Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (comments for Willibrord)
(ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's)
 
(89 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 ''vagantes'' 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.
  
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)
+
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".
  
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)
+
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)
  
:'''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:
+
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)
::- 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.
+
Deleting my comment as I hope the discussion on this page is done.  
''
+
No, they demonstrate logic. The "Observations" clearly state that the reason the Liturgy is inadequate is that it does not EXPRESS the Orthodox doctrine. What you are saying is that the people don't need to HEAR the Orthodox doctrine so long as it is buried in the silent prayers. That is truly a heterodox attitude to the understanding of the lex orandi.''  --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 22:58, July 18, 2008 (UTC)
+
  
: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...."
+
:''Moved from Archive 1b to main Talk page by [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]]''
  
''...the text of the "consecration" in the LOST says: "for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again:"
+
::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)
  
This is *precisely* the Protestant teaching of the sacrifice of Christ: not a perpetual sacrifice, but a mere perpetual memorial of the one sacrifice, that of the cross. So much for the use of the word "sacrifice".''--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 22:58, July 18, 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. &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)
  
: 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.
+
==SASB, Part II==
  
''The Agnus Dei is part of the Lutheran liturgy.'' --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 22:58, July 18, 2008 (UTC)
+
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?
  
:These recommendations are no less (and no less obviously) fulfilled in [http://www.orthodoxresurgence.com/petroc/english.htm The English Liturgy].
+
Thanks.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 22:08, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
  
: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."
+
: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)
  
: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.  
+
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 will thank the moderators if this closes the matter, and such erroneous language is not allowed to be reintroduced.
+
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)
:- [[User: Willibrord]]
+
  
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.
+
== SASB Authorized ==
  
:Your comments were erroneous enough only to proceed from one or the other source, as they were belied by their own alleged sources. It is certainly bad manners to take pains to misrepresent the situation in other jurisdictions or confuse others about the canonical status of one's own jurisdiction.
+
The main article has a link to a download of the SASB. Here is the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP:
  
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.
+
"1996
  
:The Metropolitan's letter at the front of ''TOM'' states, "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." There is no similar statement in his letter in the SASB, nor has he amended his letter in any subsequent edition of ''TOM'', as you can now verify.  
+
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"
  
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.  
+
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)
  
:On the contrary, it is you who rob the Antiochians of the right to determine their practice. The Archdiocese administers the Western Rite through the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which prescribes ''The Orthodox Missal'' as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is given. This is neither controversial nor hard to understand. It misrepresents the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer book all-but-unused in the AWRV as though it were the equal of its actual practice.
+
== Misreading "exclusive use" ==
  
:Noting the SASB was designed as a parish prayer book is but noting a fact; presumably this explains why it does not includes the priest's silent prayers and other information necessary to celebrate Mass.  
+
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)
  
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 article as it stands ==
  
:You've added nothing from that section of the Observations that contradicts the '''fact''' that ALL recommendations about the Hours and Liturgy have been fulfilled.
+
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)
  
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….
+
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)
  
:And conveniently elided several others, including two from the SASB's text of the Mass. How odd.
+
==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)
  
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.
+
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)
  
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.  
+
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)
  
:False (once again), both about the SASB and AWRV practice in general. Regarding the SASB, apparently you missed the concluding prayer of Vespers, which begs "''the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, ever-Virgin Mother of God, of blessed Joseph, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, of blessed Andrew, and of all the Saints''" - odd, since it's clearly printed in the SASB. (It also prays for the day when "all adversity and error being done away with.") More to the point, AWRV missions typically conclude Morning Prayer and Evensong by singing the appropriate Marian antiphon. This is prescribed in ''St. Dunstan's Psalter'', used by every St. Tikhon Liturgy parish with which I'm familiar, prescribed even before its publication in [http://www.members.cox.net/frnicholas/daily_office.htm the Office presented by Fr. Nicholas Alford at St. Gregory the Great AWRV Church], and it was not an innovation then. This is the AWRV's standard practice. (Some parishes also pray the Rosary or saints' litanies immediately following the Hours, or at another time.)  
+
:...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)
  
