I didn*'t delete the content on this page, and I have it all in a Word document. For some reason it won't let me put it back in and save it[[Talk:Liturgy of St. I did get a warning message about the talk page being very long. Maybe s Sysop could restore the page Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1a|Archive 1a]] and archive part of it? --[[UserTalk:Fr LevLiturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1b|Fr LevArchive 1b]] 21:54, August 5, 2008 (UTC)''.

== Unambiguous facts Adjudication==At 80kb, I'm fairly sure that this is the 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 kind of thing that I instinctively congratulate, purely on the basis of perseverance - all 80,000 characters and six months of it. That said, this does need to stop.

1. It doesn’t So, my adjudication on the matter - the Observations aren't binding (they're ''observations''), so it is thoroughly irrelevant whether they were followed to the Litany letter (indeed, 'to the letter' gives quite a bit of scope to the diocesan). This is used alone or in conjunction something that both 'sides' can accept, since one advanced this idea to begin with and the office or other highlighted that the Liturgydiocesan needed to implement them properly. The Observations require that invocation of way the Theotokos, the Angels, article currently is (and I did edit it in the Saints be added. They were not added to the SASB version last couple of the Litanydays) reflects this.

2. Willibrord writesSecondly, “For the second time I note, 'm not convinced that the Observations left where invocations of SASB is authorised in the saints would be added to same way as the BCP under OM is authorised - the bishop's authority definite and nowhere specified they must be added indefinite articles clearly have an important part to a specific section of the Liturgy.” But this is plainly false. The concluding paragraph of the Observations is unambiguous: “'''Into all the services''' play in general prayers '''must be inserted''' addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of GodEnglish language, to Angels and Saints, with only the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and latter has the Burial Service)definite article.”

3. Willibrord seems to misunderstand Metropolitan PHILIP’s letter in Regarding citations, the 1995 OM/SASB issue should be settled with a citation (e.g. Andersen, B. The Metropolitan wrote, “These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese(2006).” Willibrord seems to be reading ''Lengthy Thesis: Title with Much Capitalisation that as saying these texts and only these texts may be used in our ArchdioceseRivals The Thesis' Word Count''. Crestwood, New York: Publisher), but I strongly encourage that isn’t the critical part of this thesis be put online. The critical part about this thesis is what the sentence Vicar-General says. But in any event- if there's only one authorised text according to him, in then that's it - if that wasn't the very next yearcase, then in the Metropolitan refers in his letter in same way that the SASB Archbishop has full authority to its authorise texts as “these authorized liturgies and other rites and ceremonies…, he also has full authority to un-deputise people to speak on his behalf. At a minimum, all bibliographical details need to be given.” So even if one understood In addition, whether there is a conflict of interest regarding the 1995 letter as excluding other textsthesis is not an issue, one has for the simple reason that it was submitted to acknowledge an impartial marker. One would not claim a reversal in 1996 in that the texts conflict of interest if someone said 'I'm innocent' after the SASB are clearly identified court case was thrown out. On another note, however, Occidentalis cannot be used as authorized servicesa source, for the simple reason that it is a "blog [that] is open to invited readers only".

