I placed on that site as webmaster) contains no reference to St. Tikhon's liturgy. A comparison of the two shows their dissimiliarity: the English liturgy has no Decalogue, 'Comfortable Words', or other marks of the St. Tikhon's liturgy. The St. Tikhon's also does not contain the Sarum canon, the Vestry Chapel Vesting office, the preparation before the liturgy, the Cherubic Hymn, a Western epiclesis, or the Divesting office. St. Tikhon's propers are also not the Sarum propers that the English liturgy requires. That is a pretty major difference altogether. Nevermind that ROCOR WRITE clergy and their hierarchs do not refer to the English liturgy as "St. Tikhon's", nor do they wish to. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 21:30, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
Agreed. Please do change it. At the same time, I have yet to see any other reference to the Liturgy of St Tikhon being approved by the Churches of Moscow or Alexandria. Perhaps they have some form of an English liturgy, but there are many differences between an English usgae of the Roman rite (such as the Sarum), an Anglican liturgy (from an authorized Book of Common Prayer), and the Liturgy of St Tikhon. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:38, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
The following still is not quite correct: "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has approved a service with many similarities (under the name 'The English Liturgy')." The dissimilarities are far greater. To begin with, the Ceremonial and Propers for the St. Tikhon's follow the Tridentine/Anglican Missal form. That of the English Liturgy follows the Sarum use. The text of the Divine Liturgy itself also heavily differs - in content, form, and origin. The most important being that the English Liturgy is of English tradition, while the St. Tikhon's follows the American/Scottish tradition. This is true to the point where the two liturgies differ more from each other than do the Liturgy of St. Gregory from the Sarum use, or the Slavic recension from the Greek recension of the Byzantine rite. The only major similarities are that both are primarily in the English language, have used some Book of Common Prayer for source material, and depend thus on the Russian Observations of 1904-07.  Which Book of Common Prayer, of course, is cause for serious differences. (Noting - I have nothing against St. Tikhon's.)  So, it might be best to have a separate article for the English Liturgy. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 00:35, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:...Perhaps you'd like to suggest a way of saying that ROCOR also has an Anglican-based WR Liturgy?  &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 01:48, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
Pistevo - The best way would be a separate page, or mention of both on a page about the Russian Observations (the common link.) However, the term 'Anglican-based' can be misleading. In the sense we use 'Anglican' we mean English - the ancient Church, and that  heritage nearly two millenia old. The sense others use is 'Protestant' which we wouldn't mean at all - Anglicana is simply Latin for 'English'. The Observations, of course, suggested that any diocesan adaptation of services from a BCP would have to include restoration from older Western use ( as Simeon Bogolovsky wrote for "Edinaia Tserkov" One Church  in the article "Orthodoxy and the Western Rite" published sometime after 1948 - but before the mid 1950s.) The Antiochian St. Tikhon's was done in the Antiochian Patriarchate using an American prayer book (of Scottish lineage) and used the Roman (Italian) rite for its re-catholicization. The Russian implementation by Vladyka Hilarion was different (as noted in the SCPB - Sarum base, with some items from 1549 BCP, 1718 Non-Juror liturgy, York, Gothic, etc.) - making it a faithful English Use Orthodox Liturgy following the Russian directives and ukazes. Of course, the 'Book of Common Prayer' is not in use - nor adapted whole. Nor do we have an 'Orthodox Book of Common Prayer' (the Saint Colman Prayer Book is rather like a Western version of the Jordanville or Old Rite Prayer book - and has accompanying volumes.) --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:15, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
Thank you! I am so tired of these little word-games. The "English Liturgy" is based to a large degree on the BCP-- P. Ben Johnson's objections to the SHP Sarum note at least three Cranmerian liftings, which are obviously not Sarum. Fr Michael has advertised this to disaffected Anglicans as an "Orthodox version of 'the prayer book'", which in Anglican parlance can only mean the BCP.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:39, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== Dropping "of Moscow" ==
 +
 
 +
Neither the OM nor the SASB uses "of Moscow" to modify St Tikhon in the name of the liturgy. For the same reason that "the Great" was dropped from the Liturgy of St Gregory, "of Moscow" should be dropped from the article's title here. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow ==
 +
 
 +
Hello, could someone email me the complete text of the Western Rite version of this liturgy or a link where this text is available?? Greatly appreciated! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 06:08, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:15, August 26, 2008

Contents

Adjudication

At 80kb, I'm fairly sure that this is the single longest Talk page on OW, probably even including those with archivals - so big that it needed to pages to archive it. It's the kind of thing that I instinctively congratulate, purely on the basis of perseverance - all 80,000 characters and six months of it. That said, this does need to stop.

So, my adjudication on the matter - the Observations aren't binding (they're observations), so it is thoroughly irrelevant whether they were followed to the letter (indeed, 'to the letter' gives quite a bit of scope to the diocesan). This is something that both 'sides' can accept, since one advanced this idea to begin with and the other highlighted that the diocesan needed to implement them properly. The way the article currently is (and I did edit it in the last couple of days) reflects this.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that the SASB is authorised in the same way as the OM is authorised - the definite and indefinite articles clearly have an important part to play in the English language, and only the latter has the definite article.