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."
+
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)
  
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.  
+
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)
  
:The Great Litany is neither an Hour nor a Liturgy, and your mentioning in this regard only muddies the waters. However to swing at this particular pitch-in-the-dirt, ''The Orthodox Ritual'', the form authorized by the AWRV for use in parishes, includes the traditional Litany of the Saints, wherein the saints and angels commemorated run more than three columns. It also includes various other saints' litanies.
+
== Dropping "of Moscow" ==
  
:Of course, the SASB contains other prayers/invocations of the saints as part of its "Prayers and Thanksgivings" section, pp. 27-44.
+
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)
  
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 1892 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)
+
== Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow ==
  
:The ''Confiteor'' is part of what is known as "The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar," a part of Western Rite liturgies and is clearly printed in the SASB. If the 1892 BCP were itself sufficient, there would have been no need for the ''Observations''. (You may be interested to know most Anglo-Catholic parishes had already reinserted this prayer into the BCP liturgy at the time of the ''Observations''.)
+
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)
 
+
:...'''And then there are those three other prayers I mentioned''', which invoke a total of 18 saints (if I've counted right), which you omitted from your response. How odd. You've also conceded the sacrificial aspect of this discussion,as you've not offered any defense of your previous erroneous assertion.
+
 
+
:At any rate, I hope the moderators agree that I've made more than a compelling case.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 14:15, June 26, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
Yes, I missed a prayer in Vespers that mentions saints. There is none in Matins. I don’t think the Observations had in mind adding saints to just some offices, rather than all. To pretend that all of the recommendations were inserted into the Liturgy and office in the face of even one omission is just silly. No one is saying that the Metropolitan isn’t competent to authorize a form of Matins that doesn’t mention the saints; the problem arises only when one makes a false claim that all the recommendations were inserted.
+
 
+
:More on the "missed" prayers below. But here, dear reader, is the thrust of the game. The SASB was a simple guide for the laity, not a missal. (See above, and below.) Many claim it is a competing text of the Mass on par with the approved text of the Orthodox Missal in order to cite items the SASB omits and charge the Antiochians with approving a liturgy (or hours) that do not fulfill the ''Observations''. And, of course, offer their own alternative. However, this article is not about the SASB; it's about the AWRV's practices. '''It should not be controversial that any article about the AWRV should be based on its ''praxis'', not on an incomplete text fonud in a book.'''
+
 
+
The Litany is for use at the beginning of the Liturgy or during Morning or Evening Prayer. If the Confiteor is a text for the Liturgy (because it comes before it), then so is the Litany. And it is certainly a text for the office, since it is to follow the third collect in either office.
+
 
+
:The ''Confiteor'' is clearly printed within the text of the Mass in the SASB. The Litany is neither part of the Hours nor Liturgy but a separate service of its own, which I am familiar with being recited by itself. This isn't hard.
+
 
+
Not all Anglo-Catholic parishes used unauthorized prayers as part of the liturgy itself. My experience in a number of Anglo-Catholic parishes was that the Confiteor was said in the sacristy as part of the private preparation of the sacred ministers. In any event, Anglo-Catholic usages should not be considered as determinative of Orthodox practice. 
+
 
+
:Here again he obfuscates. He previously claimed the ''Confiteor'' was "foreign to the Anglican rite." Now he admits it was part of Anglo-Catholic practice and had personally seen it done -- and changes the subject, without admitting error. Does he have any guiding star except to assault those who dare disagree with him? We do not need this kind of truth-twisting on OrthodoxWiki.
+
 
+
There is still an attempt to confuse the status of the SASB. Willibrord quotes a sentence from the Metropolitan’s letter in the front of the OM (“The” is not part of the name of the OM, so it isn’t correct to use “TOM” as an acronym), "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." This does not say, as Willibrord would like it to say, that the OM is the “exclusive” or “only” approved text. But supposing arguendo that this was true in 1995 when the OM was published, it became false the next year when the SASB was published. There is not a similar statement in the SASB, because the OM was in existence. No one has claimed that the SASB is the only authorized service book.
+
 
