Talk:Liturgy of St. Gregory

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Uh, I'm rather new to Wiki editing, but this article needs a little help! I'm unsure why, for instance, "The Preparation" links to the article for the Byzantine "proskomede" and "Offertory" links to the "Anaphora" article. In fact, the only rough equivalent to the Byzantine prothesis in the Roman Rite is the Offertory (the elements are prepared and offered in the middle of the Mass, not the beginning). Likewise, the Roman Mass's "Canon" is the equivalent of the "Anaphora" of the Eastern Liturgies.

Well, it sounds like you're the person to help! This article is rather new and has barely been touched at all. Plus, I'd guess that most people here aren't familiar at all with Western liturgics. Please feel free to change the links. And to add a cleanup tag, just put in {{cleanup}} at the beginning. Oh, and signing your comments with 4 ~s makes the discussion pages so much clearer. Thanks. Gabriela 20:27, January 3, 2007 (PST)

I think that the internal links in the two instances mentioned should simply be removed unless a small section is added to the Byzantine article noting differences in the Western practices. Or one could simply removed the links and add content to the outline in the Western article. It isn't uniformly the case, however, that the preparation in the Western rites is done at the time of the offertory. Some Roman religious usages did the preparation before the mass began, and the ROCOR version of the Roman liturgy prepared by Dom Augustine Whitfield and others provides for either practice. Fr Lev 05:22, January 4, 2007 (PST)

Making up history

We need to be clear about this. The Liturgy of St Gregory was based on the Tridentine -- it is full of materials that were not present in the "ancient" Roman Mass. Nor is it identical to the liturgy approved by Moscow for Overbeck, nor with what the Polish Church used, etc. --Fr Lev 17:38, February 13, 2008 (PST)

Difference between the Orthodox Missal and the St Andrew's Service Book

Since a point has been made on a couple of different pages now that most parishes of the AWRV use the Orthodox Missal rather than the St Andrew's Service Book, perhaps the person making the point could elaborate on the differences. What significant differences are there? --Fr Lev 17:52, February 13, 2008 (PST)

The Provenance of the Liturgy of St Gregory

It is false to claim that the basis of the Liturgy of St Gregory is the ancient liturgy of Rome, as the Orthodox editors began with the Tridentine rite. This is true of both Jospeh Overbeck's work in the 19th century and that of the Basilians in the 20th, the latter being the direct source for the Antiochian version of the liturgy. The details of the many features of the Liturgy of St Gregory that were not a part of the Roman rite before the Schism are detailed in the review essay on the SASB published in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly referenced in the article. --Fr Lev 02:30, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

Title Change in Order

I can't find any official source that refers to this AWRV Mass as "The Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great." The liturgy is referred to in the Orthodox Missal as "The Mass according to the Rite of St. Gregory," although the term "The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, commonly called the Mass" is found in another publication. "Mass of St. Gregory" and/or "Liturgy of St. Gregory" are commonly accepted shorthand. Although the saint in question is Pope St. Gregory the first/the Great/the Dialogist, I have not found any Mass text add any of these titles to its name. I'm not certain how to change the title of this entry to reflect the accurate name, though.--Willibrord 15:58, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

To change the name of an article, use the "Move" tab at the top of the page. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 19:45, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

SASB - moderation needed

The SASB, published a year after the Orthodox Missal, was published by the Antiochian Archdiocese with a letter from Metropolitan PHILIP referring to it as "authorized" liturgies. The SASB is used by at least some AWRV parishes. To claim that the OM is the "only" authorized text betrays an interest in promoting something other than the facts. This matter is not settled. Neither Pistevo nor a subdeacon's thesis trumps the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese. IS Willibrod claiming that the SASB was not published by the Antiochian Archdioces? Is he claiming that the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP is a forgery, or that the Metropolitan doesn't have the authority to make such an authorization? Is he claiming that the AWRV parishes that use the SASB are using "unauthorized" liturgies in defiance of the Metropolitan? These are not matters of opinion; these are simple, straightforward, matters of fact. --Fr Lev 16:12, August 24, 2008 (UTC)--Fr Lev 16:12, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the Admins' page, Pistevo settled the question of OM vs. SASB authorization on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon Talk page. This is a straightforward matter of fact. --Willibrord 21:07, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Pistevo said that the SASB was not an authorized text of the AWRV. I missed that one, and if you could clearly cite that and show Fr Lev where this was resolved.--JosephSuaiden 21:50, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Feel free to read them for yourself. --Willibrord 23:52, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you quoted. So far I have not seen him say that, but if you could cite it, I will drop out of this debate in deference to the moderator.--JosephSuaiden 03:06, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