Regarding citations, the OM/SASB issue should be settled with a citation (e.g. Andersen, B., (2006). Lengthy Thesis: Title with Much Capitalisation that Rivals The Thesis' Word Count. Crestwood, New York: Publisher), but I strongly encourage that the critical part of this thesis be put online. The critical part about this thesis is what the Vicar-General says - if there's only one authorised text according to him, then that's it - if that wasn't the case, then in the same way that the Archbishop has full authority to authorise texts, he also has full authority to un-deputise people to speak on his behalf. At a minimum, all bibliographical details need to be given. In addition, whether there is a conflict of interest regarding the thesis is not an issue, for the simple reason that it was submitted to an impartial marker. One would not claim a conflict of interest if someone said 'I'm innocent' after the court case was thrown out. On another note, however, Occidentalis cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that it is a "blog [that] is open to invited readers only".

In short, I hold that the article, as it stands, is correct. I'm archiving the rest of the page. For any further complaints about the article, click on my complaints link feel free to state this on this page or find another sysop. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:01, August 8, 2008 (UTC)

Sorry-- I didn't notice that this was a final edit. I will be quiet on this one, wasn't trying to wake the dead or anything. removing previous comment.--JosephSuaiden 02:32, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my comment as I hope the discussion on this page is done.

Moved from Archive 1b to main Talk page by Pistevo
Well, it is a talk page, so if there is something that needs saying, it should be said. The above was simply my adjudication on the matter. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 12:35, August 10, 2008 (UTC)
Just an addendum to my adjudication - I feel that having heard the arguments for the last six months, there's not much new that can be said. My default position of not responding should be taken as precisely that, not as support for (or against) a new position. Perhaps another sysop can see something that I do not. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:05, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

SASB, Part II

Can I please understand, as an impartial observer, HOW this book isn't authorized, when it has a blessing from the Ruling Bishop to be used by clergy and laity (p.2), claims to include the authorized liturgies and devotions of the AWRV, has undergone a change in the name but not the text in the "Western Rite Service Book" and is stocked by Western rite Vicariate Parishes not an official book?

Thanks.--JosephSuaiden 22:08, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

Pistevo is an impartial observer, and the detailed explanation has been spelled out in the archives 1a and 1b. I see no need to rehash the entire thing again. --Willibrord 23:51, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but all he said was "Sdn Benjamin's thesis would be an example of citable material, and my viewpoint is that the interviews with Fr Paul Schneirla would suffice. I would strongly encourage the posting of, or linking to, this thesis online (right now, we can say 'according to Andersen, 2006', but I'm not sure how much further we can go). However, the links to the Occidentalis blog can be considered 'privileged' - it appears that it's now a closed blog."

That certainly doesn't sound like he agrees with two pages of mostly your explanation, just that a thesis paper can be cited as a source. He also says the interviews would suffice, but I have no understanding where to access these interviews. I also find it odd that a Western-rite book put out by the Archdiocese *directly*, as has been noted on Wiki, would require Fr Paul's permission to exist as "approved".--JosephSuaiden 05:58, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

SASB Authorized

The main article has a link to a download of the SASB. Here is the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP:

"1996

The First Edition of the St. Andrew Service Book was approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989. This, the Second Edition, improved in format and expanded in content, will be welcomed by the clergy and laity of our archdiocese who worship in a tradition as ancient as the Eastern. We take this opportunity to commend and sincerely thank Archpriest Michael Keiser, the original compiler of the service book, as well as the Board of the Orthodox Christian Press, Archimandrite Michael Trigg, Fr. John Downing, and especially Mr. Karl Steinhoff, for their many hours of dedicated labor in preparing the revised edition. We pray that the attentive use of these authorized liturgies and other rites and ceremonies by the Western rite clergy and laity of our beloved Archdiocese will be the cause of a spiritual and liturgical renewal within our church in North America. + Metropolitan PHILIP Primate Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America"

I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that the SASB is not authorized in the same way that the OM is. --Fr Lev 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--Fr Lev 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

Misreading "exclusive use"

Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM: "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are used only by the Antiochian Archdiocese. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that the Antiochian Archdiocese (not the AWRV) uses only these texts, which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --Fr Lev 23:04, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands

The ajudication by Pistevo was that this article -- as it stands -- is correct. Despite Willibrord's claims to the contrary, the article does not take a position on how many of the recommendations/requirements of the Observations were made to the Liturgy of St Tikhon. As to the SASB, it and the OM are both listed as sources, and no statement is made about one or the other being or not being authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese. --Fr Lev 17:25, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

Pistevo's edit of this article as it stands removes reference to the SASB as equal to OM and states affirmatively, "An Incomplete Text of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is contained in the" SASB, meaning it is not authorized in the same sense as the OM (as she affirmed above). That should put this to rest. Incidentally, Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's SVOTS M.Div. thesis, which cites the Vicar General as a source and was praised by him and SVOTS faculty, is An Anglican Liturgy in the Orthodox Church: The Origins and Development of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon (2005). --Willibrord 18:15, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