+
The Metropolitan’s letter in the SASB is quite clear that the first edition of the SASB “was approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989.” While it began as a parish prayer book, it was authorized for use in any Western Rite parishes. The letter goes on to refer to “these authorized liturgies.” It is silly, incoherent, and demonstrably false, to say, as Willibrord does, that I “rob the Antiochians of the right to determine their practice. The Archdiocese administers the Western Rite through the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which prescribes The (sic) Orthodox Missal as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is given. This is neither controversial nor hard to understand. It misrepresents the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer book all-but-unused in the AWRV as though it were the equal of its actual practice.” I am not determining Antiochian practice; the Metropolitan does that. His letter in the front of the SASB makes clear his permission to use it. The edition of the SASB in front of me is printed, not by a parish for that parish’s exclusive use, but by the Archdicoese for any of its Western Rite clergy and parishes.
+
 
+
While it may be practice to sing a Marian antiphon after Matins or Vespers in the AWRV (when I was an Anglo-Catholic, we did so only after Compline), there is no rubrical provision for doing so in the SASB. The only mention of an antiphon in the OM I have seen is the Regina Coeli to be used in place of the Angelus.
+
 
+
:That the SASB would omit certain rubrics from Matins is hardly surprising, since it omits whole prayers and portions of the liturgy necessary for the priest to say Mass. This is because it was never intended to be a full Missal or text of the Mass and is simply a parish prayer book to assist the laity in following along. Errors come by fibbing that the SASB is more than it was ever intended, or authorized, to be. '''As this article deals with the ''praxis'' of the AWRV, and that ''praxis'' is in accord with the ''Observations'', the article should reflect that.'''
+
 
+
As these are printed in the section on the Divine Liturgy, one would infer that these follow the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. In any event, the Observations were recommendations for altering the texts to be used; it is not an adequate response to say that an hymn to one saint, not included in the authorized text, somehow meets the Commission’s requirement for glorification of the Theotokos, the Angelic Hosts, and the saints. Saying the Western Rosary is similarly not an answer. Nor is the inclusion of optional prayers. Nor is the Litany of Saints, since it is not part of the ordinary of the Liturgy.
+
 
+
As Willibrord himself indicated, the other prayers he mentioned are not in the SASB.
+
 
+
No, I don’t concede the question of sacrifice at all. There is only so much time to deal with these misrepresentations. As Willibrord would quibble with any reading that disagrees with his own, just as he wishes to pretend that the mention of saints in one Vespers prayer somehow makes Matins with no such prayer in conformity with the Commission’s Observations, it seems pointless. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 15:59, June 26, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
== Differences between the Orthodox Missal and the St Andrew's Service Book ==
+
 
+
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)
+
 
+
== What is at stake? ==
+
 
+
 
+
Since Willibrord has seen fit to imply unworthy motives to me, let me be crystal clear. (1) The Antiochian Archdiocese is fully competent, in the person of its ruling hierarch, to authorize (as he has) the liturgies contained in the OM and SASB. (2) I have no problem with the AWRV using the OM or the SASB. (3) I do not believe that the Observations of the Moscow Commission of 1904 have any authority over the liturgies authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese – they were made for the limited purpose of saying (in a general way) what changes would have to be made to the American 1892 BCP to make it acceptable for use by parishes under the omophor of Bishop (Saint) Tikhon.
+
 
+
My only purpose on this page is to correct one simple statement that is in error – the claim that all of the necessary changes were made in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. That has led to the necessity of having to defend the status of the SASB.
+
 
+
By way of contrast, Willibrord has implied that I am one of the vagantes, said that I am ignorant or malicious, claimed that I am seeking to “rob” the Archdiocese of the right to choose its services, that I have attempted to “confuse others about the canonical status of one's own jurisdiction” (when I haven’t mentioned my jurisdiction), and he has talked about the canonical status of ECOF (which I haven’t mentioned).
+
 
