221
edits
Changes
→Some straightforward facts
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. And pointing out 1, 2, and 3, in no way makes me a "detractor" of the AWRV. I fully support the AWRV and fully support their Metropolitan's right to authorize whatever liturgies he sees fit to authorize, which includes both the OM and the SASB. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:02, August 6, 2008 (UTC :What an odd post; you merely restated arguments already refuted. Let's try this one last time....:'''1)''' The original entry stated that the AWRV implemented all the Observation's recommendations about '''''the Liturgy and canonical Hours of prayer'''''. As I note for the fourth time, and quote the 1892 BCP for the second time, the Litany, Hours, and Liturgy "are distinct services," and thus, your continuous reference to it is immaterial and off-topic.:'''2)''' Once again, the Observations do not state the changes have to be inserted (read carefully) into '''''any specific section''''' of the Liturgy but merely "into the rite of the Liturgy." Originally, you [http://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Talk:Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow#Misinformation_continues falsely wrote], "the Observations requires that commemorations of the saints be added to the anaphora"; then you [http://en.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow&diff=73973&oldid=73968 made reference] to the "offertory"; and now you cite a quotation that requires changes be made to no specific part of the liturgy as proof such a requirement exists. Astounding!:'''3)''' The testimony of Fr. Paul Schneirla, Subdn. Benjamin Andersen, and others carries more weight and makes more sense that whatever semantic argument you are making; I flatly can't decipher it. Otherwise, we are left with your illogical view that Met. PHILIP authorized the first edition of the SASB in 1989, unauthorized it in 1995 by making the OM "the exclusive use of our Archdiocese," then re-authorized the SASB (version 2.0) the following year. The unchanging testimony of AWR Vicar General Fr. Paul Schneirla makes more sense, particularly given that he knows what he's talking about. :As the moderator agrees the AWRV made all recommended changes to the approved Hours and Liturgy, this argument has run its course, and devolved from misinformation and semantics to farce. I hope the mods are spared 13 edits to this Talk page in the next 24 hours.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 04:56, August 7, 2008 (UTC)
== Why the emphasis on the Observations? ==