renameuser, Administrators
5,600
edits
Changes
no edit summary
I'd appreciate it if you quoted. So far I have not seen him say that, but if you could cite it, I will drop out of this debate in deference to the moderator.--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 03:06, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
:Memory recalls that I said that there was a different authorisation at play, based on the different articles used. This is, admittedly, ''very'' nit-picky, but that is following the motif of discussion.
:The subdeacon's thesis (as it has been unnecessarily referred to as) would settle this ''because of'' the quotes from the Vicar-General (who can be said to speak for the Metropolitan on these matters - that's what deputising is all about). Anyone ever thought to ask him, by the way?
:BTW, I'm about *gestures* this close */gesture* to mass-blocking all of the WR articles. Seriously, this isn't how we play here, and most people on this talk page really just need to edit other articles. For example, we are rather low on recent notable people in the WR movement - I'm not even sure if we have an article about Overbeck (or Hatherly, for that matter). — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 22:50, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
A conversation with Fr Schneirla would presumably be "original research." I have cited pubished research (the SVTQ review article), which is based on a doctoral dissertation. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:07, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
:The thesis is original research, so citing the thesis is the citing of original research (no problems there, whether SVTQ or SVS).
:Having a verbal chat to the VG would basically be of no use to anyone. But I can't see the real harm in going straight to the, well, [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/336400.html unflattering analogy] on this one - the point of the original research clause is to say that you can't cite your own blog post in an argument, but the VG is a knowledgable (even authoratative) third-party.
:Oh, and as an addemdum, the e-mail has to be made public (in this case, posted online with the VGs explicit permission), otherwise it's uncitable. — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 23:22, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
And, to support the point that Wilibrord wishes to make, the V-G would have to expressly state that (1) the Metropolitan has formally rescinded his letter of authorization in the SASB; and (2) that no AWRV paarish is any longer permitted to use the SASB. Otherwise it is vacuous to claim that the OM is the "only" authorized authorized service book that may be used by the AWRV. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:29, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
:To use the SASB as the official book, yes. But, memory recalls that Willibrord was saying from the beginning that SASB was intended to be a book-in-the-pews (hence the lack of priestly prayers) - a book doesn't need to be authorised to assist people to follow the service, or it may be authorised as a book-in-the-pews (and this would need explicit clarification). If these have already been explicitly addressed in the thesis, though, then we'd be able to cite that (without requiring a letter). — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 23:40, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
Willibrord has edited the opening paragraph of this article to read: "The AWRV's '''only authorized text''' of the Mass is found in the Orthodox Missal" (emphasis added). To say this, in light of the fact that the SASB has a ltter from the Metropolitan referring to "these authorized liturgies...", the V-G would have to say that the Metropolitan has rescinded his letter and that the SASB etxts are no longer authorized. "Only" is quite a claim. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:45, August 25, 2008 (UTC)
:I think enough criteria has been set - lets suspend all positions pending official statement. — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 01:59, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
== Pew Book? ==
The first thing to be said is that nothing in the SASB, including the letter of authorization by Metropolitan PHILIP and the preface by Fr Michael Trigg, indicates that the SASB is "only" a pew book. Indeed, the letter from the Metropolitan refers to its use by "the '''clergy''' and the laity...." (emphasis added). If a an AWRV parish chooses to use the SASB, it is not the case that the priest must use the OM. Also, when the Liturgy of St Tikhon was published as a separate booklet, I don't believe it contained any of the "private" prayers of the priest that are included in the OM. Yes, there are propers available in the OM that are not in the SASB, but that doesn't make the SASB any less authorized than the OM. Second, a text is either authorized for use or not. There is no language in the SASB to warrant the idea that it is "less authorized" than the OM. And what could that possibly look like in practice? Third, to the extent that the SASB is deigned for use by the laity (as well as the clergy!), it is more in keeping with the ''Observations'' than the OM. After all, St Tikhon sent the 1892 Book of Common Prayer to Moscow, and the ''Observations'' were written for the amending of a book of common prayer, not an altar missal. Finally, the whole idea of "private" prayers for the priest to say are foreign to the Anglican Prayer Book tradition. No edition of the Book of Common Prayer has contained those prayers -- they are additions from the Tridentine rite of the Roman Church, along with the Asperges, the Preparation, the embolism in the Lord's Prayer, the Last Gospel, and the dialogue before the anaphora in which the priest says, "Pray, brethren, that this my sacrifice and yours...." --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:25, August 26, 2008 (UTC)