As indicated before, the ruling Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese is a more authoritative source than a subdeacon's thesis on the point of what liturgies are authorized in the Archdiocese. The letter of the Metropolitan is quite clear that the SASB is an authorized service book. --Fr Lev 18:50, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

The issue of authorization has been put to rest, as noted in the ajudication. The issue is dead. It's time to stop wasting bandwidth on arguments that have been decided.
Incidentally, what Pistevo actually said about the Observations is: "So far, uncontested agreement on the Orthodox Missal having followed the Observations." As the OM is acknowledged as the official text of the Mass of St. Tikhon, this also settles that issue.--Willibrord 19:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's=

The article still contains the misinformation of the ROCOR English Liturgy being 'St. Tikhon's'. ROCOR has not authorised St. Tikhon's, nor is it in use. The link to the ROCOR English Liturgy (which I placed on that site as webmaster) contains no reference to St. Tikhon's liturgy. A comparison of the two shows their dissimiliarity: the English liturgy has no Decalogue, 'Comfortable Words', or other marks of the St. Tikhon's liturgy. The St. Tikhon's also does not contain the Sarum canon, the Vestry Chapel Vesting office, the preparation before the liturgy, the Cherubic Hymn, a Western epiclesis, or the Divesting office. St. Tikhon's propers are also not the Sarum propers that the English liturgy requires. That is a pretty major difference altogether. Nevermind that ROCOR WRITE clergy and their hierarchs do not refer to the English liturgy as "St. Tikhon's", nor do they wish to. --Ari 21:30, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please do change it. At the same time, I have yet to see any other reference to the Liturgy of St Tikhon being approved by the Churches of Moscow or Alexandria. Perhaps they have some form of an English liturgy, but there are many differences between an English usgae of the Roman rite (such as the Sarum), an Anglican liturgy (from an authorized Book of Common Prayer), and the Liturgy of St Tikhon. --Fr Lev 21:38, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

The following still is not quite correct: "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has approved a service with many similarities (under the name 'The English Liturgy')." The dissimilarities are far greater. To begin with, the Ceremonial and Propers for the St. Tikhon's follow the Tridentine/Anglican Missal form. That of the English Liturgy follows the Sarum use. The text of the Divine Liturgy itself also heavily differs - in content, form, and origin. The most important being that the English Liturgy is of English tradition, while the St. Tikhon's follows the American/Scottish tradition. This is true to the point where the two liturgies differ more from each other than do the Liturgy of St. Gregory from the Sarum use, or the Slavic recension from the Greek recension of the Byzantine rite. The only major similarities are that both are primarily in the English language, have used some Book of Common Prayer for source material, and depend thus on the Russian Observations of 1904-07. Which Book of Common Prayer, of course, is cause for serious differences. (Noting - I have nothing against St. Tikhon's.) So, it might be best to have a separate article for the English Liturgy. --Ari 00:35, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

...Perhaps you'd like to suggest a way of saying that ROCOR also has an Anglican-based WR Liturgy? — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 01:48, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

Pistevo - The best way would be a separate page, or mention of both on a page about the Russian Observations (the common link.) However, the term 'Anglican-based' can be misleading. In the sense we use 'Anglican' we mean English - the ancient Church, and that heritage nearly two millenia old. The sense others use is 'Protestant' which we wouldn't mean at all - Anglicana is simply Latin for 'English'. The Observations, of course, suggested that any diocesan adaptation of services from a BCP would have to include restoration from older Western use ( as Simeon Bogolovsky wrote for "Edinaia Tserkov" One Church in the article "Orthodoxy and the Western Rite" published sometime after 1948 - but before the mid 1950s.) The Antiochian St. Tikhon's was done in the Antiochian Patriarchate using an American prayer book (of Scottish lineage) and used the Roman (Italian) rite for its re-catholicization. The Russian implementation by Vladyka Hilarion was different (as noted in the SCPB - Sarum base, with some items from 1549 BCP, 1718 Non-Juror liturgy, York, Gothic, etc.) - making it a faithful English Use Orthodox Liturgy following the Russian directives and ukazes. Of course, the 'Book of Common Prayer' is not in use - nor adapted whole. Nor do we have an 'Orthodox Book of Common Prayer' (the Saint Colman Prayer Book is rather like a Western version of the Jordanville or Old Rite Prayer book - and has accompanying volumes.) --Ari 11:15, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I am so tired of these little word-games. The "English Liturgy" is based to a large degree on the BCP-- P. Ben Johnson's objections to the SHP Sarum note at least three Cranmerian liftings, which are obviously not Sarum. Fr Michael has advertised this to disaffected Anglicans as an "Orthodox version of 'the prayer book'", which in Anglican parlance can only mean the BCP.--JosephSuaiden 05:39, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

Dropping "of Moscow"

Neither the OM nor the SASB uses "of Moscow" to modify St Tikhon in the name of the liturgy. For the same reason that "the Great" was dropped from the Liturgy of St Gregory, "of Moscow" should be dropped from the article's title here. --Fr Lev 22:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow

Hello, could someone email me the complete text of the Western Rite version of this liturgy or a link where this text is available?? Greatly appreciated! Vasiliki 06:08, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox