Week 2 Discussion Topic: Do You Think We Need a New Typikon?

Trisagion School Forums Typikon 101 (Term 3: Fall 2021) Week 2 Discussion Topic: Do You Think We Need a New Typikon?

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #28534
      Peter George
      Keymaster

      It is clear that as time passes, the liturgical needs of a people also change. However, it is important to note, that while Violakis’ Typikon has some pretty significant changes from the ancient Typikon of St. Sabbas, Violakis also strived to preserve as much as possible from the old Typikon, even if he had to present certain things differently. In your opinion (no judgement) do you think the Church should produce a new Typikon, or should we keep to Violakis? Please explain your answer as thoroughly as possible and feel free to respond to the posts of others.

    • #28692

      (reposting from my first attempt at taking this course 🙂

      I am interested in the fact that the four modern Typika each differ from each other, not because the writer was innovating, rather because he was describing the practices taking place in monasteries and parishes at the time. This highlights for me that, along with the rubrics and rules, the Typikon also reflects some of the culture and history taking place around -and influencing- the ecclesial reality. I love the deep anchor that the Orthodox Church has in Tradition and the way it is saturated with enough beauty and complexity to discover for a lifetime –without the need for innovation, cultural relevance, or “keeping up with the times.” That said, I also find it to be fascinating the way that a “timeless” tradition is actually situated in time, and is therefore shaped by it. This is not to say that I think we should develop a new Typikon that accommodates the fast-paced and fragmented culture of our modern world. I hope that never happens. I believe that one of the antidotes for our modern sickness is more time in stillness, prayer, and worship. But I do wonder about the need to bend toward modern parishes just a bit, even if just to designate an English translation as the authoritative one and to address the discrepancies between the Old and New Calendar (I know Fr. Papagiannis does this to a certain extent). I also like the way The System of the Typika offers research-based choices to help priests and protopsaltis decide on a length of service appropriate for the needs of their parish.

      • #28865
        Peter George
        Keymaster

        This is not to say that I think we should develop a new Typikon that accommodates the fast-paced and fragmented culture of our modern world. I hope that never happens. I believe that one of the antidotes for our modern sickness is more time in stillness, prayer, and worship. But I do wonder about the need to bend toward modern parishes just a bit, even if just to designate an English translation as the authoritative one and to address the discrepancies between the Old and New Calendar (I know Fr. Papagiannis does this to a certain extent).

        Really well said, Erin. Certainly the services of the Orthodox Church offer some much needed treatments to the modern world’s ailments. They do need to be accessible, however, for the people of the modern world. Worship in English is a must in America today.

        As regards to Fr. Papagiannis, he has many good solutions for today’s liturgical issues. My hope is that his typikon eventually becomes adopted outside of Greece, but my guess is that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will want to release their own revision of Violakis at some point (When? Who knows.). I think giving people (appropriate) options is the future of liturgics.

        • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Peter George.
    • #28756

      My opinion is that we do not need another typikon yet. It’s a long game. Perhaps the more immediate issue that needs to be addressed, at least here in the States, is education of the clergy, chanters, and yes- laity- of why following a typikon matters and how to follow it. It seems that the younger generation of priests coming out of Holy Cross really cares more about services in general. This is wonderful. Let’s see if this trickles down to the chanters and people. Then, once the knowledge base is stronger, we can all have more confidence in changes in the typikon made for pastoral or other actual reasons, and perhaps a new typikon can be written.

      • #28867
        Peter George
        Keymaster

        once the knowledge base is stronger, we can all have more confidence in changes in the typikon made for pastoral or other actual reasons, and perhaps a new typikon can be written.

        I tend to agree with you that we are still on “Step 0” here in America. Before we can change the typikon, we really need to understand it first. Reality is that not enough people do.

    • #28761
      Philip Sells
      Participant

      My preliminary scattershot thoughts: I tend to agree with Konstantina at this point. I would say, too, that expanding education of the people of the Church in North America applies more broadly to learning what the hymns mean – what their connection is to Scripture, for example. This means that oftentimes, the question of theological education is going to interact with language issues.

      For example, if a parish is habituated to singing services mostly in Greek even though there is a large or maybe even majority English-speaking, non-Hellenophone (is that a word?) congregation, what do we do about that so that people can understand what they are singing and hearing? Encouraging people’s relationship to Scripture, to the lives of the saints and so on will therefore overlap with the question of what we should do with the translation issue on the large scale.

      Also I agree with Erin’s point that to submit to the modern trend of faster/shorter/etc. in the sense of cutting corners, excessive abbreviation, etc. cannot be the way to go over the long term – I think we’ll lose too much over time, as far as spiritual content is concerned. It’s surely tempting as a way to get people in the door, but there is a price to that approach. Rather, maybe we aim to get people to realize the spiritual value of a somewhat longer format to the services.

      • #28868
        Peter George
        Keymaster

        I think we’ll lose too much over time, as far as spiritual content is concerned. It’s surely tempting as a way to get people in the door, but there is a price to that approach.

        Indeed. I think we have paid a dear price for prioritizing social events and youth sports over actual prayer in our churches. I know that’s not true everywhere, and probably more true of Greek churches.

        The wonderful thing about long services is that no one (except us chanters and the clergy) really has to stay the for the entirety of the service. Whenever we would do vigils (we don’t do them as much any more), some people would come for the Vespers, others for portions of the Orthros, others just for midnight liturgy. Others would come at the beginning and stay the entire 5 – 6 hours. This is why the Church is compared to a hospital sometimes; everyone doesn’t need the same treatment, but each person gets what they need. When we cater only for a certain group (or perceived group), everyone else suffers.

    • #28762
      Marissa Hondros
      Participant

      My opinion is that I think the typikons that we have and use work fine for right now, but as Konstantina above mentioned, it might be a scenario of “not yet”. With how churches in America do sometimes tend to cut or shorten things without regards to typika, I think we need to think more about why would priests think this is okay to skim past but not that? I do believe that instead of trying to develop a typika that matches the hustle and bustle worlds that we now live in, we should further instill the importance of order and typika. I think the coolest thing about the 2006 typika is how it offers “researched-based choices” and I wonder how many people have actually used that feature and how it could help lay parishes.

      Because I feel like most changes made to TAS were to serve lay people rather than monastic communities, if any change comes to the typika it will be at the behest of parishes.

      • #28869
        Peter George
        Keymaster

        With how churches in America do sometimes tend to cut or shorten things without regards to typika, I think we need to think more about why would priests think this is okay to skim past but not that?

        This is a huge problem. Often cuts are made arbitrarily and many times they are non-sensical. There should be a ‘hierarchy’ of cuts that should be consistent. It’s one thing to skip a troparion here or there; it’s totally another to skip straight from the Exapostelaria to the Great Doxology. (I also think that Orthros needs to be at least 75 minutes to be done in a way that doesn’t do injury to the service, but I digress.)

        I think the coolest thing about the 2006 typika is how it offers “researched-based choices” and I wonder how many people have actually used that feature and how it could help lay parishes.

        I love this part of Papagiannis’ “System of the Typikon” and we have used it a few times to address some inconsistencies that are found in Violakis. Even if one consistently follows the “shorter” options in ST, they will know they’re still following the tradition of the Church.

    • #29092
      Katie Brumley
      Participant

      I agree. Let’s wait with a new Typikon until we have more knowledge and experience using what is available. I have so little experience that I wouldn’t be able to even say what the problem is with the current Typikon. I love the idea of giving options to parishes to help them know what is “okay” to cut or do differently, as so many parishes have been used to cutting.

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.