Talk:Gregory the Dialogist
I am stating this here, because I do not want to start an edit-war.
The Liturgy of St Gregory the Great was revised by St Gregory and those revisions are reflected in pre-schismatic usages. The Tridentine Mass is essentially a heavy revision of the Gregorian Liturgy, and Willibrord is fully aware of this, based on his previous edit wars. I would suggest that you could say that the Gregorian Mass forms the *basis* of the AWRV's "Liturgy of St Gregory the Great" (which is primarily-- and no one denies this-- an edited Tridentine Mass), but to imply that the two are one and the same is intellectually dishonest.
I am not saying that this is not a good or proper liturgy, as you may assume-- it's not perfect, but it is certainly better than the "Liturgy of St Tikhon". However, it is NOT the liturgy St Gregory authored, unless we wish to link the Sarum, Braga, and other variations of the Roman rite which have a better claim to authorship by St Gregory.--JosephSuaiden 18:34, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
- All this because I linked a reference of the Liturgy of St. Gregory to the OrthodoxWiki entry about the Liturgy of St. Gregory? I fail to see the outrage.
- My edit listed this saint's exact contribution to the Roman Mass, remarks it bears his name in his honor, then links to the OrthodoxWiki entry proving the fact: the Liturgy of St. Gregory (as I note on that Talk page, it is not called "The Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great"). The Mass he celebrated at Rome was heavily edited long before the Great Schism, perhaps nowhere moreso than in the Sarum Use. (Ironically, the Tridentine Mass actually arrested medieval, post-Schism development as found, e.g., in the Sarum Mass, and turned back toward pre-Schism Liturgy -- but all this is immaterial to the entry.) As this is not a private blog, frankly your opinion of the Mass referred to on another entry is immaterial.
- I'm adding back the edits, simply because as this entry stands there is a non-word "ss" where "as" should be and an extra space where you deleted "erroneously." I also added a word about Gregorian chant. (I'm holding out hope perhaps there will be no edit war on the grounds the monks at Solemnes reconstructed Gregorian chant....) --Willibrord 19:33, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
You say "and turned back toward pre-Schism Liturgy". That is a Roman Catholic argument. However, factually it is incorrect, and Roman liturgical scholars have noted for centuries that the attempt to make the Liturgy "pre-schism" largely failed. It *did* standardize the liturgy. It did *not* restore it to a pre-schism usage.
BTW, the Sarum liturgy's usages can be traced back to the time of the schism, so you are incorrect.
You also added back the link, and I will update accordingly to reflect the reality, and I will leave your link as is while fixing the factual information.
- Am I the only one who finds this entire discussion off-topic for this entry? --Willibrord 19:41, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
What is off topic is claiming St Gregory's authorship to a 20th century usage.--JosephSuaiden 19:48, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
- ...Whicn my edits to this entry didn't do. I simply said there's an Orthodox liturgy that bears his name, because he made a contribution to it. Then I linked the liturgy (where the entry I link states "1570," "Tridentine," etc.) Discussion of liturgical minutiae are off-topic to this entry. --Willibrord 19:58, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
Nice try. But you added the link. The reality is that St Gregory did not author this liturgy and so the link did not belong there. You are correct-- this discussion does not belong to a hagiography. So you should stop introducing mythology into it. It has no place in an encyclopedia.--JosephSuaiden 20:03, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
I have also removed the word "erroneously" from the question of authorship of the Presanctified Liturgy. When confronted with a choice between "modern research" that makes a general (but unproven) assumption versus what the Church has continuously taught-- that St Gregory is the author of a particular liturgy-- we go by what the Church teaches, and can note that modern scholarship debates that claim. Ironically, we find ourselves in a reverse of the above predicament, where we are adding a Saint's name to a liturgy codified ten centuries after his death and fourteen after its introduction into the use of the Orthodox Church. --JosephSuaiden 18:44, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be a confusing of "Tradition" and "traditions." The authorship of the Presanctified Liturgy and title given thereto are not Orthodox dogmas.
- Nor is there much question St. Gregory the Great had little-to-nothing to do with the Presanctified Liturgy of the Eastern Church. The way his name got appended to this text is outlined in the indicated pages of Uspensky. One can also turn to The Year of Grace of the Lord, p. 132. Even the website of one Orthodox jurisdiction states, "The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is traditionally considered to be the work of the sixth-century pope, Saint Gregory of Rome. The present service, however, is obviously the inspired liturgical creation of Christian Byzantium." If anyone is interested in this argument, this link may also be interesting.
- Not to pile on, but you have talked yourself into a twist: on the one hand, you insist on keeping his name appended to the Presanctified Liturgy, to which St. Gregory made no contribution whatever, but you refuse to hear the Church call the other text "the Liturgy of St. Gregory," although he made significant contributions to it. --Willibrord 19:33, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the vicariate consulted St Gregory 14 centuries after his repose, but I am glad to see he is still working on new redactions! Kudos! I see that you wish to not read ANYTHING I said, which was based upon factual standards. In case you haven't noticed, I am trying to include your POV while remaining factual. By contrast, you are deleting POV's and ignoring fact.
The quote above says NOTHING about the authorship of the liturgy, save that traditionally St Gregory is considered its author. NOTHING supports the idea of it being 'erroneous' and you don't have a basis for the claim. --JosephSuaiden 19:45, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
- The links provided demonstrate just that, if you read them. This saint, as far as can be told, made no contribution to the Byzantine Presanctified whatever. That is important, as it also deals with a part of his life (in this case, a false legend).--Willibrord 19:58, August 23, 2008 (UTC)