Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow

15,532 bytes removed, 11:15, August 26, 2008
ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's
SOME changes were implemented*''[[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1a|Archive 1a]] and [[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1b|Archive 1b]]''.
Only some of ==Adjudication==At 80kb, I'm fairly sure that this is the recommendations made by single longest Talk page on OW, probably even including those with archivals - so big that it needed to pages to archive it. It's the Moscow Commission were made by kind of thing that I instinctively congratulate, purely on the Antiochians basis of perseverance - all 80,000 characters and ROCORsix months of it. This shouldn't be controversial That said, this does need to stop. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 16:22, February 12, 2008 (PST)
:The use of "some" So, my adjudication on the matter - the Observations aren't binding (they're ''observations''), so it is misleading; all recommendations for thoroughly irrelevant whether they were followed to the liturgy letter (and hoursindeed, 'to the letter' gives quite a bit of scope to the diocesan) were made by . This is something that both Antioch 'sides' can accept, since one advanced this idea to begin with and ROCOR the other highlighted that the diocesan needed to implement them properly. The way the article currently is (and Alexandria, and MoscowI did edit it in the last couple of days)reflects this.
:Certain Secondly, I''vagantes'' use this language m not convinced that the SASB is authorised in the same way as the OM is authorised - the definite and indefinite articles clearly have an important part to cast aspersions on play in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, claiming it is invalidEnglish language, because it did not implement all and only the recommendations of latter has the 1904 Observationsdefinite article...which is false. - [[User: Willibrord]]
Only SOME of Regarding citations, the changes were made; OM/SASB issue should be settled with a citation (e.g. Andersen, B., (2006). ''Lengthy Thesis: Title with Much Capitalisation that is a simple factRivals The Thesis' Word Count''. Crestwood, New York: Publisher), but I am not a vagante nor have I claimed strongly encourage that the liturgy in question critical part of this thesis be put online. The critical part about this thesis is "invalidwhat the Vicar-General says - if there's only one authorised text according to him, then that's it - if that wasn't the case," but one need not make false claims such as then in the one same way that ALL of the recommendations were adoptedArchbishop has full authority to authorise texts, he also has full authority to un-deputise people to speak on his behalf. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:34 At a minimum, February 13all bibliographical details need to be given. In addition, 2008 (PST) Before Willbrord changes my edits againwhether there is a conflict of interest regarding the thesis is not an issue, perhaps he could read for the simple reason that it was submitted to an impartial marker. One would not claim a conflict of interest if someone said 'I'Observations'm innocent' and compare them to after the liturgycourt case was thrown out. -- On another note, however, Occidentalis cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that it is a "blog [[User:Fr Lev|Fr Levthat]] 07:07, February 14, 2008 (PST)is open to invited readers only".
From what In short, I recall from having read about this some time agohold that the article, as it stands, the 'is correct. I'Observations'' noted m archiving the inadequate language rest of sacrifice in the oblation of page. For any further complaints about the anaphoraarticle, but nothing was changed. One of their biggest <strike>click on my complaints was the compromising language of the Prayer Book. The classic example of link</strike> feel free to state this on this is in the words for administering communionpage or find another sysop. The &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="Catholicgreen" 1549 BCP had >Pιs</font><font color="The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.gold" The >τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="Protestantblue" 1552 replaced these words with "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." The Elizabethan compromise book of 1559 intended to allow Catholic- and Protestant-minded Anglicans to both use the BCP simply combined the two sets of words. This compromise language is maintained in the Tikhon text. The penultimate paragraph of the >talk</font>]]''Observations'' has some choice words about this compromise approach. I also recall that the ''Observations'' wanted a great deal more "glorification and invocation" of the Saints, which became only a reference in the intercessions to "blessed Mary and all Thy Saints." --[[Usertalk:Fr LevPistevo/dev/null|Fr Lev<font color="red">complaints</font>]] 08''</sup> at 23:2701, February 14August 8, 2008 (PSTUTC)
:Sorry-- I didn'''ALL''' (not some) of the recommendations of the [http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12t notice that this was a final edit.html ''Observations''] ''for the Liturgy and Hours'' have been implementedI will be quiet on this one, and to say otherwise is simply false. The wasn''Observations'' list all required changes in the last paragraph, and all relating t trying to wake the Liturgy dead or Hours have been madeanything. Stremoving previous comment. Tikhon's Liturgy includes the "glorification and invocation" (to borrow your quotation) of: ::- in the '''''Confiteor''''' (clearly printed in both ''The Orthodox Missal'' and the -[[httpUser://www.stmichaelwhittier.org/dnn/Literature/tabid/63/Default.aspx ''St. Andrew Service Book''JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]): "Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, [and] all the saints"; ::- in the '''''Suscipe Sancta Trinitas'''''02: "blessed Mary Ever-Virgin32, of blessed John (the) BaptistAugust 9, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all Thy saints."::- in '''''Nobis Quoque Peccatoribus''''': "thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecelia, Anastasia," and all saints; and ::- in the '''''Libera Nos''''' 2008 (Again, in both TOM and SASBUTC): a supplication for "the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, Ever-Virgin Mother of God, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, Andrew, and all Thy saints."
