Talk:Western Rite Service Books

Saint Andrews Service Book

I recently purchased a book entitled Saint Andrews Service Book from the Antiochian Church. I was under the impression that this book (which is *in* print) was the an official liturgical book. Am I wrong? Joffridus

Re: the Saint Andrew's Service Book - the text is only in use, afaik, by St. Andrew's in Eustis, FL (and possibly not even there anymore.) Whomever posted the original information was correct: I've yet to see it in use at a WRO parish, or suggested by a WRO priest. Generally, the WRO use corrected copies of Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic (Anglican) service books which date from the latter half of the 19th c./ first half of the 20th c. According to the AWRV Ordo (printed most years by St. Luke's Priory Press) the cutoff date is '1950' for vestments, which seems to be a general rule for service books as well. - Aristibule

If I recall correctly, the SASB contains a letter in the front from Metropolitan PHILIP sayin that it is authorized for use in the Archdiocese. If so, it isn't correct to describe The Orthodox Missal as the "only" authorized service book. --Fr Lev 09:43, March 8, 2006 (CST)

The letter in the front of SASB does not describe it as the authorized liturgies. Metropolitan PHILIP, and the Vicariate, have emphasized year after year that the Orthodox Missal contains the *only authorized texts* for the AWRV. One can find it in the minutes of the yearly meetings at the Convention, which has even been reported in the WORD magazine. I'm not AWRV, but am aware enough of the sources to know that the officials of the Vicariate (which includes Met. PHILIP) say only the Orthodox Missal is the authorized texts. Ari 11:45, March 12, 2006 (CST)

I didn't say that the SASB was described as the authorized texts, but simply as authorized to be used in the Archdiocese. My copy is packed away, but is Ari claiming that the letter does not authorize the book for use within the Archdiocese? It would be strange indeed for the Archdiocese to print a book that it did not authorize for use. --Fr Lev 13:25, March 12, 2006 (CST)

I have now had the chance to re-examine the SASB and, as I said before, it contains a letter from Metropolitan PHILIP which says: We pray that the attentive use of THESE AUTHORIZED LITURGIES and other rites and ceremonies...." (emphasis added). Most people in the AWRV may indeed use The Orthodox Missal instead, but the SASB is clearly authorized for use in the Archdiocese. It is also used in more than one parish. I read online recently that St Michael's in Wichita has switched from the OM to SASB, and it is presumably used at St Michael's in Whittier. It is available as an Adobe file on their website, and Fr Michael Trigg was one of the editors of the revised edition published by the Archdiocese. --Fr Lev 11:18, March 13, 2006 (CST)

From the 2004 Ordo of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate: "The Ordinary of the Mass shall follow "The Missal for the Use of Orthodox" as published in Latin or an authorized version, or St. Tikhon's Canon as published by the Vicariate in the Orthodox Missal." Pretty clear instructions, which is what the Ordo is for. Again, from the Ordo: "The Propers of the Mass shall follow the text of the Orthodox Missal, published by the Vicariate in 1995." See a copy of the Ordo 2004 here: http://www.saintpeterorthodox.org/wr_ordo_2004.pdf Ari 23:52, March 13, 2006 (CST)

Someone is being perversely stubborn. If Metropolitan PHILIP says the SASB is authorized for use in the Archdiocese, then it is. It is also being used by at least three parishes of the AWRV. To insist otherwise at this point is just plain silly, and such partisanship and refusal to accept the facts doesn't fir with NPOV. --Fr Lev 08:43, March 14, 2006 (CST)

It isn't perverse, but it is stubborn - stubbornly NPOV. The official authorities for the Antiochian Western Rite have stated again and again that the Orthodox Missal contains the only authorized texts. (Those authorities being the Metropolitan, the Vicar General, and the Western Rite Commission.) We have official documentation of the same, and many of us have been there personally. I could also direct towards AWRV clergy that would say the same. Ari 23:13, March 26, 2006 (CST)

I provided the exact quote from the front of the SASB, a letter from Metropolitan PHILIP, authorizing the use of the book. I also provided the names of at least three parishes in the AWRV that use the SASB. So it isn't clear to me what Ari is asserting here: (1) Am I misquoting the letter from the Metropolitan that is printed in the front of the SASB? (2) As I did quote it correctly, is he saying that the Metropolitan is trumped by the other AWRV officials? (3) Are those three parishes using unauthorized liturgies? It isn't NPOV to ignore the published authorization of the Metropolitan or the fact that the SASB, in addition to the Orthodox Missal, is being used in the AWRV. I don't see what is so bad about the SASB that requires one to be in denial. --Fr Lev 07:25, March 27, 2006 (CST)

This is rather asinine, even if this conversation is three years old. It may be true that the text of the Orthodox Missal is the "authorized" text of the Western Rite liturgies in the Antiocean WRV. But that doesn't mean that this text does not also appear in the SASB. Just as the "Liturgikon" contains the official text of the Central (Byzantine) Rite as used in the Antiochean jurisdiction yet parishes all use variations. Heck, I have never seen the same service book twice in all my travels to Orthodox Churches across the country. It is not hard to see.--Ryan Close 15:39, May 7, 2009 (UTC)

Solution?

I myself am not satisfied with this arrangement either. First, it gives too many impressions about what is used and authorized for who. That's a bad arrangement. A better one would be to simply list books by publisher-- and then list (in parenthesis) what is being used by who.--JosephSuaiden 23:35, January 25, 2009 (UTC)

"Canonical"

The term we use on OrthodoxWiki is usually "mainstream" rather than "canonical," as there really isn't agreement on what the latter constitutes. In any event, I don't think a mention of that is even required, honestly. The purpose of our articles is to be descriptive, not to prescribe practices or to make judgments on canonicity.

See: OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual#Neutrality and the OrthodoxWiki Bias

--Rdr. Andrew 18:57, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)