Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Is the Lord’s Prayer Part of the Canon?)
(ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's)
(43 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
I didn't delete the content on this page, and I have it all in a Word document. For some reason it won't let me put it back in and save it. I did get a warning message about the talk page being very long. Maybe s Sysop could restore the page and archive part of it? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:54, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
+
*''[[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1a|Archive 1a]] and [[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1b|Archive 1b]]''.
  
== Unambiguous facts ==
+
==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.
  
1. It doesn’t matter whether the Litany is used alone or in conjunction with the office or the Liturgy. The Observations require that invocation of the Theotokos, the Angels, and the Saints be added. They were not added to the SASB version of the Litany.  
+
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.
  
2. Willibrord writes, “For the second time I note, the Observations left where invocations of the saints would be added to the BCP under the bishop's authority and nowhere specified they must be added to a specific section of the Liturgy.” But this is plainly false. The concluding paragraph of the Observations is unambiguous: “'''Into all the services''' in general prayers '''must be inserted''' addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service).
+
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.
  
3. Willibrord seems to misunderstand Metropolitan PHILIP’s letter in the 1995 OM. The Metropolitan wrote, “These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese.” Willibrord seems to be reading that as saying these texts and only these texts may be used in our Archdiocese, but that isn’t what the sentence says. But in any event, in the very next year, the Metropolitan refers in his letter in the SASB to its texts as “these authorized liturgies and other rites and ceremonies….” So even if one understood the 1995 letter as excluding other texts, one has to acknowledge a reversal in 1996 in that the texts of the SASB are clearly identified as authorized services.  
+
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".
  
There is no getting around 1, 2, and 3. And pointing out 1, 2, and 3, in no way makes me a "detractor" of the AWRV. I fully support the AWRV and fully support their Metropolitan's right to authorize whatever liturgies he sees fit to authorize, which includes both the OM and the SASB. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:20, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
+
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)
  
== Is the Lord’s Prayer part of the canon? ==
+
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)
  
Willibrord cites ''The Mass of the Western Rites'' by Dom Fernand Cabrol as evidence that the ''Libera nos'' is part of the canon. This is a less than careful reading of the piece. While the ''Pater'' (with the ''Libera nos)'' appears in a list he gives of the elements of the canon, Dom Fernand wrote: ‘The word "Canon," ''Canon Missae''" in our Missal, is the title of all the prayers which follow the "Sanctus." No other indication is furnished in the Missal to show where the "Canon" ends, and it would seem to continue till the Last Gospel inclusively. But according to a text of St. Gregory which we shall quote in connection with the "Pater," and also in accordance with other witnesses, '''the "Canon" really ends with the solemn doxology which precedes the "Pater,"''' or at the "Fraction"’ (Chapter 5).  And a few paragraphs later, ‘The "Canon" corresponds with the most ancient of the Eucharistic prayers as this is described by St. Justin in the second century or at the beginning of the third by St. Hippolytus. It is a prayer with a single inspiration beginning with the "Dominus vobiscum "or "Sursum corda" of the "Preface," continuing with the recital of the Institution, and '''ending after a doxology with the "Amen" of the faithful. These are the true limits of the "Canon,"''' they are at least the most ancient.’ In short, both the SVTQ author and Dom Fernand are both in agreement with the standard usage of liturgical scholars, namely, that the canon ends with the doxology and the great Amen. I'm simply trying here to prevent further misinformation from creeping into the article. The gratuitous and false comments about this poster and the SVTQ author's liturgical knowledge should have no place on this page. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:49, August 6, 2008 (UTC)
+
Deleting my comment as I hope the discussion on this page is done.
 +
 
 +
:''Moved from Archive 1b to main Talk page by [[User:Pistevo|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. &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)
 +
 
 +
: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)
 +
 
 +
==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.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|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. --[[User:Willibrord|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".--[[User:JosephSuaiden|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. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Fr Lev|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. --[[User:Fr Lev|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. --[[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 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)
 +
 
 +
==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)

Revision as of 03:15, 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