:All of these prayers are prayed ''throughout'' Deleting my comment as I hope the Antiochian WR Vicariate and are included in TOM, but the SASB (along with its other irregularities) does not include any of the priest's silent prayers -- perhaps because the SASB discussion on this page is a simple parish prayer book and not a priest's Missal, much less the Vicariate's official text of the Mass. But even in the SASB, "glorification and invocation" of the saints was never ''"only a reference in the intercessions to 'blessed Mary and all Thy Saints.'"'' Your allegations demonstrate either ignorance or malicedone.
:The ''Observations'' -- which say the Gallican Liturgy makes reference Moved from Archive 1b to sacrifice only "somewhat vaguely" -- state the idea of sacrifice must be "inserted...into the rite of the Liturgy," though it does not specify the canon proper; the idea could be expressed, as in the Gallican Rite, in other places. In St. Tikhon's Liturgy, there is an abundance of sacrificial references in the canon and without. The priest's offertory prayers (specifically the ''In Spiritu Humilitatis'' and ''Veni Sanctificator'', as well as the ''Suscipe'')and the ''Orate, Fratres'' clearly call the Eucharist a "sacrifice." The priest also prays the ''Placeat Tibimain Talk page by [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]]'' before the blessing, beseeching, "grant that this sacrifice which I, unworthy that I am, have offered in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable unto Thee...."
: The :Well, it ''Ecce Agnus Deiis'' and added Pre-Communion Prayers make the Real Presence explicit - no Protestant or Zwinglian would be comfortable a talk page, so if there is something that needs saying such things! Again, these are found in both TOM and it should be said. The above was simply my adjudication on the SASBmatter.&mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 12:35, August 10, 2008 (UTC)
:These recommendations are no less Just an addendum to my adjudication - I feel that having heard the arguments for the last six months, there's not much new that can be said. My default position of not responding should be taken as precisely that, ''not'' as support for (and no less obviouslyor against) fulfilled in a new position. Perhaps another sysop can see something that I do not. &mdash; by [http[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</www.orthodoxresurgence.comfont>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/petrocnull|<font color="red">complaints</english.htm The English Liturgyfont>]]. ''</sup> at 23:05, August 11, 2008 (UTC)
:Of course==SASB, the ''Observations'' left implementation to Church authority; they end by acknowleding, "since the detailed changes...can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing demands and conditions" the ''Observations'' "will thus serve in the negotiations as materials for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy can be received." Part II==
:StillCan I please understand, as an impartial observer, HOW this book isn't authorized, when it is has a demonstrable fact that all changes of St. Tikhon's Liturgy and Hours have been made blessing from the Ruling Bishop to be used by Antioch, Moscow, Alexandria, clergy and laity (in Australia) ROCORp. The canonical (or non-canonical2) status , claims to include the authorized liturgies and devotions of L'ECOF doesn't enter into this discussion; readily verifiable facts do. the AWRV, has undergone a change in the name but not the text in the "Western Rite Service Book" and is stocked by Western rite Vicariate Parishes not an official book?
:I will thank the moderators if this closes the matter, and such erroneous language is not allowed to be reintroducedThanks.:-- [[User: WillibrordJosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]]22:08, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
:Pistevo is an impartial observer, and the detailed explanation has been spelled out in the archives 1a and 1b. I have three basic responsessee no need to rehash the entire thing again. First, without going into how Orthodox Christians should act, one should – on a purely secular level -- note that attributing malice as a possible motive is not a good way to foster communication or progress in the editing of articles[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 23:51, August 24, not to mention bad manners. 2008 (UTC)
:Your comments were erroneous enough only to proceed from one or Yes, but all he said was "Sdn Benjamin's thesis would be an example of citable material, and my viewpoint is that the interviews with Fr Paul Schneirla would suffice. I would strongly encourage the other sourceposting of, as they were belied by their own alleged sources. It is certainly bad manners or linking to take pains , this thesis online (right now, we can say 'according to misrepresent Andersen, 2006', but I'm not sure how much further we can go). However, the situation in other jurisdictions or confuse others about links to the canonical status of oneOccidentalis blog can be considered 'privileged' - it appears that it's own jurisdictionnow a closed blog."