+
I take such personal attacks to be contrary to the standards of OrthoWiki. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 16:40, June 26, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
:As the moderators will note, I never called you personally a ''vagante'' but merely noted the reason such language was not only wrong but offensive: ''vagantes'' make this argument to demean canonical WRO. He reintroduced the erroneous information. Although the non-canonical status of L'ECOF is well-known here, it was not introduced into this discussion by me. In making his edits, he has selectively quoted SASB and rebuffed correction when it has been made. Regardless of motive, that is certainly contrary to OrthodoxWiki standards.
+
 
+
:The moderators can also verify that "Fr Lev" has taken to following me around the board, changing nearly every recent entry I have made. I'm sinful enough to appreciate the attention, but....
+
 
+
:I might add, the article and OrthodoxWiki overall might benefit from its contributors making a less intensely personal identification with their work, seeking fewer occasions wherein to take umbrage, and focused more on objective facts.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 17:21, June 26, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
 
+
I said you implied I was one of the vagantes, as you think it is they who make this criticism of the AWRV liturgies. As anyone can read on this talk page, I never brought up ECOF or my jurisdiction -- you did. I have not been following you around OrthoWiki, nor changing nearly every entry you make. That's a lie. Until this week, my last post on this page was in February. I also don't put scare quotes around your name. I am not personally identifying with my "work" -- I am responding to the personal invective ("ignorant", "malicious", trying to "rob" the Antiochians, etc.) you have sent my way. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:32, June 26, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
:I'm not much interested in this melodrama you're putting forward to cover the fact that you selectively quote materials, omit inconvenient facts, and engage in endless edit wars.
+
 
+
:Any of our august moderators can see how you essentially stalked me on OrthodoxWiki during my last edits here between Feb. 12-14, 2008, by viewing the the history pages of the  [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow&action=history Liturgy of St. Tikhon], the [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Liturgy_of_St._Gregory_the_Great&action=history Liturgy of St. Gregory], and the main [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Western_Rite&action=history Western Rite page]. All clearly begin with an edit by me, followed by edit-war from you. (You managed to get at least one of those pages locked.) Here you are again, doing the same thing. So much for the "lie" you impute to me.
+
 
+
:Selectively citing information to give a false impression is not new to you:
+
: '''-''' You ignored two prayers in the SASB (and even more in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as celebrated Vicariate-wide) to claim all its intercessions amounted to only one petition to one saint.
+
: '''-''' You "missed" a prayer in Vespers and erroneously asserted there was none.
+
: '''-''' You ignore all the Propers, including the additional Mass Collects, begging the saints' and angels intercessions.
+
: '''-''' You ignore the actual ''praxis'' of the AWRV to conflate it with an incomplete text found in a book.
+
: '''-''' In another discussion, you ignored huge chunks of one linked website and  [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Western_Rite#Blogs.3F.3F misinformed] the moderators it was merely about "William F. Buckley, Jr. -- nothing whatsoever to do with Western Rite Orthodoxy!" When I pointed out your incredibly selective reading, you claimed you were the victim.
+
: '''-''' In yet another discussion, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#Protection stated falsely] that you were quoting our moderator, Fr. John, when you changed his words.
+
:A pattern seems to emerge.
+
 
+
:You are quick to claim others are personally assaulting you when they dare edit you. When one knowledgable contributor corrected you, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#Misinformation wrote], "It is difficult for me to not suspect that your post springs from some kind of personal animus. You have made it a pooint [sic.] to follow-up postings I have made with responses that have been inaccurate and personal. That isn't appropriate for OrthodoxWiki." When he replied -- as I have -- that he's merely replacing misinformation with accurate non-POV information, you accused him of "slander." (Yet on another discussion, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Sarum_Rite instructed], "Ari needs to be careful when he imputes bad motives to people, as well as when he mis-states facts.") And when ''yet another'' OrthodoxWiki contributor disagreed with your misleading POV language, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#ANSWER fumed] this "indicates a clear personal animus that is out of place in a venue that seeks to be an encyclopedia." Elsewhere, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#Precisions_for_fr_Lev told him], "you are just being silly." But, you were saying, "personal invective"?
+
 
