|WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Eastern / Oriental||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
I just put in enough information to tell people what the Divine Liturgy is. It's a placeholder. There needs to be a more thorough discussion, as there is for Roman Mass. Basil Fritts 06:46 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
(Structure outline moved from talk into actual article.)
- Good start; looks pretty familiar. Between the Lesser Entrance and the Epistle Reading, we usually have a number of Troparia and Kontakia hymns that are appropritate to the day, and the ones we nearly always do, like to the patron saint of our parish. Our priest gives the homily right after the Gospel reading, though I think some do so after Holy Communion, and there may be a couple other places. For the first point, I think the priest first says "Blessed is the Kingdom..." which signals that the service is a Divine Liturgy and not just a vespers or matins service.
- Even having said all that, this is good enough to go into the article; it can be improved on there. Edit boldly! Wesley 20:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Haha, I even forgot the homily :) Ok, I'll be bold...
Oops, where is the Trisagion ? Would you mind inserting it correctly ?
In my humble opinion, detailed descriptions of one particular liturgy are out of place in discussing Divine Liturgy. Such discussions should be broken out into separate pages for the Divine Liturgy of Saint so-and-so. For example, there might be a page for the Divine Liturgy of Saint James and another for the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari, etc., etc., etc... --Sophroniscus 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, but the article in its current state is little better than a stub. There's clearly plenty of room for expansion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Genealogy of Liturgies
- Pardon me, folks, but the genealogy of liturgies (James>Basil>Chrys) in this article is so dead wrong. I'll try to rewrite it in next couple of days, if you don't mind. Ouital77 16:25, 27 August 2005
- While it's true that the there exist anaphoras earlier than either recension (Byzantine or non-Chalcedonian) commonly seen today of the Liturgy of St. James, Church tradition does hold that that was the first liturgy to be composed. The Byzantine Liturgy of John Chrysostom is clearly a modification of the Byzantine St. Basil's liturgy, though whether that one is truly a descendant of St. James' liturgy is open to debate. What modifications are you planning to make to that section of the article? YBeayf 04:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I was too rough in my comment. As to the genealogy, the James>Basil>Chrysostom origins model has been disproved by many scholars. In short, the prayers of CHRYS were not the abbreviation of BAS - they were just different prayers, composed by different people and originating in neighbouring, but different regions. CHRYS comes from Antioch and has parallels with the Syrian anaphora of the 12 apostles; BAS has some roots in Egypt and probably got to Constantinople via Cappadocia. What concerns St James, it was a standard liturgy of Jerusalem and has nothing to do with either CHRYS or BAS. The Byzantines don't celebrate it that often (only maybe once a year) precisely because it wasn't a part of Constantinople service book! With respect to the article, I plan to add a section on the history of the liturgy, an outline with short description of concrete rites (preparation, little entrance, great entrance etc.) and a short bibliography. It's ab. 70% ready; once I submit it, I'll be happy to read comments and answer questions. Respectfully, Ouital77 1:27, 28 August 2005
"Synod of Timothy"
Are there any thoughts as to the recent additions to this article on the practices of a group calling itself the "Synod of Timothy"? While a brief mention of the fact that they use a modified version of the Divine Liturgy in their services may be appropriate, I'm not sure that information on a one-year-old, tiny vagante group merits such a prominent place in the article. YBeayf 19:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I concur that it does not. The same editor contributed a moderately lengthy article on this organization, and I've been wondering if it should be submitted for a VfD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't feel the information is appropriate here, I guess I can understand, but I don't really see a reason to delete the entry for the Synod and all of the associated links developed from it. The Synod of Saint Timothy is relatively new, but it is in communion with a larger body and is on friendly terms with other bodies. Further, the material on the Synod is presented in a matter-of-fact manner, and is intended for information, nothing more. If you are going to consider submitting the Synod's entry for deletion, I think in fariness you need to consider asking for a VfD for every ecclesiastical body that has a link here on Wikipedia. The Synod of Saint Timothy exists and is growing, and there is no reason that I can think of that it is less deserving of information here than any other Independent Catholic/Orthodox body.Father Rob Lyons 02:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I was just thinking out loud really, and have no intention of submitting a VfD at this time although I retain my doubts that this group is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Although you find many articles on Wikipedia on subjects you'd never find in a print encyclopedia, we don't cover everything. See Wikipedia:Tutorial (Keep in mind)#Subject matter. Regardless, mention of it plainly doesn't belong in this article when we're discussing groups only in very broad terms. If we were going to single out one small vagante group for special mention, we'd (in all fairness) need to mention all the others -- as well as all the individual Orthodox local churches, every Oriental Orthodox local church, each of the various Uniate churches, etc. That's plainly impractical, and not terribly useful to the reader. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
This text seems to have been here a long time , so I thought I ought to explain here why I'm removing it. Although the Descent of the Holy Spirit is the defining moment of Pentecost, he also arrives at other times and in other ways. I've never heard the Epiklesis labelled in this way before. Indeed an explicit connection to Pentecost is only made in the Slavic tradition in what is really an interjection of the Prayer of the Third Hour. (An interjection that's particularly awkward in the case of St. Basil's epiklesis where there's really no room for it.) So it seems to me better to let "Epiklesis" stand on its own here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Ouital77 is right. Those pretentions of fatherness of Chrys aren't but naive sights. There are a lot of liturgists that don't agree with.