SecondThat certainly doesn't sound like he agrees with two pages of mostly your explanation, since last writing about thisjust that a thesis paper can be cited as a source. He also says the interviews would suffice, but I have obtained a copy of the OM. I think it is superior no understanding where to the SASB in numerous waysaccess these interviews. That being said, I still also find the attempt to marginalize the SASB as “a parish prayer book” it odd that a little puzzling. Despite previous denials, the SASB is an authorized Western-rite book of put out by the Antiochian Archdiocese *directly*, as has been noted on Wiki, would require Fr Paul's permission to exist as clearly indicated by the letter from Metropolitan Philip included in the front of the book. There is no relevant difference in the wording of the Metropolitan’s letter in the OM from his letter in the SASB"approved". --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:58, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
:The Metropolitan's letter at the front of ''TOM'' states, "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." There is no similar statement in his letter in the == SASB, nor has he amended his letter in any subsequent edition of ''TOM'', as you can now verify. Authorized ==
Someone in the AWRV may not like the SASB, but The main article has a link to suggest (as has been done before) that a download of the SASB . Here is not an authorized service book it to imply that the letter from Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have the authority to decide which service books are approved, or that perhaps he is acting “in ignorance or malice.” None of these possibilities are plausible. PHILIP:
:On the contrary, it is you who rob the Antiochians of the right to determine their practice. The Archdiocese administers the Western Rite through the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which prescribes ''The Orthodox Missal'' as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is given. This is neither controversial nor hard to understand. It misrepresents the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer book all-but-unused in the AWRV as though it were the equal of its actual practice."1996
:Noting The First Edition of the SASB St. Andrew Service Book was designed approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989. This, the Second Edition, improved in format and expanded in content, will be welcomed by the clergy and laity of our archdiocese who worship in a tradition as a parish prayer ancient as the Eastern. We take this opportunity to commend and sincerely thank Archpriest Michael Keiser, the original compiler of the service book is but noting a fact; presumably this explains why it does not includes , as well as the Board of the Orthodox Christian Press, Archimandrite Michael Trigg, Fr. John Downing, and especially Mr. Karl Steinhoff, for their many hours of dedicated labor in preparing the revised edition. We pray that the priestattentive use of '''these authorized liturgies'''s silent prayers and other information necessary to celebrate Massrites and ceremonies by the Western rite clergy and laity of our beloved Archdiocese will be the cause of a spiritual and liturgical renewal within our church in North America. + Metropolitan PHILIP Primate Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America"
Third, as I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that all of the additions recommended by the Russian Commission’s Observations have been made to the Liturgy of St Tikhon and to the hours, an evaluation of the claim requires more than a checklist of items mentioned SASB is not authorized in the concluding paragraph. One must read what comes before same way that paragraph to understand the context of the additionsOM is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)
:You've added nothing from that section of the Observations that contradicts the '''fact''' that ALL recommendations about the Hours and Liturgy have been fulfilled.== Misreading "exclusive use" ==
As for Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the invocation meaning of the Saints, I did English sentence in fact quote from Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM: "These approved texts are the principal intercessions exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are ''used only by the Liturgy, i.eAntiochian Archdiocese''.If one reads it as Willibrord does, in then the sentence says that the prayer “for Antiochian '''Archdiocese''' (not the whole state AWRV) ''uses only these texts'', which is patently false, as most of Christ’s Church,” their parishes use the complete reference – “blessed Mary Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and all Thy Saints…Liturgy of St Basil.--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:04, August 11, 2008 (UTC)
:And conveniently elided several others, including two from the SASB's text of the Mass. How odd.== The article as it stands ==
