Only some of ==Adjudication==At 80kb, I'm fairly sure that this is the recommendations made by single longest Talk page on OW, probably even including those with archivals - so big that it needed to pages to archive it. It's the Moscow Commission were made by kind of thing that I instinctively congratulate, purely on the Antiochians basis of perseverance - all 80,000 characters and ROCORsix months of it. This shouldn't be controversial That said, this does need to stop. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 16:22, February 12, 2008 (PST)

:The use of "some" So, my adjudication on the matter - the Observations aren't binding (they're ''observations''), so it is misleading; all recommendations for thoroughly irrelevant whether they were followed to the liturgy letter (and hoursindeed, 'to the letter' gives quite a bit of scope to the diocesan) were made by . This is something that both Antioch 'sides' can accept, since one advanced this idea to begin with and ROCOR the other highlighted that the diocesan needed to implement them properly. The way the article currently is (and Alexandria, and MoscowI did edit it in the last couple of days)reflects this.

:Certain Secondly, I''vagantes'' use this language m not convinced that the SASB is authorised in the same way as the OM is authorised - the definite and indefinite articles clearly have an important part to cast aspersions on play in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, claiming it is invalidEnglish language, because it did not implement all and only the recommendations of latter has the 1904 Observationsdefinite article...which is false. - [[User: Willibrord]]

Only SOME of Regarding citations, the changes were made; OM/SASB issue should be settled with a citation (e.g. Andersen, B., (2006). ''Lengthy Thesis: Title with Much Capitalisation that is a simple factRivals The Thesis' Word Count''. Crestwood, New York: Publisher), but I am not a vagante nor have I claimed strongly encourage that the liturgy in question critical part of this thesis be put online. The critical part about this thesis is "invalidwhat the Vicar-General says - if there's only one authorised text according to him, then that's it - if that wasn't the case," but one need not make false claims such as then in the one same way that ALL of the recommendations were adoptedArchbishop has full authority to authorise texts, he also has full authority to un-deputise people to speak on his behalf. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:34 At a minimum, February 13all bibliographical details need to be given. In addition, 2008 (PST) Before Willbrord changes my edits againwhether there is a conflict of interest regarding the thesis is not an issue, perhaps he could read for the simple reason that it was submitted to an impartial marker. One would not claim a conflict of interest if someone said 'I'Observations'm innocent' and compare them to after the liturgycourt case was thrown out. -- On another note, however, Occidentalis cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that it is a "blog [[User:Fr Lev|Fr Levthat]] 07:07, February 14, 2008 (PST)is open to invited readers only".

From what In short, I recall from having read about this some time agohold that the article, as it stands, the 'is correct. I'Observations'' noted m archiving the inadequate language rest of sacrifice in the oblation of page. For any further complaints about the anaphoraarticle, but nothing was changed. One of their biggest <strike>click on my complaints was the compromising language of the Prayer Book. The classic example of link</strike> feel free to state this on this is in the words for administering communionpage or find another sysop. The &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="Catholicgreen" 1549 BCP had >Pιs</font><font color="The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.gold" The >τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="Protestantblue" 1552 replaced these words with "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." The Elizabethan compromise book of 1559 intended to allow Catholic- and Protestant-minded Anglicans to both use the BCP simply combined the two sets of words. This compromise language is maintained in the Tikhon text. The penultimate paragraph of the >talk</font>]]''Observations'' has some choice words about this compromise approach. I also recall that the ''Observations'' wanted a great deal more "glorification and invocation" of the Saints, which became only a reference in the intercessions to "blessed Mary and all Thy Saints." --[[Usertalk:Fr LevPistevo/dev/null|Fr Lev<font color="red">complaints</font>]] 08''} at 23:2701, February 14August 8, 2008 (PSTUTC)

:Sorry-- I didn'''ALL''' (not some) of the recommendations of the [http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12t notice that this was a final edit.html ''Observations''] ''for the Liturgy and Hours'' have been implementedI will be quiet on this one, and to say otherwise is simply false. The wasn''Observations'' list all required changes in the last paragraph, and all relating t trying to wake the Liturgy dead or Hours have been madeanything. Stremoving previous comment. Tikhon's Liturgy includes the "glorification and invocation" (to borrow your quotation) of: ::- in the '''''Confiteor''''' (clearly printed in both ''The Orthodox Missal'' and the -[[httpUser://www.stmichaelwhittier.org/dnn/Literature/tabid/63/Default.aspx ''St. Andrew Service Book''JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]): "Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, [and] all the saints"; ::- in the '''''Suscipe Sancta Trinitas'''''02: "blessed Mary Ever-Virgin32, of blessed John (the) BaptistAugust 9, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all Thy saints."::- in '''''Nobis Quoque Peccatoribus''''': "thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecelia, Anastasia," and all saints; and ::- in the '''''Libera Nos''''' 2008 (Again, in both TOM and SASBUTC): a supplication for "the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, Ever-Virgin Mother of God, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, Andrew, and all Thy saints."