Even the expression, «Liturgy of St ...» is false. It's only about anaphora (+ prayer upon the gifts, and other additions throughout the litanies btw word liturgy and altar liturgy).
And there should be an article as Byzantine eucharist, showing the schema of the eucharist within the Byzantine Rite, and separate articles speaking about the 2 anaphores:
- Byzantine anaphora of Basil the Great;
- Anaphora of John of Constantinople.
Apparently, the 2nd one is but an Antiochian text found late by a priest named John, from Constantinople. This is all.
From another point of view, "Divine Liturgy" is NOT an Eastern word. In all the Eastern liturgies (except Byz), the eucharist is called sacrifice: «qurbana», «badarak», etc. So, we have only 2 choices:
- Use this expression, "Divine Liturgy" for all eucharists (both Eastern and Western), as in most languages of East Europe;
- Use it only for the Byzantine Rite.
We must choose one. - Waelsch 19:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speaking of the Byzantine Rite, would it be a good idea to change the first line of the intro to link the word Byzantine to Byzantine Rite instead of Byzantine church (which is a redirect to Eastern Orthodox Church)? The Byzantine Divine Liturgy (the Eucharistic liturgy) should be connected with the overall topic of Byzantine liturgy. Chonak 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The only Divine Liturgies I've been to have been conducted in song. Is that always the case? KittyHawker 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Everything is chanted a capella except for the homily. Some Greek churches in the US now use organs, but this is highly incorrect. I suppose this ought to be mentioned in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, it should be mentioned. Not only in the Divine Liturgy, all public services are chanting. Perhaps we are better to explictly mention "reading from the Letters and Gospels" are also chanted.
Another question from me; the article says the D.L. has two parts - Liturgy of Catecumens and of Faithfuls. When the former ends and the latter begins? The former ends with "the Litany of Catecumens" and the latter begins with "the first Litany of Faithfuls"? Am I correct? --Aphaia 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's usually taken to be the dividing point, which is one reason why it's not such a good idea to omit the Litany of the Catechumens and their dismissal IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Psalms: which numbering?
Reference is made to various psalms. But is the numbering system Septuagint or Masoretic Text? It would be useful if this could be stated, perhaps with reference to the table in the Psalms article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Who wrote the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?
The article acts as if the Liturgy of John Chrysostom has ambiguous origin, as if John Chrysostom may not have written it. I understand there were a few minor modifications done in early to mid Byzantine times, but we know what those were. Isn't it certain that he wrote the liturgy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
What is the Serbian Divine Liturgy?
Well, there is a lot talk about the Divine Liturgy, but where is it? Can we have the various texts (and translations)? That would make this article 100% more useful. Gingermint (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- There seem to be various translations mentioned at the "External links" section. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has tagged the article with inappropriate external links. Not sure what is intended here. This is usually meant to suggest that imbedded externals are in the article. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Something wrong with material under "External links?" Would the editor care to be more explicit? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)