1,942
edits
Changes
→More Misinformation: new section
I object to the continued personal attacks on me and mischaracterizations of me by Willibrord. I have nowhere in this article been a "detractor" of the AWRV. That is a libel against me. As I have said before, I have no criticism to make of the AWRV. I am not criticizing their liturgies. I have stuck to (what I take to be) relatively straightforward factual matters. Willibrord acts as if to qualify "all" by the word "almost" makes one a detractor pf the AWRV. He simply can't acknowledge two sinple facts: (1) not all the changes were made -- which is no big deal for several reasons; and (2) that the SASB is an official text of the Antiochian Archdiocese. To point out that the SASB, the edition of which I have in front of me was published a year after the Orthodox Missal, is printed by the Archdiocese and contains a letter from its Metropolitan saying that it is an authorized text, is not to "detract" from the AWRV. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 12:48, August 5, 2008 (UTC)
== More Misinformation ==
Simple facts:
1. It doesn’t matter whether the Litany is used alone or in conjunction with the office or the Liturgy. The Observations require that invocation of the Theotokos, the Angels, and the Saints be added. They were not added to the SASB version of the Litany.
2. Willibrord writes, “For the second time I note, the Observations left where invocations of the saints would be added to the BCP under the bishop's authority and nowhere specified they must be added to a specific section of the Liturgy.” But this is plainly false. The concluding paragraph of the Observations is unambiguous: “'''Into all the services''' in general prayers '''must be inserted''' addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service).”
3. Willibrord seems to misunderstand Metropolitan PHILIP’s letter in the 1995 OM. The Metropolitan wrote, “These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese.” Willibrord seems to be reading that as saying these texts and only these texts may be used in our Archdiocese, but that isn’t what the sentence says. But in any event, in the very next year, the Metropolitan refers in his letter in the SASB to its texts as “these authorized liturgies and other rites and ceremonies….” So even if one understood the 1995 letter as excluding other texts, one has to acknowledge a reversal in 1996 in that the texts of the SASB are clearly identified as authorized services.
There is no getting around 1, 2, and 3. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 21:20, August 5, 2008 (UTC)