:All of these prayers are prayed ''throughout'' Deleting my comment as I hope the Antiochian WR Vicariate and are included in TOM, but the SASB (along with its other irregularities) does not include any of the priest's silent prayers -- perhaps because the SASB discussion on this page is a simple parish prayer book and not a priest's Missal, much less the Vicariate's official text of the Mass. But even in the SASB, "glorification and invocation" of the saints was never ''"only a reference in the intercessions to 'blessed Mary and all Thy Saints.'"'' Your allegations demonstrate either ignorance or malicedone.

:The ''Observations'' -- which say the Gallican Liturgy makes reference Moved from Archive 1b to sacrifice only "somewhat vaguely" -- state the idea of sacrifice must be "inserted...into the rite of the Liturgy," though it does not specify the canon proper; the idea could be expressed, as in the Gallican Rite, in other places. In St. Tikhon's Liturgy, there is an abundance of sacrificial references in the canon and without. The priest's offertory prayers (specifically the ''In Spiritu Humilitatis'' and ''Veni Sanctificator'', as well as the ''Suscipe'')and the ''Orate, Fratres'' clearly call the Eucharist a "sacrifice." The priest also prays the ''Placeat Tibimain Talk page by [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]]'' before the blessing, beseeching, "grant that this sacrifice which I, unworthy that I am, have offered in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable unto Thee...."

: The :Well, it ''Ecce Agnus Deiis'' and added Pre-Communion Prayers make the Real Presence explicit - no Protestant or Zwinglian would be comfortable a talk page, so if there is something that needs saying such things! Again, these are found in both TOM and it should be said. The above was simply my adjudication on the SASBmatter.&mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} at 12:35, August 10, 2008 (UTC)

:These recommendations are no less Just an addendum to my adjudication - I feel that having heard the arguments for the last six months, there's not much new that can be said. My default position of not responding should be taken as precisely that, ''not'' as support for (and no less obviouslyor against) fulfilled in a new position. Perhaps another sysop can see something that I do not. &mdash; by [http[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</www.orthodoxresurgence.comfont>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/petrocnull|<font color="red">complaints</english.htm The English Liturgyfont>]]. ''} at 23:05, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

:Of course==SASB, the ''Observations'' left implementation to Church authority; they end by acknowleding, "since the detailed changes...can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing demands and conditions" the ''Observations'' "will thus serve in the negotiations as materials for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy can be received." Part II==

:StillCan I please understand, as an impartial observer, HOW this book isn't authorized, when it is has a demonstrable fact that all changes of St. Tikhon's Liturgy and Hours have been made blessing from the Ruling Bishop to be used by Antioch, Moscow, Alexandria, clergy and laity (in Australia) ROCORp. The canonical (or non-canonical2) status , claims to include the authorized liturgies and devotions of L'ECOF doesn't enter into this discussion; readily verifiable facts do. the AWRV, has undergone a change in the name but not the text in the "Western Rite Service Book" and is stocked by Western rite Vicariate Parishes not an official book?

:I will thank the moderators if this closes the matter, and such erroneous language is not allowed to be reintroducedThanks.:-- [[User: WillibrordJosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]]22:08, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

I have three basic responses. FirstYes, without going into how Orthodox Christians should actbut all he said was "Sdn Benjamin's thesis would be an example of citable material, one should – on a purely secular level -- note and my viewpoint is that attributing malice as a possible motive is not a good way to foster communication or progress in the editing interviews with Fr Paul Schneirla would suffice. I would strongly encourage the posting of articles, or linking to, this thesis online (right now, we can say 'according to Andersen, 2006', but I'm not sure how much further we can go). However, the links to mention bad mannersthe Occidentalis blog can be considered 'privileged' - it appears that it's now a closed blog. "

