Talk:Western Rite Service Books - Revision history

Dclark: Formatting fixes.

2020-03-07T15:24:04Z

Formatting fixes.

Ryan Close: official text!

2009-05-07T15:39:25Z

official text!

JosephSuaiden: a solution?

2009-01-25T23:35:52Z

a solution?

Fr Lev at 14:31, March 27, 2006

2006-03-27T14:31:49Z

Fr Lev at 13:25, March 27, 2006

2006-03-27T13:25:24Z

Aristibule at 05:13, March 27, 2006

2006-03-27T05:13:32Z

Fr Lev at 14:43, March 14, 2006

2006-03-14T14:43:48Z

Aristibule at 05:52, March 14, 2006

2006-03-14T05:52:33Z

Fr Lev at 17:29, March 13, 2006

2006-03-13T17:29:19Z

Fr Lev at 17:18, March 13, 2006

2006-03-13T17:18:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, March 7, 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	__FORCETOC__
		+
		+	==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? [[User:Joffridus\|Joffridus]]		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? [[User:Joffridus\|Joffridus]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, May 7, 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:

	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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 07:25, March 27, 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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|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.--[[User:Ryan Close\|Ryan Close]] 15:39, May 7, 2009 (UTC)

	==Solution?==		==Solution?==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, January 25, 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:

	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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 07:25, March 27, 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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 07:25, March 27, 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	==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.--[[User:JosephSuaiden\|JosephSuaiden]] 23:35, January 25, 2009 (UTC)

	== "Canonical" ==		== "Canonical" ==

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 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. [[User:Aristibule|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.  --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 07:25, March 27, 2006 (CST)
 == "Canonical" ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, March 27, 2006
Line 16:		Line 16:

	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. [[User:Aristibule\|Ari]] 23:13, March 26, 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. [[User:Aristibule\|Ari]] 23:13, March 26, 2006 (CST)
		+
		+
		+	So Metropolitan PHILIP doesn't trump the officials of the AWRV, he doesn't know that his authorizing the SASB doesn't make them authorized, and the parishhes using the SASB are all being flagrantly disobedient to their officials? This isn't NPOV but very much a partisan point of view that ignores the official documentation by the ruling hierarch and the facts on the ground. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 07:25, March 27, 2006 (CST)

	== "Canonical" ==		== "Canonical" ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:13, March 27, 2006
Line 14:		Line 14:

	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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 08:43, March 14, 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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|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. [[User:Aristibule\|Ari]] 23:13, March 26, 2006 (CST)

	== "Canonical" ==		== "Canonical" ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, March 14, 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:

	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 [[User:Aristibule\|Ari]] 23:52, 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 [[User:Aristibule\|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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 08:43, March 14, 2006 (CST)

	== "Canonical" ==		== "Canonical" ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:52, March 14, 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 11:18, March 13, 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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|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 [[User:Aristibule\|Ari]] 23:52, March 13, 2006 (CST)

	== "Canonical" ==		== "Canonical" ==

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 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. --[[User:Fr Lev|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. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 11:18, March 13, 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.  --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 11:18, March 13, 2006 (CST)
 == "Canonical" ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, March 13, 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 13:25, 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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|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. --[[User:Fr Lev\|Fr Lev]] 11:18, March 13, 2006 (CST)

	== "Canonical" ==		== "Canonical" ==