Week 2 Discussion Topic: Do You Think We Need a New Typikon?
- This topic has 7 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
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.
-
Absolutely yes, we need a new Typikon. If the Church is to make inroads in the Anglophone world, it needs a bilingual Typikon. There is only one, to my knowledge, the one translated by Rev. Robert T. Athas and ed. by George T. Demos and Theodore Bogdanos, published by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver Church Music Federation as The Ritual Order of the Services of the Great Church of Christ by George Violakis, Bilingual Edition, 2015 (ISBN: 978-0-692-24874-4). While admirable in many ways, this work is still somewhat difficult to use. Formatting changes, especially in an electronic edition, could go a long way to help.
For example, this hefty work of xiii + 979 + 176 (1,168 pp.) lacks page headers. This is frustrating because the Annunciation has 24 cases covered over 71 pages (435-505). St George (Apr 23) is covered over 35 pages. Layout is further confused when the situations spread to cover relevant changes to fore- and afterfeasts. When they are intertwined, such as the Sundays before Christmas to the post-Epiphany feast, clear layout is all the more necessary.
If a revised version were ever printed, pages for the same feast could be printed to the edge (differing by date and repeating as necessary), creating tab-like effects on the page edge opposite the binding.
Organizationally, a modest reform could be to standardize the situation numbers as much as possible so that the user would know that let’s say, all situation 1 is when the feast is on a Monday, situation 2 is Tuesday, etc. And we could introduce letters for more specific variations like 5B is a Friday in Lent. I’d love to see more of the variables in chart-like format so that a full service is displayed like our templates, with changes clearly highlighted and unchanged staples of the service not highlighted.
As for reforms, one inadequacy is that the Violakis of 1888 is inadequate for the calendar reform of 1923. We’ve had a century of practice with new situations and we should own it. We need to record how we are dealing with situations in which the 40 Martyrs (March 9) might not occur in Great Lent, or when St. George (April 23) does and does not occur during Great Lent/Holy Week and when exactly it gets moved to after Pascha and when it doesn’t.
And like what we’ve heard about the Systema Typikou (and some of the variables in DCS), choices are great. And they should be laid out and indicated, full of rubrics. The Typikon might have recommendations for less experienced chanters and then full-blown rubrics and all the options for left and right chanters who want all the canons and bells and whistles.
And ideally, time estimates would be cool. For example, a faster chanter could do this service in 60 minutes while a slower chanter might take 75 minutes (or whatever). This is helpful for parishes like mine because once we’re done, a mission parish of another jurisdiction uses our church, so it’s helpful to know approximate timings of services.
A revision of the Typikon should be useful as a guide. And with footnotes, it can be invaluable as a record of practice. For example, we could note that x% of parishes in y Archdiocese do not say the stichologia, or z% omit Psalms a,b,c. From that point, we at least have data. Conservative hierarchs might then consider restoring or codifying practices with their area. (Sidebar: is it conservative to restore an abandoned practice, or is that the innovation–like when Peter mentioned certain parishes singing odes 1,3, 9 of canons that are mostly abandoned?)
Finally, I’d love for the Typikon to be much more explicit about the readings assigned. I’d love to see the design principles for how to lay out the lectionary in different situations, e.g. when we have x-many Sundays between Christmas and Pascha, y-many Sundays, and so on. This could also be invaluable in revised editions of the Apostlos and Gospels as well.
-
One question I have as I think this topic through is what exactly counts as a “new Typikon”. Some of the changes suggested by pdfallon come down to formatting revisions (making it bilingual, including page headers and tabs, time estimates, etc.). Other suggestions don’t so much change any prescriptions of the Typikon as lay them out more clearly (when there are options/choices apropos for different level chanters, etc.) or involve more didactic explanations in the text of the Typikon itself (e.g., including design principles underlying and explaining decisions for how to lay out the lectionary). These all sound *really* helpful and are great suggestions, but do they count as changes to the Typikon?
I genuinely don’t know the answer, but my intuitions are that mere formatting changes would not constitute a new Typikon, whereas including more didactic or explanatory details about the prescriptions in the Typikon might count. Perhaps an example of the latter is George Regas’s Typikon, which (if I understood correctly) is primarily a more detailed (explanatory) and linguistically updated version of the TAS.
On the other hand, we might consider this discussion topic with respect to a new Typikon that would change something of the very substance of Violakis. A new descriptive Typikon based on the practice in US parishes today would, I believe, result in a substantive change in content (and not mere formatting changes or additions of didactic, explanatory text) to Violakis.
-
There would be great benefits from revising the Typikon. The focus could be on resolving the known controversial practices that have been introduced and further adapting the services to the modern era, especially the issues created by the calendar change. These are some of the major reasons for the revisions that have developed throughout the centuries. We know that “change” can be a threatening concept to we Orthodox, so it has to be approached as opportunity for growth and development.
Accomplishing this would be the challenge given the range of practices throughout the different Orthodox jurisdictions. Maybe there needs to be a “Great Council” of protopsaltai to embark such a major project. Could it be a first foothold on unifying the Orthodox Archdioceses within the United States? It seems that the “System of the Typikon” by Fr. Konstantinos Papagiannis was an attempt to rectify these issues and maybe should be adopted.