There In short, I hold that the article, as it stands, is correct. I'm archiving the rest of the page. For any further complaints about the article, <strike>click on my complaints link</strike> feel free to state this on this page or find another sysop. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} at 23:01, August 8, 2008 (UTC) Sorry-- I didn't notice that this was a final edit. I will be quiet on this one, wasn't trying to wake the dead or anything. removing previous comment.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 02:32, August 9, 2008 (UTC) Deleting my comment as I hope the discussion on this page is no getting around 1done.  :''Moved from Archive 1b to main Talk page by [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]]'' ::Well, it ''is'' a talk page, so if there is something that needs saying, it should be said. The above was simply my adjudication on the matter. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} at 12:35, August 10, 2008 (UTC) :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 (or against) a new position. Perhaps another sysop can see something that I do not. &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} at 23:05, August 11, 2008 (UTC) ==SASB, Part II== Can I please understand, as an impartial observer, HOW this book isn't authorized, when it has a blessing from the Ruling Bishop to be used by clergy and laity (p.2), claims to include the authorized liturgies and 3devotions of 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? Thanks. And pointing --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 22:08, August 24, 2008 (UTC) :Pistevo is an impartial observer, and the detailed explanation has been spelled out 1in the archives 1a and 1b. I see no need to rehash the entire thing again. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 23:51, August 24, 2008 (UTC) 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 posting of, or linking to, this thesis online (right now, we can say 'according to Andersen, 2006', but I'm not sure how much further we can go). However, 2the links to the Occidentalis blog can be considered 'privileged' - it appears that it's now a closed blog." That certainly doesn't sound like he agrees with two pages of mostly your explanation, just that a thesis paper can be cited as a source. He also says the interviews would suffice, but I have no understanding where to access these interviews. I also find it odd that a Western-rite book put out by the Archdiocese *directly*, as has been noted on Wiki, would require Fr Paul's permission to exist as "approved".--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:58, August 26, 2008 (UTC) == SASB Authorized == The main article has a link to a download of the SASB. Here is the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP: "1996 The First Edition of the St. Andrew Service Book was 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 ancient as the Eastern. We take this opportunity to commend and sincerely thank Archpriest Michael Keiser, the original compiler of the service book, 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 attentive use of '''these authorized liturgies''' and other rites and ceremonies by the Western rite clergy and laity of our beloved Archdiocese will be the cause of a spiritual and 3liturgical 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" I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that the SASB is not authorized in the same way that the OM is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC) == Misreading "exclusive use" == Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM: "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are ''used only by the Antiochian Archdiocese''. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that the Antiochian '''Archdiocese''' (not the AWRV) ''uses only these texts'', which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:04, August 11, 2008 (UTC) == The article as it stands == The ajudication by Pistevo was that this article -- as it stands -- is correct. Despite Willibrord's claims to the contrary, the article does '''not''' take a position on how many of the recommendations/requirements of the ''Observations'' were made to the Liturgy of St Tikhon. As to the SASB, it and the OM are both listed as sources, and no way makes me statement is made about one or the other being or not being authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:25, August 22, 2008 (UTC):Pistevo's edit of this article as it stands removes reference to the SASB as equal to OM and states affirmatively, "An Incomplete Text of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is contained in the" SASB, meaning it is 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 put this 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'' (2005). --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:15, August 22, 2008 (UTC) As indicated before, the ruling Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese is a more authoritative source than a subdeacon's thesis on the point of what liturgies are authorized in the Archdiocese. The letter of the Metropolitan is quite clear that the SASB is an authorized service book. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:50, August 22, 2008 (UTC):The issue of authorization has been put to rest, as noted in the ajudication. The issue is dead. 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: "detractorSo far, uncontested agreement on the Orthodox Missal having followed the Observations." As the OM is acknowledged as the official text of the AWRVMass of St. Tikhon, this also settles that issue.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 19:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) ==ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's===The article still contains the misinformation of the ROCOR English Liturgy being 'St. Tikhon's'. ROCOR has not authorised St. Tikhon's, nor is it in use. The link to the ROCOR English Liturgy (which I fully support placed on that site as webmaster) contains no reference to St. Tikhon's liturgy. A comparison of the two shows their dissimiliarity: the English liturgy has no Decalogue, 'Comfortable Words', or other marks of the St. Tikhon's liturgy. The St. Tikhon's also does not contain the Sarum canon, the Vestry Chapel Vesting office, the preparation before the liturgy, the Cherubic Hymn, a Western epiclesis, or the Divesting office. St. Tikhon's propers are also not the Sarum propers that the AWRV English liturgy requires. That is a pretty major difference altogether. Nevermind that ROCOR WRITE clergy and fully support their Metropolitanhierarchs do not refer to the English liturgy as "St. Tikhon's", nor do they wish to. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 21:30, August 25, 2008 (UTC) Agreed. Please do change it. At the same time, I have yet to see any other reference to the Liturgy of St Tikhon being approved by the Churches of Moscow or Alexandria. Perhaps they have some form of an English liturgy, but there are many differences between an English usgae of the Roman rite (such as the Sarum), an Anglican liturgy (from an authorized Book of Common Prayer), and the Liturgy of St Tikhon. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:38, August 25, 2008 (UTC) The following still is not quite correct: "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has approved a service with many similarities (under the name 'The English Liturgy')." The dissimilarities are far greater. To begin with, the 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 - in content, form, and origin. The most important being that the English Liturgy is of English tradition, while the St. Tikhon's right follows the American/Scottish tradition. This is true to authorize whatever the point where the two liturgies he sees fit differ more from each other than do the Liturgy of St. Gregory from the Sarum use, or the Slavic recension from the Greek recension of the Byzantine rite. The only major similarities are that both are primarily in the English language, have used some Book of Common Prayer for source material, and depend thus on the Russian Observations of 1904-07. Which Book of Common Prayer, of course, 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 English Liturgy. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 00:35, August 26, 2008 (UTC) :...Perhaps you'd like to suggest a way of saying that ROCOR also has an Anglican-based WR Liturgy? &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} at 01:48, August 26, 2008 (UTC) 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 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 Roman (Italian) rite for its re-catholicization. The Russian implementation by Vladyka Hilarion was different (as 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 ukazes. Of course, the 'Book of Common Prayer' is not in use - nor adapted whole. Nor 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 - and has accompanying volumes.) --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:15, August 26, 2008 (UTC) Thank you! I am so tired of these little word-games. The "English Liturgy" is based to a large degree on the BCP-- P. Ben Johnson's objections to the SHP Sarum note at least three Cranmerian liftings, which are obviously not Sarum. Fr Michael has advertised this to authorizedisaffected Anglicans as an "Orthodox version of 'the prayer book'", which includes both in Anglican parlance can only mean the BCP.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:39, August 26, 2008 (UTC) == Dropping "of Moscow" == Neither the OM and nor the SASBuses "of Moscow" to modify St Tikhon in the name of the liturgy. For the same reason that "the Great" was dropped from the Liturgy of St Gregory, "of Moscow" should be dropped from the article's title here. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 2122:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC) == Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow == Hello, could someone email me the complete text of the Western Rite version of this liturgy or a link where this text is available?? Greatly appreciated! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 06:2008, August 526, 2008 (UTC)