Talk:Compline - Revision history

Bejmark: /* For God is with us... */ new section

2011-05-25T01:59:35Z

‎For God is with us...: new section

Bejmark: /* Clarify this page */ new section

2011-05-25T01:40:42Z

‎Clarify this page: new section

Gabriela at 03:29, March 24, 2007

2007-03-24T03:29:29Z

Paterakis: More on Catholic scholarship.

2007-03-23T17:12:21Z

FrJohn at 16:40, March 23, 2007

2007-03-23T16:40:50Z

ASDamick: /* Roman Scholars referenced in this article */

2007-03-23T12:18:50Z

‎Roman Scholars referenced in this article

Frjohnwhiteford: /* Roman Scholars referenced in this article */

2007-03-23T11:05:40Z

‎Roman Scholars referenced in this article

Gabriela at 03:47, March 23, 2007

2007-03-23T03:47:55Z

Frjohnwhiteford: Roman Scholars referenced in this article

2007-03-23T02:59:40Z

Roman Scholars referenced in this article

New page

== Roman Scholars referenced in this article ==

I couldn't tell you off hand who's who without doing some digging, but I can tell you that the essential fact that are given in that section are the scholarly consensus on the historical development of the service -- You'll find the same things stated in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. I don't think that there is any Orthodoxizing that is needed for that section.

-Fr. John Whiteford 3-22-07

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, May 25, 2011
Line 31:		Line 31:

	Thanks in advance for the clarification!		Thanks in advance for the clarification!
		+
		+	== For God is with us... ==
		+
		+	It would seem reasonable that the stychira for this hymn are specific to the feast. Is this, in fact, the case?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, May 25, 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:Point taken. [[User:Gabriela\|Gabriela]] 20:29, March 23, 2007 (PDT)		:Point taken. [[User:Gabriela\|Gabriela]] 20:29, March 23, 2007 (PDT)
		+
		+	== Clarify this page ==
		+
		+	Ladies and Gents,
		+	When there is a disparity between the liturgical day (or calendar) on the one hand, and the civil day (or calendar) on the other hand, more precision in word choice is highly desirable, if not necessary, for clarity.
		+
		+	"Tuesday and Thursday evening", for example.
		+
		+	Does this mean <I>civil</I> Tuesday and Thursday evening? Thus, the start of the liturgical Wednesday and Friday (or the eves of Wednesday and Friday)?
		+
		+	Or was this text pulled from a Typicon, where the author likely assumed that his reader understood "Tuesday" as meaning <I>liturgical</I> Tuesday, i.e., that 24-hour period that starts with Vespers on the <I>civil</I> Monday evening?
		+
		+	I think this sort of careful wording should be applied to any descriptions of Vespers, Compline, and Midnight Office; similarly to the unusual timings during Holy Week, where it might be most clear to speak in terms of the time in the civil day, but for clarity to specify precede each such reference with this very word.
		+
		+	Thanks in advance for the clarification!

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:29, March 24, 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:

	::I agree. I see using a broad base of scholarship to make these points as a strength, not a disadvantage.[[User:Paterakis\|Paterakis]] 10:12, March 23, 2007 (PDT)		::I agree. I see using a broad base of scholarship to make these points as a strength, not a disadvantage.[[User:Paterakis\|Paterakis]] 10:12, March 23, 2007 (PDT)
		+
		+	:Point taken. [[User:Gabriela\|Gabriela]] 20:29, March 23, 2007 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, March 23, 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:We just have to recognize that much of the best contemporary scholarship on Byzantine liturgy is written by non-Orthodox scholars (e.g. Taft and others) - — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])		:We just have to recognize that much of the best contemporary scholarship on Byzantine liturgy is written by non-Orthodox scholars (e.g. Taft and others) - — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
		+
		+	::I agree. I see using a broad base of scholarship to make these points as a strength, not a disadvantage.[[User:Paterakis\|Paterakis]] 10:12, March 23, 2007 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, March 23, 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:

	::: Our general practice has been to cite any scholarship which does not contradict Orthodox teaching, so long as it's credible. I've used the ODCC and the DEC for numerous articles, and their scholars are not always Orthodox (the latter has more than the former, of course). —[[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>]]</small> 05:18, March 23, 2007 (PDT)		::: Our general practice has been to cite any scholarship which does not contradict Orthodox teaching, so long as it's credible. I've used the ODCC and the DEC for numerous articles, and their scholars are not always Orthodox (the latter has more than the former, of course). —[[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>]]</small> 05:18, March 23, 2007 (PDT)
		+
		+	:We just have to recognize that much of the best contemporary scholarship on Byzantine liturgy is written by non-Orthodox scholars (e.g. Taft and others) - — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, March 23, 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	::The only ways I could see doing it are to either greatly abbreviate the section, and to just state generally the broad consensus of scholars, or for someone to re-write it, and cite more recent scholars who have covered the same ground. The first option results in less information... and I think the information is useful and interesting. The second option would prehaps be an improvement, but you would still largely (if not exclusively) be talking about the findings of non-Orthodox scholars -- unless there is someone who is familiar with contemporary Greek scholarship on this issue, which have some uniquely Orthodox ideas on the matter. -Fr. John Whiteford 3-23-07		::The only ways I could see doing it are to either greatly abbreviate the section, and to just state generally the broad consensus of scholars, or for someone to re-write it, and cite more recent scholars who have covered the same ground. The first option results in less information... and I think the information is useful and interesting. The second option would prehaps be an improvement, but you would still largely (if not exclusively) be talking about the findings of non-Orthodox scholars -- unless there is someone who is familiar with contemporary Greek scholarship on this issue, which have some uniquely Orthodox ideas on the matter. -Fr. John Whiteford 3-23-07
		+
		+	::: Our general practice has been to cite any scholarship which does not contradict Orthodox teaching, so long as it's credible. I've used the ODCC and the DEC for numerous articles, and their scholars are not always Orthodox (the latter has more than the former, of course). —[[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>]]</small> 05:18, March 23, 2007 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:05, March 23, 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:Ok, but I wasn't disputing the message so much as the sources. Could it be rewritten without citing obscure Catholic scholars, maybe? [[User:Gabriela\|Gabriela]] 20:47, March 22, 2007 (PDT)		:Ok, but I wasn't disputing the message so much as the sources. Could it be rewritten without citing obscure Catholic scholars, maybe? [[User:Gabriela\|Gabriela]] 20:47, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
		+
		+	::The only ways I could see doing it are to either greatly abbreviate the section, and to just state generally the broad consensus of scholars, or for someone to re-write it, and cite more recent scholars who have covered the same ground. The first option results in less information... and I think the information is useful and interesting. The second option would prehaps be an improvement, but you would still largely (if not exclusively) be talking about the findings of non-Orthodox scholars -- unless there is someone who is familiar with contemporary Greek scholarship on this issue, which have some uniquely Orthodox ideas on the matter. -Fr. John Whiteford 3-23-07

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, March 23, 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	-Fr. John Whiteford 3-22-07		-Fr. John Whiteford 3-22-07
		+
		+	:Ok, but I wasn't disputing the message so much as the sources. Could it be rewritten without citing obscure Catholic scholars, maybe? [[User:Gabriela\|Gabriela]] 20:47, March 22, 2007 (PDT)