Abstract(?) Typikon?

I understood very well that your question was rhetorical. I also understand quite well the general attitude toward typikon in many parts of the GOA. My point is that it's not all so simple, it's just not as simple as 'the typikon follows the the practice of the church', because there are all too many clergy and laity who use that excuse to justify whatever it is they 'want' to do in divine service. My stance is that the typikon is also a witness to genuine Orthodox Christian spirituality, codifying and bearing witness to us the way the saints who came before us prayed and worshiped.

I also don't think this is very far out either. The present interest in foundational and liturgical typikon in universities around the world bears this out. Scholars, liturgists, historian and theologians are literally climbing over each other to get access and translations to historic typika exactly because they are such clear witnesses to spiritual life through the centuries.

The typika we Orthodox use in our churches today are in direct line with these 'ancient' diataxes, typika, synaxaria, etc. To ignore them, not know their basic history and not know the correct order of worship in our churches as described in these important texts leaves our worship open to every passing liturgical 'fad' and whim. It is a sad commentary that this often is quite characteristic of our American reality. That's all I mean.

thanks for the opportunity to get that out.