MoreoverThe ajudication by Pistevo was that this article -- as it stands -- is correct. Despite Willibrord's claims to the contrary, the Observations – in the section article does '''not''' take a position on Morning and Evening Prayer –say: “But at how many of the same time, while recommendations/requirements of the recourse in prayer ''Observations'' were made to the Most Holy Mother Liturgy of God, St Tikhon. As to the Angel HostsSASB, it and to the illustrious saintsOM are both listed as sources, and no statement is made about one or the other being or not being authorized by the glorification and invocation of themAntiochian Archdiocese. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:25, August 22, forms an essential part 2008 (UTC):Pistevo's edit of Orthodox this article as it stands removes reference to the SASB as equal to OM and Catholic worshipstates affirmatively, these things are entirely foreign to Anglican worship"An Incomplete Text of the Liturgy of St. It Tikhon is contained in the" SASB, meaning it is absolutely necessary that there not authorized in the same sense as the OM (as she affirmed [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow#Adjudication above]). That should be introduced into put this worship some such prayers to rest. Incidentally, Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's SVOTS M.Div. thesis, which cites the Vicar General as a source and was praised by him ''and'' SVOTS faculty, is ''An Anglican Liturgy in the Orthodox Church: The Origins and Development of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon'' (or hymns2005) in one or another form and degree.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:15, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
While As indicated before, the ruling Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese is a more authoritative source than a subdeacon's thesis on the OM doesn’t include these hours, point of what liturgies are authorized in the Archdiocese. The letter of the Metropolitan is quite clear that the SASB does contain Matins and Vespersis an authorized service book. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:50, and neither August 22, 2008 (UTC):The issue of authorization has any additions of prayers or hymns been put to meet this requirementrest, which was termed “absolutely necessary” by as noted in the Commissionajudication. The issue is dead. This one requirement It's time to stop wasting bandwidth on arguments that have been decided.:Incidentally, [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow/Archive_1b what Pistevo actually said about the ''Observations''] is: "So far, uncontested agreement on the Orthodox Missal having followed the Observations." As the OM is clearly unmet falsifies acknowledged as the claim that “all” official text of the changes demanded by the Commission were madeMass of St. Tikhon, this also settles that issue. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 19:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
:False (once again), both about the SASB and AWRV practice in general==ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Regarding Tikhon's===The article still contains the SASB, apparently you missed misinformation of the concluding prayer of Vespers, which begs "ROCOR English Liturgy being 'St. Tikhon'the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, ever-Virgin Mother of God, of blessed Joseph, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, of blessed Andrew, and of all the Saintss'. ROCOR has not authorised St. Tikhon'" - odds, since nor is it's clearly printed in use. The link to the SASB. ROCOR English Liturgy (It also prays for the day when "all adversity and error being done away with."which I placed on that site as webmaster) More contains no reference to St. Tikhon's liturgy. A comparison of the two shows their dissimiliarity: the pointEnglish liturgy has no Decalogue, AWRV missions typically conclude Morning Prayer and Evensong by singing the appropriate Marian antiphon. This is prescribed in 'Comfortable Words', or other marks of the St. DunstanTikhon's Psalter'', used by every liturgy. The St. Tikhon Liturgy parish with which I'm familiars also does not contain the Sarum canon, prescribed even the Vestry Chapel Vesting office, the preparation before its publication in [http://wwwthe liturgy, the Cherubic Hymn, a Western epiclesis, or the Divesting office.membersSt.cox.net/frnicholas/daily_office.htm Tikhon's propers are also not the Sarum propers that the Office presented by FrEnglish liturgy requires. Nicholas Alford at StThat is a pretty major difference altogether. Gregory the Great AWRV Church], Nevermind that ROCOR WRITE clergy and it was their hierarchs do not an innovation thenrefer to the English liturgy as "St. This is the AWRVTikhon's standard practice", nor do they wish to. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 21:30, August 25, 2008 (Some parishes also pray the Rosary or saints' litanies immediately following the Hours, or at another time.UTC)
A similar complaint and requirement is made concerning the Great LitanyAgreed. The Observations say, “But examining Please do change it in connection with its origin, and comparing it with . At the Roman Catholic Litany from which it was derivedsame time, again under Lutheran influence, we clearly discern its protestant character, in that it does not contain I have yet to see any other reference to the invocation Liturgy of St Tikhon being approved by the Mother Churches of GodMoscow or Alexandria. Perhaps they have some form of an English liturgy, but there are many differences between an English usgae of the spiritual Hosts and the Saints, who occupy a very prominent place amongst the Catholics, and even had a place Roman rite (like prayers for such as the deadSarum) in the first edition of 1544, though only in an abbreviated form in the shape of Anglican liturgy (from an invocation authorized Book of saints en blocCommon Prayer), without particularizing names. In case of any full restoration of Orthodox beliefs, it would be timely and expedient to bring in again both the invocations and the prayers, as being characteristic Liturgy of this kind of devotionSt Tikhon."--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:38, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