Memory recalls that I said that there was a different authorisation at play, based on the different articles used. This is, admittedly, very nit-picky, but that is following the motif of discussion.
The subdeacon's thesis (as it has been unnecessarily referred to as) would settle this because of the quotes from the Vicar-General (who can be said to speak for the Metropolitan on these matters - that's what deputising is all about). Anyone ever thought to ask him, by the way?
BTW, I'm about *gestures* this close */gesture* to mass-blocking all of the WR articles. Seriously, this isn't how we play here, and most people on this talk page really just need to edit other articles. For example, we are rather low on recent notable people in the WR movement - I'm not even sure if we have an article about Overbeck (or Hatherly, for that matter). — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 22:50, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

A conversation with Fr Schneirla would presumably be "original research." I have cited pubished research (the SVTQ review article), which is based on a doctoral dissertation. --Fr Lev 23:07, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

The thesis is original research, so citing the thesis is the citing of original research (no problems there, whether SVTQ or SVS).
Having a verbal chat to the VG would basically be of no use to anyone. But I can't see the real harm in going straight to the, well, unflattering analogy on this one - the point of the original research clause is to say that you can't cite your own blog post in an argument, but the VG is a knowledgable (even authoratative) third-party.
Oh, and as an addemdum, the e-mail has to be made public (in this case, posted online with the VGs explicit permission), otherwise it's uncitable. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:22, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

And, to support the point that Wilibrord wishes to make, the V-G would have to expressly state that (1) the Metropolitan has formally rescinded his letter of authorization in the SASB; and (2) that no AWRV paarish is any longer permitted to use the SASB. Otherwise it is vacuous to claim that the OM is the "only" authorized authorized service book that may be used by the AWRV. --Fr Lev 23:29, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

To use the SASB as the official book, yes. But, memory recalls that Willibrord was saying from the beginning that SASB was intended to be a book-in-the-pews (hence the lack of priestly prayers) - a book doesn't need to be authorised to assist people to follow the service, or it may be authorised as a book-in-the-pews (and this would need explicit clarification). If these have already been explicitly addressed in the thesis, though, then we'd be able to cite that (without requiring a letter). — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:40, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

Willibrord has edited the opening paragraph of this article to read: "The AWRV's only authorized text of the Mass is found in the Orthodox Missal" (emphasis added). To say this, in light of the fact that the SASB has a ltter from the Metropolitan referring to "these authorized liturgies...", the V-G would have to say that the Metropolitan has rescinded his letter and that the SASB etxts are no longer authorized. "Only" is quite a claim. --Fr Lev 23:45, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

I think enough criteria has been set - lets suspend all positions pending official statement. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 01:59, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

Pew Book?

The first thing to be said is that nothing in the SASB, including the letter of authorization by Metropolitan PHILIP and the preface by Fr Michael Trigg, indicates that the SASB is "only" a pew book. Indeed, the letter from the Metropolitan refers to its use by "the clergy and the laity...." (emphasis added). If a an AWRV parish chooses to use the SASB, it is not the case that the priest must use the OM. Also, when the Liturgy of St Tikhon was published as a separate booklet, I don't believe it contained any of the "private" prayers of the priest that are included in the OM. Yes, there are propers available in the OM that are not in the SASB, but that doesn't make the SASB any less authorized than the OM. Second, a text is either authorized for use or not. There is no language in the SASB to warrant the idea that it is "less authorized" than the OM. And what could that possibly look like in practice? Third, to the extent that the SASB is deigned for use by the laity (as well as the clergy!), it is more in keeping with the Observations than the OM. After all, St Tikhon sent the 1892 Book of Common Prayer to Moscow, and the Observations were written for the amending of a book of common prayer, not an altar missal. Finally, the whole idea of "private" prayers for the priest to say are foreign to the Anglican Prayer Book tradition. No edition of the Book of Common Prayer has contained those prayers -- they are additions from the Tridentine rite of the Roman Church, along with the Asperges, the Preparation, the embolism in the Lord's Prayer, the Last Gospel, and the dialogue before the anaphora in which the priest says, "Pray, brethren, that this my sacrifice and yours...." --Fr Lev 00:25, August 26, 2008 (UTC)