+
:And, of course, you were the first to claim I had written that "the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have the authority to decide which service books are approved" and somehow claimed I accused him of "ignorance and malice." (What a way to twist a post!)
+
 
+
:In other words, it appears you are hysterically accusing me of your own actions. Whether these stem from pushing an agenda, ignorance, or a very one-sided and sloppy handling of sources, none of it is beneficial to a correct, non-POV OrthodoxWiki entry.
+
 
+
:At any rate, the weight of all this suggests you are less-than-capable of presenting objective facts about Western Rite Orthodoxy, are highly volatile when contradicted in any way, and perhaps should be moderated to prevent future edit-wars and long, personal attacks against OrthodoxWiki contributors on the Talk pages when they write more accurately about WRO than you desire.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 22:58, June 27, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
 
+
Gentlemen (note the plural), please stop talking about one another, imputing motives to one another (and others), etc., and focus solely on improving the article.  Thank you.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 23:09, June 27, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
== Protection ==
+
 
+
This article has been protected for the time being so that the editors involved can politely work out a consensus among themselves before further editing it.  The protection of the current version does not constitute an endorsement of its contents by the management. 
+
 
+
Since this seems to be a subject of some controversy, the controversial elements come under the [[OrthodoxWiki:Style_Manual#Controversial_Subjects_and_Original_Research|policy in the Style Manual regarding original research]].  In particular, whether or not "all" or "almost all" of the recommendations from Moscow were implemented by the AWRV or ROCOR in their versions of this liturgy will have to be established by reputable, third-party sources and then cited accordingly.  (Looking through the liturgy's text and making this evaluation yourself constitutes original research, which is not permitted on OrthodoxWiki for controversial subjects.)  Otherwise, any mention of the question will have to be removed from the article.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 15:46, June 28, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
There is a paucity of published scholarly material on the questions at hand, but there is one such review essay of the SASB published in ''St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly'', Vol. 41 (1997), No. 2-3, pp. 249-268. (This essay sould be added to the article's references.) It concludes that "most of the changes required by the ''Observations'' simply were not made" (p. 256). Reviewing the essay reminded me of other examples of changes not made. The ''Observations'' criticized , e.g., the BCP's anaphora for not commemorating the Saints. No such commemoration was added, as the essay notes (p. 254). Clearly, "all" is not acceptable in that it is a false claim. I would have been content with "almost all", even if "only some" is more accurate. Given the level of hostility even the modest qualifier of "almost" provoked from another editor, perhaps the only solution is to remove any mention in the relevant articles to changes being made in accordance with the ''Observations''. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:30, July 1, 2008 (UTC)
+
 
+
== In the Other Churches ==
+
 
+
I would like to see documentation on the claim, "ROCOR has since implemented all of them, as well, in approving 'The English Liturgy.' Hierarchs in the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Moscow Patriarchates, as well as ROCOR, have approved a form of this liturgy."
+
 
+
"The English Liturgy" that is linked in the article bears little resemblance to the Liturgy of St Tikhon, and purports to be based on several sources -- the medieval Sarum, the 1549 BCP, a 1718 liturgy (?), etc. -- not the 1892 BCP that Moscow examined nor the 1928 on which the Liturgy of St Tikhon is actually based. While bracketing the question of the actual provenance of the "English Liturgy," it seems anachronistic at the very least to say that it has added all of the chnages required by the Commission, when the Commission didn't examine this particular mélange.
+
 
+
I've not run across references to the Liturgy of St Tikhon being approved by Moscow or Alexandria. Those would be good to see. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 15:46, July 2, 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