Yet when one turns to The following still is not quite correct: "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has approved a service with many similarities (under the Great Litany (SASBname 'The English Liturgy')." The dissimilarities are far greater. To begin with, 51the Ceremonial and Propers for the St. Tikhon's follow the Tridentine/Anglican Missal form. That of the English Liturgy follows the Sarum use. The text of the Divine Liturgy itself also heavily differs -55)in content, form, and origin. The most important being that the English Liturgy is of English tradition, while the St. Tikhon's follows the American/Scottish tradition. This is true to the point where the two liturgies differ more from each other than do the Liturgy of St. Gregory from the Sarum use, one finds no mention or the Slavic recension from the Greek recension of the Mother Byzantine rite. The only major similarities are that both are primarily in the English language, have used some Book of GodCommon Prayer for source material, and depend thus on the spiritual HostsRussian Observations of 1904-07. Which Book of Common Prayer, of course, or is cause for serious differences. (Noting - I have nothing against St. Tikhon's.) So, it might be best to have a separate article for the SaintsEnglish Liturgy. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 00:35, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
:The Great Litany is neither an Hour nor a Liturgy, and your mentioning in this regard only muddies the waters. However ..Perhaps you'd like to swing at this particular pitchsuggest a way of saying that ROCOR also has an Anglican-in-the-dirt, based WR Liturgy? &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''The Orthodox Ritual[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 01:48, the form authorized by the AWRV for use in parishes, includes the traditional Litany of the SaintsAugust 26, wherein the saints and angels commemorated run more than three columns. It also includes various other saints' litanies. 2008 (UTC)
:Of Pistevo - The best way would be a separate page, or mention of both on a page about the Russian Observations (the common link.) However, the term 'Anglican-based' can be misleading. In the sense we use 'Anglican' we mean English - the ancient Church, and that heritage nearly two millenia old. The sense others use is 'Protestant' which we wouldn't mean at all - Anglicana is simply Latin for 'English'. The Observations, of course, suggested that any diocesan adaptation of services from a BCP would have to include restoration from older Western use ( as Simeon Bogolovsky wrote for "Edinaia Tserkov" One Church in the article "Orthodoxy and the SASB contains other prayers/invocations Western Rite" published sometime after 1948 - but before the mid 1950s.) The Antiochian St. Tikhon's was done in the Antiochian Patriarchate using an American prayer book (of Scottish lineage) and used the saints Roman (Italian) rite for its re-catholicization. The Russian implementation by Vladyka Hilarion was different (as part of its "Prayers noted in the SCPB - Sarum base, with some items from 1549 BCP, 1718 Non-Juror liturgy, York, Gothic, etc.) - making it a faithful English Use Orthodox Liturgy following the Russian directives and Thanksgivings" sectionukazes. Of course, ppthe 'Book of Common Prayer' is not in use - nor adapted whole. 27Nor do we have an 'Orthodox Book of Common Prayer' (the Saint Colman Prayer Book is rather like a Western version of the Jordanville or Old Rite Prayer book -44and has accompanying volumes. ) --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:15, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
As for the Confiteor, this Thank you! I am so tired of these little word-games. The "English Liturgy" is not based to a part of the liturgy proper (it comes before the Introit), and it has never been a part of any Book of Common Prayer, much less large degree on the 1892 BCP referenced in the Observations-- P. Simply adding a Roman prayer (one that is foreign Ben Johnson's objections to the Anglican rite) does SHP Sarum note at least three Cranmerian liftings, which are obviously not seem adequateSarum. Moreover, why borrow a Roman prayer Fr Michael has advertised this to make the BCP more disaffected Anglicans as an "Orthodox? A mention version of 'the Mother of God, one angel, and three saints (John the Baptist, Peterprayer book'", & Paul which in Anglican parlance can only mean the SASB Confiteor on pp. 61-62) seems less robust that “the glorification and invocation” of “the Most Holy Mother of God, … the Angel Hosts, and … the illustrious saintsBCP.--[[User:Fr LevJosephSuaiden|Fr LevJosephSuaiden]] 1505:4239, June 25August 26, 2008 (UTC)
:The ''Confiteor'' is part of what is known as == Dropping "The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar,Moscow" a part of Western Rite liturgies and is clearly printed in the SASB. If the 1892 BCP were itself sufficient, there would have been no need for the ''Observations''. (You may be interested to know most Anglo-Catholic parishes had already reinserted this prayer into the BCP liturgy at the time of the ''Observations''.)==
