Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow
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? --Fr Lev 21:54, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
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.
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).”
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.
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. --Fr Lev 21:20, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
Is the Lord’s Prayer part of the canon?
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. --Fr Lev 00:49, August 6, 2008 (UTC)