:Your comments were erroneous enough only to proceed from one or the other sourceThat certainly doesn't sound like he agrees with two pages of mostly your explanation, just that a thesis paper can be cited as they were belied by their own alleged sourcesa source. It is certainly bad manners He also says the interviews would suffice, but I have no understanding where to take pains to misrepresent access these interviews. I also find it odd that a Western-rite book put out by the situation in other jurisdictions or confuse others about the canonical status of oneArchdiocese *directly*, as has been noted on Wiki, would require Fr Paul's own jurisdictionpermission to exist as "approved".--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:58, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

Second, since last writing about this, I have obtained a copy of the OM. I think it is superior to the == SASB in numerous ways. That being said, I still find the attempt to marginalize the SASB as “a parish prayer book” a little puzzling. Despite previous denials, the SASB is an authorized book of the Antiochian Archdiocese as clearly indicated by the letter from Metropolitan Philip included in the front of the book. There is no relevant difference in the wording of the Metropolitan’s letter in the OM from his letter in the SASB. Authorized ==

:The Metropolitan's letter at the front main article has a link to a download of ''TOM'' states, "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our ArchdioceseSASB." There Here is no similar statement in his letter in the SASB, nor has he amended his letter in any subsequent edition of ''TOM'', as you can now verify. from Metropolitan PHILIP:

:On the contrary, it is you who rob the Antiochians The First Edition of the right to determine their practiceSt. The Archdiocese administers Andrew Service Book was approved for use by the Western Rite through Congregations of the Antiochian Western Rite VicariateOrthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989. This, the Second Edition, improved in format and expanded in content, which prescribes ''The Orthodox Missal'' will be welcomed by the clergy and laity of our archdiocese who worship in a tradition as ancient as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is giventhe Eastern. This is neither controversial nor hard We take this opportunity to understand. It misrepresents commend and sincerely thank Archpriest Michael Keiser, the original compiler of the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer service book all-but-unused , as well as the Board of the Orthodox Christian Press, Archimandrite Michael Trigg, Fr. John Downing, and especially Mr. Karl Steinhoff, for their many hours of dedicated labor in preparing the AWRV as though it were revised edition. We pray that the attentive use of '''these authorized liturgies''' and other rites and ceremonies by the Western rite clergy and laity of our beloved Archdiocese will be the equal cause of its actual practicea spiritual and liturgical renewal within our church in North America.+ Metropolitan PHILIP Primate Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America"

:Noting I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that the SASB was designed as a parish prayer book is but noting a fact; presumably this explains why it does not includes authorized in the priest's silent prayers and other information necessary to celebrate Masssame way that the OM is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM:You"These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are ''used only by the Antiochian Archdiocese've added nothing from that section of '. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the Observations sentence says that contradicts the Antiochian '''Archdiocese'''(not the AWRV) 'fact'uses only these texts'' that ALL recommendations about , which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Hours Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy have been fulfilledof St Basil.--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:04, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

The ajudication by Pistevo was that this article -- as it stands -- is correct. Despite Willibrord's claims to the contrary, the article does '''not''' take a position on how many of the recommendations/requirements of the ''Observations'' were made to the Liturgy of St Tikhon. As to the SASB, it and the OM are both listed as sources, and no statement is made about one or the other being or not being authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 17:25, August 22, 2008 (UTC):Pistevo's edit of this article as it stands removes reference to the SASB as equal to OM and states affirmatively, "An Incomplete Text of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is contained in the" SASB, meaning it is not authorized in the same sense as the OM (as she affirmed [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:And conveniently elided several othersLiturgy_of_St. How odd_Tikhon_of_Moscow#Adjudication above]).That should put this to rest. Incidentally, Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's SVOTS M.Div. thesis, which cites the Vicar General as a source and was praised by him ''and'' SVOTS faculty, is ''An Anglican Liturgy in the Orthodox Church: The Origins and Development of the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon'' (2005). --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 18:15, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

MoreoverAs indicated before, the Observations – in ruling Metropolitan of the section Antiochian Archdiocese is a more authoritative source than a subdeacon's thesis on Morning and Evening Prayer –say: “But at the same time, while the recourse point of what liturgies are authorized in prayer to the Most Holy Mother Archdiocese. The letter of Godthe Metropolitan is quite clear that the SASB is an authorized service book. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 18:50, August 22, 2008 (UTC):The issue of authorization has been put to rest, as noted in the Angel Hostsajudication. The issue is dead. It's time to stop wasting bandwidth on arguments that have been decided.:Incidentally, and to [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow/Archive_1b what Pistevo actually said about the illustrious saints''Observations''] is: "So far, uncontested agreement on the glorification and invocation Orthodox Missal having followed the Observations." As the OM is acknowledged as the official text of them, forms an essential part the Mass of Orthodox and Catholic worshipSt. Tikhon, these things are entirely foreign to Anglican worshipthis also settles that issue. It is absolutely necessary that there should be introduced into this worship some such prayers --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 19:12, August 22, 2008 (or hymnsUTC) in one or another form and degree.”

