Talk:Typica

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Low-importance).

[Untitled]

This article, as written, has several problems with it:

First of all, the matter discussed seems more appropriate under the article Typicon. The term "Typica" is commonly used to describe a service read in Orthodox monasteries and parishes on days when the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated.

Secondly, the example given is inaccurate: The Patriarch of Jerusalem only celebrates the Liturgy of St. James one day out of the entire year (and he is not alone in this practice. Other Orthodox celebrate the Liturgy of St. James once--or even twice--a year, even in jurisdictions outside of the Jerusalem Patriarchate). The rest of the year he follows the same practice as the rest of the Orthodox Church.

I would recommend moving the (accurate) information in this article to the article on the Typicon and using this namespace for an article on the service called the Typica. MishaPan 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has several problems with it:

First of all, Typica is simply the plural of Typicon. Both words refer to the order of services which in essence is what is referred to in the article.

Second, while it is true that in monasteries, on days where for one reason or another the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated, the abbot will tell the monks to “do typica” he is referring to following the order of services usually replacing the Liturgy with “Jesus Prayers”, not performing some service called “typica”.

Third, you are incorrect, The Patriarch of Jerusalem on any “normal” Sunday celebrates the Liturgy of St. James, and has done so since the beginning of the church. He, of course may celebrate the other forms of the liturgy, if he wishes. Most of the rest of the church will only celebrate the Liturgy of St James on his feast day.

As to consolidating this article with the article "Typicon" that would be fine as they are the same thing.--Phiddipus 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear in Christ Phiddipus--Please forgive me. I did not mean to offend you. If I may please explain. In the context I am referring to, the service in question is named "Typica" because of the "Typical Psalms" (Psalm 102, Psalm 145, and the Beatitudes), which typically serve as the Antiphons at the Divine Liturgy (on simple days and Feasts of the Lord, they are replaced with special Antiphons).

If you will look in the Horologion, you will find listed there a service called The Order of the Typica (it is listed after the "Inter-hour of the Sixth Hour" and before "The Divine Liturgy"). I have read the service innumerable times myself. It is read on every weekday of Great Lent. Having lived in a monastery for 21 years I know that when the Abbot says, "do Typica" he is not referring to doing "Jesus Prayers," he is referring to this specific service. Please forgive me for being so abrupt.

Regarding the Patriarch of Jerusalem. I am a unworthy Hierodeacon. I the sinner have been blessed to serve both the Liturgy of St. James and the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil. I made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem several years ago and attended Divine Liturgy in the Holy Sepulchure on a Sunday (midnight on Saturday). I vested and received Holy Communion at that service, and I feel quite certain that the Liturgy served was not that of St. James. Perhaps the Patriarch does reserve the right to serve the Liturgy of St. James on Sundays; all I can testify about is what I witnessed with my own eyes. Please forgive me, and please pray for me the sinner. MishaPan 08:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, the discrepancies are quite easily explained. The 'Typika' service is rarely seen in Greek churches outside of Monasteries, while being relatively common in Slavic churches (where it is called Obednitsa). Hence it happens that to those of the Greek tradition, the first thing that comes to mind when the word 'Typika' is mentioned will be 'ah, plural of Typikon', where as to those of the Slavic tradition the first thought is 'oh, the service'. InfernoXV 09:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Misha – Evlogite. I also ask your forgiveness if what I said comes across as forceful and somewhat harsh. I was not offended by what you said. We both speak from personal experience. I am from a traditional Greek background and have numerous relatives in monasteries and in the priesthood. I myself was privileged to spend nearly one month with Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem back in the 90s. At that time the liturgy of St James was celebrated almost on a daily basis. There were, of course, times when we did St Chrysostomos’ Liturgy; I was not there during lent so I do not have knowledge about that period. I am wondering if later patriarch changed this practice…I don’t know.

I consulted my brother, who has been in a very traditional monastery for 23 years. Their monastery follows the traditions of the monastery of St John on Patmos in Greece. Usually they celebrate the Divine Liturgy on a daily basis, but occasionally, for one reason or another, their abbot tells them to do “typica”. What they do is follow the normal order of services, reading them as usual, except that there is usually no priest present. They will read Matins, then the hours and all the psalms ascribed for that day (3 kathismas), then recite a prescribed number of Jesus Prayers. I looked up the text of the Typika online. I am unfamiliar with this service, but it looks like, and it may have possibly come into existence when a bishop of the church prescribed it to his flock as an alternative to the Liturgy, and that the practice caught on among the Slavic Churches. I don’t know.

In any case, the original reason for creating this topic was to explain why there are differences in practice within the Church and why they are acceptable. They are differences in typica (plural). It would be grammatically incorrect to say they were differences in typicon (singular).

I apologize for being a nit-picker.--Phiddipus 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phiddipus, you'll find the Typica prescribed at Royal Hours on Christmas Eve, Theophany Eve and Great Friday. It's also listed in every single edition of the Great Horologion published by the Greek churches. It happens to be an ancient office from Palestinian monasteries. InfernoXV 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple

I am not sure if it is one of the tenants of the Wikipedia to clear up the confusion that sometimes results when differences in terminology manifest themselves. Even so, we have the opportunity to set certain presidents and have them become effective by choosing which terms are best suited to the English language and most importantly to the ideas these words convey within the context of the Eastern Orthodox Church. One thing that needs to be avoided is affectation, especially when it serves no other purpose than to sound pretty and add to the confusion. An example that has been discussed previously is Icon painting vs. Icon writing. Icon “writing” sounds pretty, but in English, when it comes down to it, is just illiterate. Just because the suffix “graphy” is part of the word does not mean it is written. Photography literally means to write with light, but we do not write photographs. In English, when we use paints and brushes and color on wood or canvas it is called painting. The reason I point this out is because of the word “Temple” used in describing the church building. On the one hand, if we look at the definition of the word alone, there is probably no reason not to use it. But the images conjured in the mind of English speakers when they hear “Temple” are either of the Jewish Temple, The Mormon Temple, or various Pagan Temples. In English, for centuries, we have almost exclusively used the term “Church”. Likewise, the Greeks have always used the term “Ecclesia” instead of “Naos” because the church wanted a very specific difference established between the pagan Temple and the Christian Church. In the end, what I am proposing, for the sake of clarity and in making the contrast between pagan and Christian more apparent, the use of the term “Church” as opposed to “Temple”. --Phiddipus 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phiddipus, agreed, but I'm not quite sure what your point in the previous paragraph is. I've seen 'Naos' used surprisingly often in Greek churches of the diaspora, but I don't like translating it as 'temple' myself. InfernoXV 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]