221
edits
Changes
no edit summary
I agree that the there is partial mistake in the SVTQ essay, although Willibrord gets it completely wrong. The SVTQ author was writing about the Libera nos that interrupts the Lord’s Prayer, not the Canon of the Mass. The author was not addressing the Liturgy of St Gregory, where that embolism belongs, but the Liturgy of St Tikhon. The Libera nos has never been a part of an official Anglican liturgy, and certainly was not a part of either the 1892 BCP the Observations examined or the 1928 BCP on which the Tikhonite rite was actually based. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:24, August 4, 2008 (UTC)
:Pistevo, I think we have two sources of official comment on the OM/SASB issue.
:'''1)''' Subdn. Benjamin Andersen's M.Div. thesis, footnoted with official documents and his personal interviews with AWRV Vicar General Fr. Paul Schneirla, [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006/02/saint-andrews-service-book.html explicitly states] the SASB is merely "a simple parish prayer book" that "omits all of the priest’s silent prayers (including the vitally important Offertory prayers)" and "omits a whole prayer from the Canon (the Memento of the faithful departed)" (among other things). This thesis earned him an M.Div. with honors from St. Vladimir's, and his blog is (the primary?) source for the main WR page on OrthodoxWiki and Wikipedia. Again, his thesis was produced with the cooperation of the highest levels of the Vicariate (Fr. Schneirla himself) and [http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-on-gods-green-earth-is-liturgy-of.html commended by] same after its completion (ditto). In other words, he knows whereof he speaks.
:'''2)''' There is another important consideration in official documents, pointed to by the AWRV detractor's self-contradictory argument on this Talk page. He acknowledges the Metropolitan's 1995 letter refers to the ''Orthodox Missal'' as "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." This poster claims this wording resulted because the SASB came out in 1996; however, that was the SASB's ''second edition''. He writes, "The Metropolitan’s letter in the (1996) SASB is quite clear that the first edition of the SASB 'was approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989'" -- '''six years before Met. PHILIP designated the ''Orthodox Missal'' "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese."''' This indicates a difference in purpose between the OM and SASB, or some difference in authorization. However, it is impossible that Met. PHILIP could call the ''Orthodox Missal'' the Antiochian Archdiocese's "exclusive use" six years after authorizing a different and competing rite, as this poster would have it.
:The 1892 BCP, to which the Observations refer, [http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1892/Front_Matter_1892.htm#Rubrics states], "The Order for Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, '''are distinct Services''', and may be used either separately or together." This should not be a matter of contention.
: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.
:For at least the second time, this poster ignores the invocations in the ''Confiteor'' and ''Libera Nos'', both clearly printed in the SASB text of the Liturgy. It appears this poster is determined to insert the Litany into the Mass, remove the ''Confiteor'' from it, and ignore the ''Libera Nos'' altogether.
:At no point do the Observations specify a certain number of invocations, meaning the AWRV detractors' speculation about whether the 18 saints invoked are "adequate" is by definition private opinion.
:Among other liturgical experts, [http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/MASS.TXT Dom Fernand Cabrol considered the ''Libera Nos''] part of the Roman Canon. The deeper question is whether someone who knows as little about Western liturgics as the author of the ''SVTQ'' article shows himself to is adding any value, or merely expressing his misinformed private opinion like the AWRV's detractors on this Talk page. --[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 09:47, August 5, 2008 (UTC)