While ==ROCOR English Liturgy NOT St. Tikhon's==The article still contains the misinformation of the OM doesn’t include these hoursROCOR English Liturgy being 'St. Tikhon's'. ROCOR has not authorised St. Tikhon's, nor is it in use. The link to the SASB ROCOR English Liturgy (which I placed on that site as webmaster) contains no reference to St. Tikhon's liturgy. A comparison of the two shows their dissimiliarity: the English liturgy has no Decalogue, 'Comfortable Words', or other marks of the St. Tikhon's liturgy. The St. Tikhon's also does not contain Matins and Vespersthe Sarum canon, the Vestry Chapel Vesting office, the preparation before the liturgy, the Cherubic Hymn, a Western epiclesis, and neither has any additions of prayers or hymns to meet this requirement, which was termed “absolutely necessary” by the CommissionDivesting office. This one requirement St. Tikhon's propers are also not the Sarum propers that the English liturgy requires. That is clearly unmet falsifies the claim a pretty major difference altogether. Nevermind that “all” of ROCOR WRITE clergy and their hierarchs do not refer to the changes demanded by the Commission were madeEnglish liturgy as "St. Tikhon's", nor do they wish to. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 21:30, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

:False (once again), both about the SASB and AWRV practice in generalAgreed. Please do change it. Regarding At the SASBsame time, apparently you missed I have yet to see any other reference to the concluding prayer Liturgy of Vespers, which begs "''St Tikhon being approved by the intercession Churches of the blessed and glorious Mary, ever-Virgin Mother Moscow or Alexandria. Perhaps they have some form of Godan English liturgy, but there are many differences between an English usgae of blessed Joseph, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, of blessed Andrew, and of all the Saints''" - odd, since it's clearly printed in the SASB. Roman rite (It also prays for such as the day when "all adversity and error being done away with."Sarum) More to the point, AWRV missions typically conclude Morning an Anglican liturgy (from an authorized Book of Common Prayer ), and Evensong by singing the appropriate Marian antiphon. This is prescribed in ''Liturgy of StTikhon. Dunstan's Psalter'', used by every St. Tikhon Liturgy parish with which I'm familiar, prescribed even before its publication in --[[httpUser://www.members.cox.net/frnicholas/daily_office.htm the Office presented by Fr. Nicholas Alford at St. Gregory the Great AWRV ChurchLev|Fr Lev]]21:38, August 25, and it was not an innovation then. This is the AWRV's standard practice. 2008 (Some parishes also pray the Rosary or saints' litanies immediately following the Hours, or at another time.UTC)

A similar complaint and requirement The following still is made concerning not quite correct: "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has approved a service with many similarities (under the Great Litanyname 'The English Liturgy'). " The Observations say, “But examining it in connection dissimilarities are far greater. To begin with its origin, the Ceremonial and comparing it with Propers for the St. Tikhon's follow the Tridentine/Anglican Missal form. That of the English Liturgy follows the Sarum use. The text of the Roman Catholic Litany from which it was derivedDivine Liturgy itself also heavily differs - in content, again under Lutheran influenceform, we clearly discern its protestant character, in and origin. The most important being that it does not contain the invocation English Liturgy is of English tradition, while the St. Tikhon's follows the Mother of God, of American/Scottish tradition. This is true to the point where the spiritual Hosts and two liturgies differ more from each other than do the Saints, who occupy a very prominent place amongst Liturgy of St. Gregory from the CatholicsSarum use, and even had a place (like prayers for or the dead) in Slavic recension from the first edition Greek recension of 1544, though the Byzantine rite. The only in an abbreviated form major similarities are that both are primarily in the shape English language, have used some Book of an invocation Common Prayer for source material, and depend thus on the Russian Observations of saints en bloc, without particularizing names1904-07. In case Which Book of any full restoration Common Prayer, of Orthodox beliefscourse, is cause for serious differences. (Noting - I have nothing against St. Tikhon's.) So, it would might be timely and expedient best to bring in again both have a separate article for the invocations and the prayersEnglish Liturgy. --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 00:35, August 26, as being characteristic of this kind of devotion."2008 (UTC)