:Neither the OM nor the SASB uses "of Moscow" to modify St Tikhon in the name of the liturgy...'''And then there are those three other prayers I mentioned'''For the same reason that "the Great" was dropped from the Liturgy of St Gregory, which invoke a total "of 18 saints (if I've counted right), which you omitted Moscow" should be dropped from your response. How odd. You've also conceded the sacrificial aspect of this discussion,as youarticle've not offered any defense of your previous erroneous assertions title here. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
:At any rate, I hope the moderators agree that I've made more than a compelling case== Liturgy of St.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 14:15, June 26, 2008 (UTC)Tikhon of Moscow ==
YesHello, I missed a prayer in Vespers that mentions saints. There is none in Matins. I don’t think the Observations had in mind adding saints to just some offices, rather than all. To pretend that all of the recommendations were inserted into the Liturgy and office in the face of even one omission is just silly. No one is saying that the Metropolitan isn’t competent to authorize a form of Matins that doesn’t mention the saints; the problem arises only when one makes a false claim that all the recommendations were inserted.  :More on the "missed" prayers below. But here, dear reader, is the thrust of the game. The SASB was a simple guide for the laity, not a missal. (See above, and below.) Many claim it is a competing text of the Mass on par with could someone email me the approved complete text of the Orthodox Missal in order to cite items the SASB omits and charge the Antiochians with approving a liturgy (or hours) that do not fulfill the ''Observations''. And, of course, offer their own alternative. However, this article is not about the SASB; it's about the AWRV's practices. '''It should not be controversial that any article about the AWRV should be based on its ''praxis'', not on an incomplete text fonud in a book.''' The Litany is for use at the beginning of the Liturgy or during Morning or Evening Prayer. If the Confiteor is a text for the Liturgy (because it comes before it), then so is the Litany. And it is certainly a text for the office, since it is to follow the third collect in either office.  :The ''Confiteor'' is clearly printed within the text of the Mass in the SASB. The Litany is neither part of the Hours nor Liturgy but a separate service of its own, which I am familiar with being recited by itself. This isn't hard. Not all Anglo-Catholic parishes used unauthorized prayers as part of the liturgy itself. My experience in a number of Anglo-Catholic parishes was that the Confiteor was said in the sacristy as part of the private preparation of the sacred ministers. In any event, Anglo-Catholic usages should not be considered as determinative of Orthodox practice.  :Here again he obfuscates. He previously claimed the ''Confiteor'' was "foreign to the Anglican rite." Now he admits it was part of Anglo-Catholic practice and had personally seen it done -- and changes the subject, without admitting error. Does he have any guiding star except to assault those who dare disagree with him? We do not need this kind of truth-twisting on OrthodoxWiki. There is still an attempt to confuse the status of the SASB. Willibrord quotes a sentence from the Metropolitan’s letter in the front of the OM (“The” is not part of the name of the OM, so it isn’t correct to use “TOM” as an acronym), "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." This does not say, as Willibrord would like it to say, that the OM is the “exclusive” or “only” approved text. But supposing arguendo that this was true in 1995 when the OM was published, it became false the next year when the SASB was published. There is not a similar statement in the SASB, because the OM was in existence. No one has claimed that the SASB is the only authorized service book.  The Metropolitan’s letter in the SASB is quite clear that the first edition of the SASB “was approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations version of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989.” While it began as a parish prayer book, it was authorized for use in any Western Rite parishes. The letter goes on to refer to “these authorized liturgies.” It is silly, incoherent, and demonstrably false, to say, as Willibrord does, that I “rob the Antiochians of the right to determine their practice. The Archdiocese administers the Western Rite through the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which prescribes The (sic) Orthodox Missal as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is given. This is neither controversial nor hard to understand. It misrepresents the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer book all-but-unused in the AWRV as though it were the equal of its actual practice.” I am not determining Antiochian practice; the Metropolitan does that. His letter in the front of the SASB makes clear his permission to use it. The edition of the SASB in front of me is printed, not by a parish for that parish’s exclusive use, but by the Archdicoese for any of its Western Rite clergy and parishes.  While it may be practice to sing a Marian antiphon after Matins or Vespers in the AWRV (when I was an Anglo-Catholic, we did so only after Compline), there is no rubrical provision for doing so in the SASB. The only mention of an antiphon in the OM I have seen is the Regina Coeli to be used in place of the Angelus.  :That the SASB would omit certain rubrics from Matins is hardly surprising, since it omits whole prayers and portions of the this liturgy necessary for the priest to say Mass. This is because it was never intended to be a full Missal or text of the Mass and is simply a parish prayer book to assist the laity in following along. Errors come by fibbing that the SASB is more than it was ever intended, or authorized, to be. '''As link where this article deals with the ''praxis'' of the AWRV, and that ''praxis'' is in accord with the ''Observations'', the article should reflect that.''' As these are printed in the section on the Divine Liturgy, one would infer that these follow the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. In any event, the Observations were recommendations for altering the texts to be used; it is not an adequate response to say that an hymn to one saint, not included in the authorized text, somehow meets the Commission’s requirement for glorification of the Theotokos, the Angelic Hosts, and the saints. Saying the Western Rosary is similarly not an answer. Nor is the inclusion of optional prayers. Nor is the Litany of Saints, since it is not part of the ordinary of the Liturgy.  As Willibrord himself indicated, the other prayers he mentioned are not in the SASB.  No, I don’t concede the question of sacrifice at all. There is only so much time to deal with these misrepresentations. As Willibrord would quibble with any reading that disagrees with his own, just as he wishes to pretend that the mention of saints in one Vespers prayer somehow makes Matins with no such prayer in conformity with the Commission’s Observations, it seems pointless. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 15:59, June 26, 2008 (UTC) == Differences between the Orthodox Missal and the St Andrew's Service Book == To repeat a question I posted on another page: since Willbrord has made a point of saying that almost all AWRV parishes use the ''Orthodox Missal'' and not the ''St Andrew's Service Book'', perhaps he would be kind enough to specify what differences there are between the versions of the two eucharistic liturgies and why they matter, i.e., why is the OM version so preferable to the SASBavailable? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 07:05, February 14, 2008 (PST) == What is at stake? ==  Since Willibrord has seen fit to imply unworthy motives to me, let me be crystal clear. (1) The Antiochian Archdiocese is fully competent, in the person of its ruling hierarch, to authorize (as he has) the liturgies contained in the OM and SASB. (2) I have no problem with the AWRV using the OM or the SASB. (3) I do not believe that the Observations of the Moscow Commission of 1904 have any authority over the liturgies authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese – they were made for the limited purpose of saying (in a general way) what changes would have to be made to the American 1892 BCP to make it acceptable for use by parishes under the omophor of Bishop (Saint) Tikhon.  My only purpose on this page is to correct one simple statement that is in error – the claim that all of the necessary changes were made in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. That has led to the necessity of having to defend the status of the SASB.  By way of contrast, Willibrord has implied that I am one of the vagantes, said that I am ignorant or malicious, claimed that I am seeking to “rob” the Archdiocese of the right to choose its services, that I have attempted to “confuse others about the canonical status of one's own jurisdiction” (when I haven’t mentioned my jurisdiction), and he has talked about the canonical status of ECOF (which I haven’t mentioned).  I take such personal attacks to be contrary to the standards of OrthoWiki. --Greatly appreciated! [[User:Fr LevIxthis888|Fr LevVasiliki]] 1606:4008, June August 26, 2008 (UTC) :As the moderators will note, I never called you personally a ''vagante'' but merely noted the reason such language was not only wrong but offensive: ''vagantes'' make this argument to demean canonical WRO. He reintroduced the erroneous information. Although the non-canonical status of L'ECOF is well-known here, it was not introduced into this discussion by me. In making his edits, he has selectively quoted SASB and rebuffed correction when it has been made. Regardless of motive, that is certainly contrary to OrthodoxWiki standards.  :The moderators can also verify that "Fr Lev" has taken to following me around the board, changing nearly every recent entry I have made. I'm sinful enough to appreciate the attention, but.... :I might add, the article and OrthodoxWiki overall might benefit from its contributors making a less intensely personal identification with their work, seeking fewer occasions wherein to take umbrage, and focused more on objective facts.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 17:21, June 26, 2008 (UTC)  I said you implied I was one of the vagantes, as you think it is they who make this criticism of the AWRV liturgies. As anyone can read on this talk page, I never brought up ECOF or my jurisdiction -- you did. I have not been following you around OrthoWiki, nor changing nearly every entry you make. That's a lie. Until this week, my last post on this page was in February. I also don't put scare quotes around your name. I am not personally identifying with my "work" -- I am responding to the personal invective ("ignorant", "malicious", trying to "rob" the Antiochians, etc.) you have sent my way. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:32, June 26, 2008 (UTC) :I'm not much interested in this melodrama you're putting forward to cover the fact that you selectively quote materials, omit inconvenient facts, and engage in endless edit wars. :Any of our august moderators can see how you essentially stalked me on OrthodoxWiki during my last edits here between Feb. 12-14, 2008, by viewing the the history pages of the [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow&action=history Liturgy of St. Tikhon], the [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Liturgy_of_St._Gregory_the_Great&action=history Liturgy of St. Gregory], and the main [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Western_Rite&action=history Western Rite page]. All clearly begin with an edit by me, followed by edit-war from you. (You managed to get at least one of those pages locked.) Here you are again, doing the same thing. So much for the "lie" you impute to me. :Selectively citing information to give a false impression is not new to you: : '''-''' You ignored two prayers in the SASB (and even more in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as celebrated Vicariate-wide) to claim all its intercessions amounted to only one petition to one saint. : '''-''' You "missed" a prayer in Vespers and erroneously asserted there was none. : '''-''' You ignore all the Propers, including the additional Mass Collects, begging the saints' and angels intercessions.: '''-''' You ignore the actual ''praxis'' of the AWRV to conflate it with an incomplete text found in a book.: '''-''' In another discussion, you ignored huge chunks of one linked website and [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Western_Rite#Blogs.3F.3F misinformed] the moderators it was merely about "William F. Buckley, Jr. -- nothing whatsoever to do with Western Rite Orthodoxy!" When I pointed out your incredibly selective reading, you claimed you were the victim. : '''-''' In yet another discussion, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#Protection stated falsely] that you were quoting our moderator, Fr. John, when you changed his words. :A pattern seems to emerge.  :You are quick to claim others are personally assaulting you when they dare edit you. When one knowledgable contributor corrected you, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#Misinformation wrote], "It is difficult for me to not suspect that your post springs from some kind of personal animus. You have made it a pooint [sic.] to follow-up postings I have made with responses that have been inaccurate and personal. That isn't appropriate for OrthodoxWiki." When he replied -- as I have -- that he's merely replacing misinformation with accurate non-POV information, you accused him of "slander." (Yet on another discussion, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Sarum_Rite instructed], "Ari needs to be careful when he imputes bad motives to people, as well as when he mis-states facts.") And when ''yet another'' OrthodoxWiki contributor disagreed with your misleading POV language, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#ANSWER fumed] this "indicates a clear personal animus that is out of place in a venue that seeks to be an encyclopedia." Elsewhere, you [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_France#Precisions_for_fr_Lev told him], "you are just being silly." But, you were saying, "personal invective"? :And, of course, you were the first to claim I had written that "the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have the authority to decide which service books are approved" and somehow claimed I accused him of "ignorance and malice." (What a way to twist a post!)  :In other words, it appears you are hysterically accusing me of your own actions. Whether these stem from pushing an agenda, ignorance, or a very one-sided and sloppy handling of sources, none of it is beneficial to a correct, non-POV OrthodoxWiki entry. :At any rate, the weight of all this suggests you are less-than-capable of presenting objective facts about Western Rite Orthodoxy, are highly volatile when contradicted in any way, and perhaps should be moderated to prevent future edit-wars and long, personal attacks against OrthodoxWiki contributors on the Talk pages when they write more accurately about WRO than you desire.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 22:58, June 27, 2008 (UTC)  Gentlemen (note the plural), please stop talking about one another, imputing motives to one another (and others), etc., and focus solely on improving the article. Thank you. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 23:09, June 27, 2008 (UTC) == Protection == This article has been protected for the time being so that the editors involved can politely work out a consensus among themselves before further editing it. The protection of the current version does not constitute an endorsement of its contents by the management.  Since this seems to be a subject of some controversy, the controversial elements come under the [[OrthodoxWiki:Style_Manual#Controversial_Subjects_and_Original_Research|policy in the Style Manual regarding original research]] In particular, whether or not "all" or "almost all" of the recommendations from Moscow were implemented by the AWRV in its version of this liturgy will have to be established by reputable, third-party sources and then cited accordingly. (Looking through the liturgy's text and making this evaluation yourself constitutes original research, which is not permitted on OrthodoxWiki for controversial subjects.) Otherwise, any mention of the question will have to be removed from the article. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 15:46, June 28, 2008 (UTC)
168
edits

Navigation menu