-
The decision to update or create a new Typikon depends on things such as the needs of the church community, cultural contexts, and the feasibility of today’s worship practice trends.
Pros for a new Typikon:
1. Adaptation to Modern Life: An updated Typikon could address modern day challenges and ensure that services are accessible and considered valuable for today’s faithful.
2. Cultural Relevance: As the church expands and embraces diverse cultures, an updated Typikon might better reflect these variations while maintaining core traditions.
3. Practicality: Adjusting the length and structure of services could help accommodate the schedules of parishioners who juggle modern demands with their spiritual life.Possible Cons for a new Typikon:
1. Preserving Tradition: The Typikon is deeply rooted in tradition, and any change must balance innovation with the preservation of established practices.
2. Unity: A new Typikon could risk creating divisions if not universally accepted or if it deviates significantly from traditional norms.Ultimately, whether a new Typikon is needed depends on the collective discernment and wisdom of the church leadership and community. I personally think that a review each year should be done, possibly quarterly meetings to review the services and outcomes of the last three months and how each parish faired. The main concern for me is that we only look at things when it has become a problem or division, versus looking at it preemptively in order to avoid those possible issues among our clergy and our faithful.
-
Any decision about changing the Typikon is not one to be taken lightly, but as with most proposals in the Church is should be made with much consideration of the effects of proposed alterations and decided in a conciliar manner. Regardless of whether any changes are made to the current Typikon, printing a well-done English translation of the Typikon would seem essential as many parishes continue to move toward services being in English. As Paul suggested, it may be a good idea to include some structural alterations in order to make it more “user-friendly,” especially for whenever unusual circumstances for the celebration of feasts arise in a particular year. When it comes to making any larger alterations to the Typikon, I personally don’t see any large obvious need to do so, other than considerations for the calendar change (as others above have mentioned). In general, I see the Church’s pattern historically for reforms of this type taking place if/when there is a present, obvious, need that arises instead of there being preemptive measures that anticipate conflict. However, I am not inherently opposed to changes for our American context. I would hope that discussions could take place across jurisdictional boundaries if/when the changes to the Typikon take place. Otherwise, there may be concerns for the unity of the Orthodox in America.
-
… If the question is, do you think the Church should produce a new Typikon, my answer would be no… and yes.
For the time and place that we currently find ourselves in, I would humbly submit that the Church would receive greater edification by, first, focusing her efforts on offering greater scholarship and education, to both clergy and laity alike, regarding the Typikon(s) that she currently has in place before concerning herself with producing or implementing something new. However…, once that has been accomplished (to the degree that she sees fit), I do envision how a new type of Typikon (similar to the Systema Typikou) could be a beneficial to guide to future generations of Orthodox Christians living in the information age.
Allow me to ellaborate.
Considering this question of the production of a new Typikon, the question continues to come to mind, how could we even begin to consider producing a new Typikon if our knowledge of the ancient Typikon of St. Sabbas is virtually inaccessible and unknown to the English speaking world? Personally, I do not think that the significance of the Typikon of St Sabbas can be overstated. To the heterodox who claim “catholicity” via denominationalism or a complete redefining of the term, Orthodox Christians can confidently say, and with peace, love and joy share with all the world, that there is a real Catholic ecclesiastical unity to be found in the Orthodox Christian Church, doctrinally via the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, and practically/liturgically via the Typikon of St Sabbas. Although few parishes and monasteries follow this Typikon to the letter, the fact that every Typikon in current practice is a variation to one degree or another of this Ancient Typikon, speaks volumes and offers a tangible evidence of a unity that cannot be found elsewhere in the religious world.
In a perfect and complete world, I envision 3 types of Typikons being beneficial and edifying to the Church, for both practical use and scholarly reference:
-The Ancient Universal Typikon
-The Received Parish Typikon
-A Typikon Theory Handbook/Encyclopedia“The Ancient Universal Typikon” would be a Bilingual Edition of the Typikon of St Sabbas. This is the Typikon of which all other Parish Typikons are derived, therefore a scholarly, critical edition of this text could prove to be invaluable for the life of the Church worldwide.
“The Received Parish Typikon” may be different depending on what jurisdiction you find yourself a part of, but for us it would be a Bilingual Edition of Violakis’ Typikon of the Great Church. This is the Typikon that we of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America have received, and we especially would benefit greatly if an edition of this was produced (with enhanced charts, rubrics and outlines) with both practical parish use, and educational qualities mind.
“A Typikon Theory Handbook/Encyclopedia”, I envision, would be something akin to the Systema Typikou, and potentially released in a two volume set: Vol. 1 being an actual Typikon with copious suggestions for various service variations (in an almost encyclopedic, potentially chronological, format), and Vol. 2 being notes offering historical/pastoral varacity to the variation options presented in Vol. 1. If this were executed properly, I could imagine how this could potentially lead to the development of a type of “Typikon Formulae” that could guide future generations in both liturgical practice and development while keeping them rooted to the Tradition of our Fathers.
These three types of Typikons, together, could offer a sort of literary system of checks and balances, allowing the Church to evaluate proposed liturgical “innovations” and check them to both the current parish practice and the ancient universal, while also providing a framework on how to adapt to the, “…weakness of the worshipers and the realities of modern life…” that so often is the cause for liturgical innovations leading to variety/disunity in ages past.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.