Yet when one turns :...Perhaps you'd like to the Great Litany (SASB, 51suggest a way of saying that ROCOR also has an Anglican-55)based WR Liturgy? &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] ^{''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''} at 01:48, one finds no mention of the Mother of GodAugust 26, the spiritual Hosts, or the Saints. 2008 (UTC)

:Pistevo - The Great Litany is neither an Hour nor best way would be a Liturgyseparate page, and your mentioning in this regard only muddies or mention of both on a page about the Russian Observations (the waterscommon link. ) However to swing at this particular pitch, the term 'Anglican-inbased' can be misleading. In the sense we use 'Anglican' we mean English -the-dirtancient Church, and that heritage nearly two millenia old. The sense others use is 'Protestant'which we wouldn'The Orthodox Ritualt mean at all - Anglicana is simply Latin for 'English'. The Observations, of course, suggested that any diocesan adaptation of services from a BCP would have to include restoration from older Western use ( as Simeon Bogolovsky wrote for "Edinaia Tserkov" One Church in the form authorized by article "Orthodoxy and the Western Rite" published sometime after 1948 - but before the AWRV for use mid 1950s.) The Antiochian St. Tikhon's was done in parishes, includes the traditional Litany Antiochian Patriarchate using an American prayer book (of Scottish lineage) and used the Roman (Italian) rite for its re-catholicization. The Russian implementation by Vladyka Hilarion was different (as noted in the SaintsSCPB - Sarum base, with some items from 1549 BCP, 1718 Non-Juror liturgy, wherein York, Gothic, etc.) - making it a faithful English Use Orthodox Liturgy following the saints Russian directives and angels commemorated run more than three columnsukazes. Of course, the 'Book of Common Prayer' is not in use - nor adapted whole. It also includes various other saintsNor do we have an 'Orthodox Book of Common Prayer' litanies(the Saint Colman Prayer Book is rather like a Western version of the Jordanville or Old Rite Prayer book - and has accompanying volumes. ) --[[User:Aristibule|Ari]] 11:15, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

:Of course, Thank you! I am so tired of these little word-games. The "English Liturgy" is based to a large degree on the SASB contains other prayers/invocations of BCP-- P. Ben Johnson's objections to the saints SHP Sarum note at least three Cranmerian liftings, which are obviously not Sarum. Fr Michael has advertised this to disaffected Anglicans as part an "Orthodox version of its "Prayers and Thanksgivings'the prayer book'" section, ppwhich in Anglican parlance can only mean the BCP. 27-44. -[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 05:39, August 26, 2008 (UTC)

As for the Confiteor, this is not a part == Dropping "of the liturgy proper (it comes before the Introit), and it has never been a part of any Book of Common Prayer, much less the 1892 BCP referenced in the Observations. Simply adding a Roman prayer (one that is foreign to the Anglican rite) does not seem adequate. Moreover, why borrow a Roman prayer to make the BCP more Orthodox? A mention of the Mother of God, one angel, and three saints (John the Baptist, Peter, & Paul in the SASB Confiteor on pp. 61-62) seems less robust that “the glorification and invocation” of “the Most Holy Mother of God, … the Angel Hosts, and … the illustrious saints.” --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 15:42, June 25, 2008 (UTC)Moscow" ==

:The ''Confiteor'' is part of what is known as "The Prayers at Neither the Foot of OM nor the Altar,SASB uses " a part of Western Rite liturgies and is clearly printed Moscow" to modify St Tikhon in the SASBname of the liturgy. If For the 1892 BCP were itself sufficient, there would have been no need for same reason that "the ''Observations''. (You may be interested to know most Anglo-Catholic parishes had already reinserted this prayer into Great" was dropped from the BCP liturgy at the time Liturgy of St Gregory, "of Moscow" should be dropped from the article''Observations''s title here.--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:01, August 25, 2008 (UTC)

:...'''And then there are those three other prayers I mentioned''', which invoke a total == Liturgy of 18 saints (if I've counted right), which you omitted from your response. How oddSt. You've also conceded the sacrificial aspect Tikhon of this discussion,as you've not offered any defense of your previous erroneous assertion. Moscow ==

:At any rateHello, I hope the moderators agree that I've made more than a compelling case.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 14:15, June 26, 2008 (UTC) Yes, I missed a prayer in Vespers that mentions saints. There is none in Matins. I don’t think the Observations had in mind adding saints to just some offices, rather than all. To pretend that all of the recommendations were inserted into the Liturgy and office in the face of even one omission is just silly. No one is saying that the Metropolitan isn’t competent to authorize a form of Matins that doesn’t mention the saints; the problem arises only when one makes a false claim that all the recommendations were inserted.  The Litany is for use at the beginning of the Liturgy or during Morning or Evening Prayer. If the Confiteor is a text for the Liturgy (because it comes before it), then so is the Litany. And it is certainly a text for the office, since it is to follow the third collect in either office.  Not all Anglo-Catholic parishes used unauthorized prayers as part of the liturgy itself. My experience in a number of Anglo-Catholic parishes was that the Confiteor was said in the sacristy as part of the private preparation of the sacred ministers. In any event, Anglo-Catholic usages should not be considered as determinative of Orthodox practice.  There is still an attempt to confuse the status of the SASB. Willibrord quotes a sentence from the Metropolitan’s letter in the front of the OM (“The” is not part of the name of the OM, so it isn’t correct to use “TOM” as an acronym), "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." This does not say, as Willibrord would like it to say, that the OM is could someone email me the “exclusive” or “only” approved complete text. But supposing arguendo that this was true in 1995 when the OM was published, it became false the next year when the SASB was published. There is not a similar statement in the SASB, because the OM was in existence. No one has claimed that the SASB is the only authorized service book.  The Metropolitan’s letter in the SASB is quite clear that the first edition of the SASB “was approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations version of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989.” While it began as this liturgy or a parish prayer book, it was authorized for use in any Western Rite parishes. The letter goes on to refer to “these authorized liturgies.” It is silly, incoherent, and demonstrably false, to say, as Willibrord does, that I “rob the Antiochians of the right to determine their practice. The Archdiocese administers the Western Rite through the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which prescribes The (sic) Orthodox Missal as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is given. This is neither controversial nor hard to understand. It misrepresents the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer book all-but-unused in the AWRV as though it were the equal of its actual practice.” I am not determining Antiochian practice; the Metropolitan does that. His letter in the front of the SASB makes clear his permission to use it. The edition of the SASB in front of me is printed, not by a parish for that parish’s exclusive use, but by the Archdicoese for any of its Western Rite clergy and parishes.  While it may be practice to sing a Marian antiphon after Matins or Vespers in the AWRV (when I was an Anglo-Catholic, we did so only after Compline), there is no rubrical provision for doing so in the SASB. The only mention of an antiphon in the OM I have seen is the Regina Coeli to be used in place of the Angelus. As these are printed in the section on the Divine Liturgy, one would infer that these follow the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. In any event, the Observations were recommendations for altering the texts to be used; it is not an adequate response to say that an hymn to one saint, not included in the authorized link where this text, somehow meets the Commission’s requirement for glorification of the Theotokos, the Angelic Hosts, and the saints. Saying the Western Rosary is similarly not an answer. Nor is the inclusion of optional prayers. Nor is the Litany of Saints, since it is not part of the ordinary of the Liturgy.  As Willibrord himself indicated, the other prayers he mentioned are not in the SASB.  No, I don’t concede the question of sacrifice at all. There is only so much time to deal with these misrepresentations. As Willibrord would quibble with any reading that disagrees with his own, just as he wishes to pretend that the mention of saints in one Vespers prayer somehow makes Matins with no such prayer in conformity with the Commission’s Observations, it seems pointless. --available?? Greatly appreciated! [[User:Fr LevIxthis888|Fr LevVasiliki]] 1506:5908, June August 26, 2008 (UTC) == Differences between the Orthodox Missal and the St Andrew's Service Book == To repeat a question I posted on another page: since Willbrord has made a point of saying that almost all AWRV parishes use the ''Orthodox Missal'' and not the ''St Andrew's Service Book'', perhaps he would be kind enough to specify what differences there are between the versions of the two eucharistic liturgies and why they matter, i.e., why is the OM version so preferable to the SASB? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 07:05, February 14, 2008 (PST)